Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly. I thank noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments. These are really important issues that are worth examining in Committee. However, on these Benches we do not feel that any of these amendments really provide proper solutions to some of the problems that are contained within this Bill.

We feel that GB Energy is separate and distinct from the National Wealth Fund; as GB Energy grows and develops over time, that will become clearer. We welcome the setting up of GB Energy, and we think it is absolutely essential that Britain has a chance to own and manage part of its energy resources and that we are investing in having our energy security and independence.

I read recently on the old Government’s website a press brief from No. 10 during the Sunak Government, which proudly proclaimed that they had spent £40 billion subsidising home owners and businesses through the energy price crisis that we had in the last few years. Obviously, that cannot continue, and our bill payers are suffering, which is not good for us.

We do not really feel that having minority equity stakes is the answer to these problems either. There are problems in this Bill: the Government have chosen to have a very short Bill; the strategic priorities are not written up and are not ready; Clauses 5 and 6 give more control than the Government should have without adequate parliamentary scrutiny—I recognise that this has been picked up by reports in this House. Those are all matters we can discuss and work constructively with the Government to find solutions to them. Ultimately, this is a useful conversation, but we do not see the answers within these amendments; we see the answers within other amendments that are yet to come.

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

My Lords, we have started our proceedings in Committee with a very interesting discussion about the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the importance of our debates on energy and net zero more generally and with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the complexities of our energy system and the challenges that we have undoubtedly set ourselves. The recent report by NESO, the National Energy System Operator, sets out those challenges, but gives us some confidence that we can achieve them.

Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, seeks to require that Great British Energy must be a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund. Clearly, he indicated he wanted to explore in more detail the relationship between the two organisations. I should say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we are certainly not creating organisations for the sake of it. As someone who has spent most of my life dealing with NHS structures and restructuring, I have learnt over the painful years that simply creating new organisations and merging other ones very rarely leads to a successful outcome. We believe that Great British Energy is a key component of our energy and net-zero strategy; that is why it was a manifesto commitment and why we are determined to plough on with this proposal.

On the relationship and the difference between the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy, the Government have stated very clearly that we see the National Wealth Fund as the state-owned investment bank and wealth fund. It will invest across clean energy sectors, including green hydrogen, green steel, gigafactories and ports, as well as other sectors central to delivering our industrial strategy. On the other hand, Great British Energy will be the UK’s state-owned energy company. It will own, manage and operate key energy projects across the country, including making investments across the clean energy sector and supporting the development of clean energy technologies. It will also support local power and community energy projects as well as supply chains. This is a distinct role, which is why GBE should be a stand-alone company focused on its important mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State can override the chair of Great British Energy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is referring to a power of direction. We are coming on to relevant amendments later in the Bill, but let me make it clear that this power is often contained in legislation, although we believe it will be used very rarely indeed. I certainly would not expect it to be used. I think the noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State will attempt to micromanage Great British Energy through the power of direction. I simply do not believe that this will happen under any Secretary of State.

I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about duplication. At the beginning, we think it is sensible for GBE to use the National Wealth Fund’s expertise. He suggested that this is duplication; I think it is a pragmatic, sensible approach. We have certain expertise within the National Wealth Fund that can help as we establish GBE, but they are complementary functions. Having listened to the debate, I can assure noble Lords that my department will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other, and set out how this relationship will evolve in time.

I turn to Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron. There was an interesting discussion about whether GBE could or should be allowed to raise equity through the sale of shares while it remained majority-owned by the Crown. Amendment 3 proposes enabling external equity ownership of Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Similarly, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 specify enabling third-party ownership of up to 25% of the shares in Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Amendment 5 seeks to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State, rather than by the Crown.

We do not think that it is necessary for Great British Energy to sell its own shares to bring in external equity funding, or any funding, for its projects. In the case of the example which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave, it would, though, be possible for Great British Energy to encourage private sector investment into the scheme to which he referred, or to co-invest with external partners, each taking an equity stake in a project that Great British Energy wished to support. I understand that the model has been used successfully by similar bodies, such as the former Green Investment Bank.

Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to Great British Energy. This is so it can take action to meet its objectives. To be clear, our intention is for Great British Energy to become financially self-sufficient in the long term. It will invest in projects that expect a return on investments, but it would be prudent to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to provide further financial support, if required.

Just as private sector companies would rely on the financial strength of their corporate group to raise funds, that could be the case for providing GBE with further financial support for specific projects in the future. However, we believe that any such financial assistance should be provided by the Secretary of State and, as such, be subject to the usual governance and control principles applicable to public sector bodies, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money.

It is also unnecessary to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State rather than the Crown. The Bill simply follows normal legislative practice in its drafting. For instance, Section 317 of the Energy Act 2023, which the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, took through, expresses the ownership requirement for Great British Nuclear in the same way. Other legislation, including Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, uses the same formulation. Clause 1(6) of the Bill explains that

“wholly owned by the Crown”

means that each share is held by a Minister of the Crown, which includes the Secretary of State, or a company wholly owned by the Crown, or a nominee of either of those categories.

We also think that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the sole shareholder in Great British Energy. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on this. Introducing minority third party ownership, whether held by one minority shareholder or several, would add unnecessary complexity to its governance. A shareholder agreement or agreements would need to be put in place. They would need to cover elements relating to the control of Great British Energy, setting out which matters required approval of a simple majority of shareholders and which might require unanimous consent. For an organisation such as Great British Energy, playing such a key part in our mission to deploy clean energy—I take note of what noble Lords have said about parliamentary accountability—is it not surely right that Ministers both are accountable for their actions and can exercise full shareholder rights?

This has been an interesting debate. I am aware of noble Lords’ issues around the role of Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund and its ability to draw in private sector investments, but we think—and it was a manifesto commitment—that this is a very important body that should stand alone. We are grateful that the National Wealth Fund is able to provide some support at the moment, but we think that this is the right way forward.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions on the designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of such a company. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron—Amendments 4, 6 and 7. They were designed to probe the benefits of having flexibility to allow minority external equity ownership of Great British Energy. However, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about introducing private equity into what is, in effect, government-underwritten risk, which means that it really should be debt.

The fact we are debating this indicates that there is no clarity about the substance and purpose of the Bill or about the exact ownership of Great British Energy. Given that we are debating £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, and that there is no limitation on how that financial assistance can be given or structured, we have a concern that will continue through Committee.

The experience of the House was brought into the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hamilton, who looked back over previous generations to instances of how overarching powers given to Secretaries of State can be used if not abused, sometimes with the best of intentions. Again, it speaks to how there could be more clarity in the Bill about how those powers will be allocated. We believe that accounting and reporting measures are absent from the Bill and that we need further detail and clarity on the priorities and plans of Great British Energy. I expect that we will return to those matters on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I return to the principles we should be prioritising: prudent economic stewardship, self-reliance and forward-looking governance. This amendment is an opportunity to embed these principles in the DNA of Great British Energy at its birth. I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of a more explicit legislative framework and to recognise that this amendment is not an imposition but merely a refinement of the Bill’s ambitions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would ensure that Great British Energy is both practical and purposeful, with clear measurable goals that would directly benefit the British people and our economy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was an interesting debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, proposing an addition to Clause 1 which would set Great British Energy’s objectives as

“reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way, and … promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security”.

The noble Lord asked why we are doing this. He then, to be fair, referred to the—I think three—debates we have had on energy policy in the last few weeks, in which we clearly set out our aims and drive towards clean power and net zero. We see Great British Energy, with the provision of financial assistance from the Secretary of State, as being at the heart of our clean power mission. It will speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies, as well as local energy projects. It will support the Government’s aim of decarbonising our electricity system by 2030, while ensuring we can meet future demand as we further decarbonise the economy.

I noted the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and I thought I detected some scepticism about net zero. I remind him that his party, over 14 years, has made various statements in support of net zero. I note that Mrs Thatcher, at the UN General-Assembly in November 1989, said:

“the environmental challenge which confronts the whole world”—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I think he will be the first to acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it was more than two. I can quote Prime Minister May, and I acknowledge her leadership in this country being the first to enshrine the 2050 net-zero carbon target. Prime Minister Johnson only recently addressed COP 26 in Glasgow; I think we all acknowledge the leadership the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, showed there. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, announced to the UN the £11.6 billion in international climate finance for the period 2021-22. Although we are having this friendly discussion about future energy policy, there is still some consensus on the need to decarbonise our energy supply, and Great British Energy is part of the way we are going to do it.

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. We have been clear that the first statement, which will be published in 2025—after due consultation and discussion with the devolved Governments and with Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy—will ensure that GBE is focused on driving clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy.

Of course, the issue of energy bills is very important. We are relying strongly on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is probably not a great fan—but none the less, over 14 years his party listened to it. The committee said that a clean energy future is the best way to make Britain energy independent, protecting bill payers, creating good jobs and tackling the climate crisis.

The independent National Energy System Operator confirmed a few weeks ago that our 2030 clean power goal is achievable and can create a cheaper, more secure energy system. More broadly, the OBR—another body to which the previous Government paid great attention; they ran into trouble when they did not—highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts. The Committee on Climate Change has said that the net costs of the transition, including upfront investment, ongoing running costs and costs of financing, will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050—lower, it said, than it concluded in its 2019 Net Zero report.

I have already said that we will publish the statement of priorities in 2025. How will GBE be judged? It will be judged on its performance against the statement of priorities within the context of the objectives set by Clause 3.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister has said again that the objectives of the company are set out in Clause 3. I am afraid that is not correct. The objects of the company are set out in Clause 3. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, those objects restrict the activities—they do not set out the objectives. Nowhere in the Bill are the objectives of the company—what it is trying to achieve—laid out. I have not yet heard an argument from the Minister as to why that is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I really do not read Clause 3 in that way. Subsection (2) says:

“The statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in”.


One way to read that is that Great British Energy’s objects are around the following four paragraphs, informed by the strategic priorities and plans that the Secretary of State will prepare over the next few months.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

There is only one way to read the words the “objects are restricted to”. That is what the clause says.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may not be as familiar with company law as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The object of a company, which is what the clause refers to, is a constitution document, and it restricts what a company can do. That is what company law sets up for it. The Minister is trying to read “objects” in a broader sense. It is very clear that the clause refers to the legal documentation that will surround the full legal implementation of Great British Energy as a company. It does not have any other meaning.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always helpful to have that kind of clarification, because I certainly was not intending to mislead the Committee in any way. From what I see in Clause 3, I am clear that GBE can participate in, encourage and facilitate the production, distribution, et cetera—informed, as I say, by the strategic plans and priorities. But I will obviously look at that and, if I have got myself confused, I will certainly reflect on it.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who contributed to our discussion, including the mini-discussion at the end about the difference between objectives and objects, which is important and I am sure we will return to it. I do not want to detain noble Lords long but, as the Minister repeated the words of Lady Thatcher on this subject, I cannot forbear repeating her words in her final work on it:

“By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying”.


She—rightly, in my view—added:

“We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas. We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of commonsense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else”.


Those wise words are worth bearing in mind today when we discuss this issue.

I am not sure that we have entirely got to the bottom of this issue, and I suspect that we will have to return to it in some form on Report, because it is so fundamental to what the Bill is about. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lady Noakes’s stand part notice. This clause deals with the Crown status—or more accurately, the lack of Crown status—of Great British Energy, and it is imperative that we probe the Government’s reasoning and consider the implications of this approach.

Clause 2 states clearly:

“Great British Energy is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown”.


Additionally, it specifies that the property of Great British Energy

“is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown”.

Let us pause and consider what this means. Great British Energy is envisaged as a significant player in the energy sector, with the Government making it central to our net-zero ambitions and national energy security. It may well handle substantial public funds, represent the UK’s interests domestically and internationally, and carry out critical projects on behalf of the Government. Yet the Government have deliberately chosen to sever this body from the legal, financial and symbolic framework provided by Crown status.

I pose the question: why? Why has this decision been taken, and what are the potential consequences? There are three areas of concern I wish to highlight; the first is accountability and oversight. Without Crown status, Great British Energy sits outside the constitutional framework that traditionally governs Crown bodies. Will this weaken Parliament’s ability to scrutinise its actions? Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General have clear access to audit its books? In an age of heightened public interest in corporate governance and transparency, these questions should be considered.

Secondly, on legal implications, by denying Crown status, Great British Energy forfeits the legal immunities and privileges that might ordinarily protect a public body in its dealings. Does this leave it more vulnerable to litigation? Could it become ensnared in disputes that detract from its primary mission?

Thirdly, this is a public body intended to work for the public good. Denying it Crown status might send a message—rightly or wrongly—that it is not fully embedded within the public sector, raising questions about its mission and accountability to the public interest. I do not suggest that Crown status is a necessity in all circumstances. Indeed, there may be good reasons for taking this route, such as granting Great British Energy greater operational flexibility or shielding the Government from certain liabilities—but these reasons have not been clearly articulated by the Government, and they deserve to be.

As we face unprecedented challenges in energy policy, the creation of Great British Energy is a momentous step. Its structure and status must instil public confidence, ensure robust accountability, and align seamlessly with the broader aims of our national strategy. Clause 2, as it stands, leaves too many unanswered questions.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we think Clause 2 is very important. It ensures that Great British Energy will serve the public as an independent company and operate in the same way as other UK companies. Before I come on to the main body of the argument, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he had some interesting points to make about the role of advanced nuclear reactors tied into industrial processes and data centres. We are watching very carefully what is happening in the US and we are in discussion with some of the companies themselves. I very much take his point about that.

The clause ensures that Great British Energy will not have any special status, immunity or privilege normally associated with the Crown, nor will its property be seen as the property of the Crown. It will also be subject to the same legal requirements as other companies. This is in line with the vision we have had for Great British Energy from the beginning: that it should be an operationally independent and agile market player, and we want to ensure it remains that way. If we were to leave out the clause, either Great British Energy would be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown and have the immunity or privilege associated with that status; or, at least, there would be ambiguity as to whether it has that status.

I understand that the courts in recent years have been faced with questions about whether certain persons or bodies had Crown immunity, and the issue was not clear in the legislation—for example, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the Commissioners of Prisons. The clause avoids that ambiguity and the possibility of any litigation arising regarding Great British Energy’s status. Examples of how this might arise in the context of Great British Energy, are, first, that Crown bodies are generally not covered by the requirements of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; and, secondly, that parts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 do not bind the Crown. We would not want Great British Energy to be exempt from that legislation or for it to be unclear whether it is bound by such legislation.

As I mentioned earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we expect Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to work well together. It is while Great British Energy is being established that it will utilise the National Wealth Fund’s existing expertise, which I think has been widely acknowledged. This is work in progress, and I cannot say very much more than that at the moment. We are not making it up as we are going along. There are earnest discussions between ourselves, His Majesty’s Treasury and Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy, and we will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other and how their relationship will evolve over time.

I also acknowledge that the partnership with the Crown Estate will be hugely valuable. On the question of the Crown Estate’s own position, I will have to seek further advice and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because I do not have the answer at the moment.

Clause 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for introducing his thoughtful and technical amendments, which no doubt would improve the quality of the Bill should they pass. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Each amendment contributes meaningfully to the Bill’s ultimate aim by ensuring that governance reflects accountability, fairness and long-term sustainability.

I will limit my remarks to Amendments 8, 9, 12 and 13. Amendment 8 proposes the addition of “investing in” alongside “encouraging”. This is quite important, because it seeks a balance between fostering enterprise and ensuring strategic government investment to safeguard our national energy. We want a partnership between government and the private sector. By explicitly including “investing in”, the amendment aligns with our commitment to a dynamic and sustainable energy sector.

Amendment 9, by adding “one or more of”, would bring clarity and flexibility to the Government’s strategic objectives in advancing energy policies. It would ensure that the Government could prioritise specific energy initiatives based on strategic needs without being overburdened by one limiting obligation. It reflects the core principles of pragmatism and efficiency, ensuring that resources can be allocated where they can deliver the greatest impact.

We know that energy security and innovation in this area—referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell as bigger perhaps than the Industrial Revolution—require adaptability. Whether we are investing in offshore wind, nuclear power or emerging technologies, the amendment would allow for a tailored approach that maximised value for taxpayers’ money and strengthened our energy independence. I urge colleagues to support it to make sure that we have smart, effective and flexible governance in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 12 is again quite technical. It seeks to insert the phrase “directly or indirectly” into Clause 3, which would again enhance the Bill by acknowledging the interconnected nature of emissions reductions and energy initiatives. This addition would ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing climate goals. Emissions reductions often involve complex supply chains and secondary impacts. Recognising these indirect contributions reflects our understanding of the broader economic and technological dynamics that drive innovation and decarbonisation. For example, investments in nuclear power or advanced grid infrastructure may not lower emissions immediately but they create the conditions for sustainable reductions in the long term, towards 2050 net zero. The amendment therefore provides the flexibility needed to pursue bold initiatives while holding true to the principle of cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. By adopting it, we would make the Bill more robust, practical and reflective of real-world energy systems. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 13 proposes the substitution of the word “produced” with “derived” in Clause 3. Again, this is a technical and seemingly small change, but it holds significant importance for our energy policy. “Derived” more accurately captures the diverse and evolving sources of energy in our transition to a low-carbon future. Energy comes increasingly from various integrated systems, including renewable sources, nuclear, tidal—as we have heard in great detail—and hydrogen. The term “produced” can be limiting, whereas “derived” acknowledges the broader, more dynamic approach needed to secure our energy future. The amendment provides the flexibility to encompass a wide range of energy sources and technologies, ensuring that our energy policies remain adaptable and forward thinking. It should reflect our commitment not only to reduce emissions but to foster innovation and maintain energy security in the face of global challenges.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very interesting group. It clearly refers to a range of technologies in which Great British Energy could invest. I should start by saying that we intend GBE to be operationally independent and it is not for us to rigidly define what it should do or in which technologies it should invest.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of course anticipated my list argument because she has used it herself a number of times, but I take her point about ensuring long-term certainty and a stable environment for some of these crucial sectors. I recognise that GBE has great potential so to do, particularly in sectors where investment from the private sector may initially be difficult. I also take her point about how this has to be aligned with planning reform, enhanced grid connections and infrastructure.

Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 23, 31 and 32, in essence, relate to technologies specific to GBE’s objects in Clause 3. Amendment 23 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent Great British Energy being involved in CCUS projects, whereas the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would ensure that both carbon capture and storage and hydrogen fell within the scope of the Bill. The Government view both hydrogen and CCUS as vital to our drive towards net zero and to ensuring a just transition for industries based in the North Sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again—the Minister has been very patient—but can we be very clear on what he just said? Is he saying that GBE can involve itself and will be involved one way or another in part of the nuclear sector or not? This is very important: we need about 500 SMRs or AMRs to have the slightest hope of getting anywhere near net zero. At the moment we are plodding along, not very fast at all, and it requires all hands to the helm. So far, I understand that GBE is supposed to stand quite clear of nuclear. That does not make sense, because it is all one ball of wax, frankly. We have to get nuclear right, and only then will we get any hope of net zero.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Yes, I want to be absolutely clear: nuclear clearly falls within the definition of clean power, so it would be within the competence of Great British Energy to invest and do the other things in the Bill in relation to nuclear. However, we have Great British Nuclear, which I believe will continue. We are still finalising discussions, but GBN is focusing at the moment on small modular reactors. The department is involved in major funding of the nuclear developments, but GBE could also invest in nuclear energy. I hope that is clear.

I turn to oil and gas. Amendment 25 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who was not able to be present—would require Great British Energy to consider oil and gas supply chains and a reduction in and decarbonisation of oil and gas production. I say to the noble Earl that I understand the need for a just transition and acknowledge the skills of people working in oil and gas in the North Sea.

The Bill is focused on making the minimum necessary provisions to enable the establishment of this operationally independent company. Clause 3 provides the framework for Great British Energy’s functions and limits the areas where it can act, but it does not say how Great British Energy should deliver its functions or objectives. One of the worries about the noble Earl’s amendment is that it would widen the intention of this clause, perhaps unnecessarily. I say to him that, as we invest in the UK’s energy potential, we want to rebuild supply chains at home, of course. In relation to oil and gas, we want to help the transition and use the skilled workers in the most effective way possible. Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come, so we want to manage the North Sea in a way that ensures continued support for that sector but enables some of the workers there to transition to other sectors, particularly in energy where they have such expertise.

Amendments 30 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, wish the Government to confirm or state that biomass is not included in the definition of clean energy in the Bill. Although I understand that many noble Lords share her viewpoint, as was clear from the Oral Question we had a few weeks ago, the Government believe that biomass plays a role in balancing the energy grid when intermittent renewables are not available. It is well evidenced that sustainably sourced biomass can provide a low-carbon and renewable energy source. That view is supported by both the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee.

Biomass sourced in line with strict sustainability criteria can be used as a low-carbon source of energy. Woody biomass that is sustainably sourced from well-managed forests is a renewable, low-carbon source of energy, as carbon dioxide emissions released during combustion are absorbed continuously by new forest growth.

The noble Baroness mentioned the Ofgem investigation, which she will know was about incorrect data being provided. It would be fair to say that Ofgem did not find the process at fault; it was the data provided. She asked me what visits officials in my department had made to the US. Officials have been in contact with US regulators but I would be happy to provide her with more details on what we have been doing.

The noble Baroness also mentioned BECCS, as it is known, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Again, the Committee on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency recognise that BECCS can play a significant role in supporting net-zero targets through the delivery of negative carbon emissions with the co-benefit of producing low-carbon energy.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently and passionately to Amendment 91 on tidal barrages. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, too, who suggested that tidal barrage and, in particular, lagoons play to the UK’s strength. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also spoke. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—is leading a network innovation allowance project aimed at establishing a holistic knowledge base on the potential development and impacts of tidal barrage in Great Britain within the context of grid operability. That is a very important development that I hope picks up the point that noble Lords have raised—the situation may have changed over the past 10 or 20 years.

I look forward to discussing the Mersey barrage with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When I did this job at the Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, I chaired a forum that we established on the Severn estuary potential, so I would certainly be interested in taking discussions forward on the Mersey barrage.

I hope that I have reassured most noble Lords that the energy technologies they wish to see supported can be covered in the Bill, but Great British Energy must be allowed to make its own decisions within the context of the objectives and strategic priorities the Secretary of State will set.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to all the amendments in this group. I want to follow up with a quick question. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked the Minister whether any consideration will be given to rolling the warm homes plan into GB Energy. The answer might be that no consideration will be given, or that the Minister does not have an answer—though he could possibly have one in a minute. I am happy to take a written response or come back to it at a later stage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not aware of any intention. I will certainly write to him if I have got that wrong but I am not aware of any intention to do it. The whole issue of home insulation and heating is crucial to getting to net zero and we are giving it a huge amount of attention.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his valuable contributions to this group. The amendments noted are crucial for ensuring that Great British Energy remains aligned with its goals of promoting energy security, affordability and sustainability. This fifth group of amendments focuses on the objectives and duties of Great British Energy.

I begin with Amendment 10, which turns the focus on the trading element of GBE. By explicitly including trading, the amendment demonstrates a forward-thinking approach to GBE’s role. While market dynamics naturally encourage competition and efficiency, active participation in energy trading enables GBE to enhance price stability, bolster supply resilience and reduce market volatility. This strategic involvement not only fosters a more competitive energy landscape but empowers consumers by offering greater choice and flexibility. In doing so, it strengthens the UK’s energy security, ensuring the system remains adaptable to both domestic demands and global shifts, while at the same time promoting long-term sustainability and cost effectiveness free from overreliance on dominant energy providers.

Furthermore, on Amendment 11 to Clause 3, the insertion of the line

“including from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations”

is important when addressing the need for a more inclusive energy system that empowers local communities. By specifically including community energy schemes, this amendment acknowledges the growing role of grass-roots initiatives in the energy transition. It ensures that GBE will actively support, facilitate and encourage energy generation models that are owned or part-owned by local and community organisations. This naturally leads us to Amendment 15 to Clause 3, which outlines measures to increase low-carbon and renewable energy schemes owned or part-owned by community organisations.

This approach not only helps democratise energy production but empowers communities to take control of their energy future, fostering a more decentralised and resilient energy system. Community-led schemes have proven essential in driving local economic growth, creating jobs and promoting energy independence. By ensuring that GBE is aligned with these objectives, we not only advance environmental sustainability but cultivate a more equitable and diverse energy landscape, one that shifts power back into the hands of local communities.

Amendment 19 proposes important

“measures for reducing the cost of the supply of energy”.

This is a critical step in aligning GBE with the Government’s key missions for this Parliament. The Labour Government committed not only to

“make Britain a clean energy superpower”

but to deliver cheaper bills for British households. The amendment is a fair and necessary step to ensure that the Government deliver on their promises. By incorporating the reduction of energy costs into Great British Energy’s legislated objectives, it would ensure that affordability, alongside security and sustainability, remained a core consideration in its operations.

This leads us seamlessly to Amendment 34 to Clause 3, which would insert a definition of

“security of the supply of energy”

into the objects of GBE. The inclusion of system reliability, price predictability, fuel security and cybersecurity is vital to fully encompass the concept of energy security. This clear and detailed definition ensures that GBE’s mission is comprehensive and aligned with the broader goal of delivering a secure and sustainable energy future for all.

Amendment 27 would ensure that GBE took no action that risked the sustainability of commercial shipping. This is a key consideration in the broader context of balancing the development of renewable energy sites with other vital sectors, such as fishing and shipping. As we know, 90% of goods in the UK are transported here by sea. Ports, often specialising in certain goods, are essential to our economy, and well-established shipping lanes must remain open to ensure the smooth operation of this vital sector. If we are to invest in offshore energy infrastructure, we must not overlook the potential risks posed to these critical maritime routes.

The amendment draws a parallel with the Crown Estate amendments. It specifically aims to ensure that GBE does not take any action that could jeopardise the sustainability of commercial shipping. With offshore energy production, particularly offshore wind, continuing to grow, it is crucial that this growth is balanced with the needs of commercial shipping. If we are to meet our energy goals, we must not undermine the sector that is responsible for bringing nearly all the goods we rely on.

While offshore wind is undoubtedly a critical part of the UK’s energy future, accounting for 17% of our electricity in 2023, up from 14% in 2022, we must recognise the impact that the siting of wind farms and other offshore developments could have on existing industries. GBE has a responsibility to ensure that the growth of sustainable energy does not come at the expense of shipping lanes, port operations or coastal communities.

Amendments 20, 28 and 29 are designed to protect local communities. Amendment 20 would clarify the role of GBE in local area energy planning and governance, ensuring that decisions regarding energy infrastructure were made in collaboration with local authorities. As the energy landscape evolves, it is essential that local communities are not only kept informed but are actively involved in shaping their energy future.

By explicitly requiring GBE to engage with local authorities, the amendment fosters a more inclusive and transparent approach to energy planning, enabling communities to have a say in how energy systems are developed, managed and integrated at the local level. Such involvement is critical for addressing region-specific needs, ensuring that energy solutions are tailored to the unique characteristics and priorities of different areas, from rural communities to urban centres. The amendment supports the broader goal of decentralising energy governance, empowering local authorities to take a more proactive role in shaping the energy systems that affect their residents. It would also ensure that local insights were considered in the development of energy infrastructure, from renewable energy projects to the distribution and storage of energy.

Amendments 28 and 29 address the wider concerns that may be raised by local coastal communities. As we continue to develop renewable energy infrastructure, it is crucial that we consider the impact of such development on the very communities that depend on the seas for their livelihoods and way of life, including the tourism sector, which many coastal areas rely on. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that to achieve the Government’s 2030 renewable energy targets it is essential to balance the need for sustainable energy development with the preservation of those communities. Their voices must be heard; they are important working people, and their livelihoods must not be unduly impacted by offshore energy projects. The presence of offshore developments, particularly wind farms, can have significant consequences for local tourism, which is often a key economic driver for those communities. We must ensure that any developments do not disrupt the natural beauty or accessibility of those areas, which attract visitors year round. This is an additional consideration, not directly addressed by these amendments but worth highlighting.

We may return to this on Report, as I believe that a review and/or an annual report might go some way to reassuring Parliament that GBE is making decisions that truly benefit all stakeholders. Such a mechanism would ensure that potential trade-offs were identified, quantified and fully considered, especially as we navigate the complexities of offshore energy and its impact on local communities.

I trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised by all noble Lords and hope that the Government will consider improving the Bill to ensure that GBE properly considers the impacts of its activities on fishing, shipping, coastal communities and the environment. We must not lose sight of the importance of those local industries and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in relation to Clause 3. It does set statutory limits on Great British Energy’s objects, and these must be reflected in the company’s articles of association. However, the four objects in Clause 3 have been broadly drafted, so although they impose a restriction, it is very wide and intended to cover all the conceivable activities that Great British Energy may engage in. If I have confused the Committee by loose terms, I apologise.

In Amendment 10, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, proposes adding “trading” to Clause 3(2)(a). I will resist this because, although trading is not explicitly referenced, the current objects in the Bill allow Great British Energy to facilitate or encourage the supply of clean energy. We see no reason why that activity could not include the encouragement or facilitation of a trade in clean energy. But, if the noble Lord has examples of schemes that are operating, we would be interested in the details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response to my amendments. I wanted briefly to clarify something he said in responding to my Amendment 19. He essentially made a link between a clean energy system and price stability, therefore making the argument that “costs” was not required in the objects. But there are of course wide variations in the costs of a clean energy system: there are expensive clean energy systems, and cheaper ones. NESO is developing a wide range of scenarios here. So I argue that we cannot rely purely on making that link—the organisation needs to take costs into account more broadly as well.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I very much take that point. Clearly, my department is cognisant of costs. Much of our discussion with His Majesty’s Treasury on the resources made available obviously takes in those constraints. The point I made earlier is simply that we believe—and we are supported by NESO, the Committee on Climate Change and the OBR—that the best way to secure stable prices in the future is to charge on to clean power net zero.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Could the Minister give some comfort to those waiting to invest in pumped storage schemes about the timescale on which information will be available to enable them to do so?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse today but will certainly write to him with what we can say in public.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate and the Minister for his fairly fulsome answer. On Amendment 10, I am not totally convinced that trading is covered by the objects as they stand but I will read his answer in Hansard to see whether I can convince myself that he is right. As he says, the issue is that if it is not in the objects, it is not allowed. I want to make sure that it is allowed—not that it has to happen—in the same way that he argued the other way around on the security definition. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I really cannot disagree with anything noble Lords have said in this debate, although I do not believe we need an amendment. I utterly agree that nuclear power is essential to the future; it provides the essential baseload; it is safe, secure and reliable. We have great opportunities in the UK to develop nuclear energy and the supply chain, even more than we have now. Obviously, Rolls-Royce, from a UK company point of view, has great potential.

We are keeping a very close eye on Hinkley Point C; the operational date that has been given for the first unit between 2029 and 2031 is very crucial. We are working very hard to get Sizewell C to final investment decision in the next few months. We have the SMR programme, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, about the importance and value of the work of Great British Nuclear. We are regularly engaged with GBN, and I pay tribute to the great work that its chair and chief executive are doing.

I have met a number of companies who are very interested in developing AMRs. We have all seen the experience of companies such as Amazon, in the US, linking small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors with data centres; clearly, we wish the UK to be very much part of that. In terms of the UK’s growth agenda, if we combine military and civil nuclear defence requirements, we know that the nuclear skills task force has now estimated that we need about 40,000 extra people in the industry by 2030, and moving on with even more people by the 2040s. This is at once a challenge and a huge opportunity, because the careers that are offered in the nuclear industry are secure and well paid, and it is a very exciting industry to go into.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, quoted figures from the IEA. Although we have seen a global downturn in nuclear energy, it is right to now talk about a renaissance. At international gatherings, it is pretty clear that there are countries coming back to nuclear, as we are, and other countries that wish to develop nuclear energy for the first time. This is very encouraging; we know that, in terms of popular opinion, there is a much more positive attitude among the public towards nuclear energy.

In saying I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, I do very much embrace the comments of the noble Lords and I can assure them that, in the department, we see nuclear energy as having an essential role for the future.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his clarity and unequivocal support of nuclear, and, indeed, for his reply to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who asked a specific question in relation to the GB Energy Bill. GB Energy can, if required, participate in nuclear, but the clear understanding is that discussions are ongoing with GB Nuclear. So I would encourage the Government to continue to clarify what that will look like and how it will be funded going forward.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

If I may come back on that, the noble Lord may have seen that the energy Select Committee had a hearing at which the chair of Great British Energy and then the chair of Great British Nuclear gave evidence. It is clear from what they said that we will have no difficulty at all in establishing a co-operative relationship.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

That is noted. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can I ask my noble friend why the new power station in Somerset is costing four times as much as an identical one in South Korea? Surely this will add to energy costs, not detract from them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not sure which “noble friend” that was aimed at, but I will have a go if the noble Lord likes. I was at the department when we started talking about Hinkley many years ago. Two or three things happened. First, it took an awfully long time to come to a final investment decision. Secondly, EDF thought it could bring a design model from France and place it in Hinkley Point C without having to make design changes. The reality was that it had to make thousands of design changes because of the requirements of the regulatory system in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I hope the Committee will forgive me. I was slow on the uptake and should have preceded my noble friend instead of following him. I think doing so is legitimate within the rules of Committee.

I very much support my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment. The Minister has already made the point that I have the greatest possible reservations about net zero. This is not because I have some tremendous hang-up and that I want to pollute the atmosphere and make the place less liveable than it might otherwise be, but because we are now reaching the point on net zero where the costs are starting to come in and getting very severe indeed. That is why we have to think very closely and carefully about where we go from here.

We have done an awful lot to lower our net emissions into the atmosphere, largely by closing down vast areas of our generation industry, in which coal-fired power stations have now been phased out almost completely. What has happened? We think we are setting a wonderful example to the rest of the world but our net emissions come down and world emissions go up. That is hardly surprising, because the Chinese and the Indians are still building coal-fired power stations. They account for massive amounts of coal-fired energy, which keeps their energy prices low and makes them very competitive with the rest of the world. Are we really going to see a change of heart from China and India? Will they suddenly say, “No, no, we’ve been polluting the atmosphere too much and we must now start cleaning everything up and working to net zero”? I do not think they will. They want to keep their competitive position.

That is why it is so essential, to refer back to my noble friend’s amendment, that we continue to accept that we will need oil and gas for much longer than we might originally have thought. The cost of saying we will not explore for any more oil and gas in the North Sea is absolutely massive in terms of jobs for people living in Scotland. The pigeons are starting to come home on all this. That is one of the reasons why I have the greatest possible reservations about driving on towards this net-zero target: the costs are becoming prohibitive. Our energy prices are already higher than almost everybody in Europe. This will cost us jobs and competitiveness in the world generally for years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the joys of debating energy is that, on every occasion, we come back to the substance of the whole argument about energy and where we are going. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, for stimulating such an interesting discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in a sense, has brought this into the open. Clearly, it was his Government who signed up to the legislation on net zero by 2050. The last Government, as much as we do, saw the huge risks involved in climate change and the need to take action.

The international position is that, despite what the noble Lord says, the fastest growth in use of renewable energy is occurring in China. The International Energy Agency indicated in its recent renewable energy report that we will see a 2.7 times increase in the use of renewables globally between now and 2030. So, there is a global movement towards clean power and net zero. Yes, it is going at different paces, but we believe the UK can gain great advantage by taking a leadership role. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—has shown that there is a pathway to clean power by 2030. We are now committed to taking that and turning it into an action plan, which I hope we will be able to publish very shortly.

I would not deny that North Sea oil and gas still have important roles to play, and I am of course listening to what noble Lords say about the tax situation and proposals, and the investment issue. Clearly, the Government are in very close discussions with the industry. Our aim is an orderly transition, and that is what we mean to achieve. So we clearly see the value of what happens in the North Sea, and we need it to continue to provide supplies to the UK in the years ahead. Equally, however, we need to manage the transition to clean power and net zero.

On the issue of jobs, obviously, the number of people employed by GBE will not balance out the people who may be lost to the oil and gas industry in the future. This is important. It does not really matter where the chair comes from; the point is that the headquarters of GBE will be firmly based in Aberdeen. I have already referred to the extra 40,000 people we need in nuclear by 2030. If you look at the other sectors we are talking about investing in—CCUS, hydrogen—all of them will need more people. So, the energy sector as a whole will provide a huge number of opportunities, but I accept that, if there is a reduction in the number of people employed in the North Sea, it is our responsibility, with industry, to help manage that transition effectively.

In the end, we may disagree about this, but the Government are confident that we are right to go towards clean power as quickly as possible. We have had endorsement, both from the Committee on Climate Change and the Office for Budget Responsibility, that investing in clean energy now will pay dividends in the long term.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister and, indeed, to my noble friends. I continue to worry that, as we import LNG, our effective emissions, by passing the problem elsewhere, are significantly higher than they would be using our own production. That is an important fact in this debate. We may have to come back to this issue on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments. We all agree that modern slavery is one of the great scourges of our time. It is estimated that tens of millions of people are trapped in forced labour worldwide, many of them in sectors tied to energy production and manufacturing. Indeed, as the noble Lord and the noble Earl pointed out very eloquently, renewable energy technologies such as solar panels rely on materials such as polysilicon, much of which is sourced from regions where reports of forced labour and human rights abuses are widespread.

These amendments seek to ensure that GBE operates with integrity and accountability in its supply chain practices. Each amendment addresses a crucial aspect of ethical responsibility, and together they would bind the Government to ensure clean energy does not come at the expense of human rights, ethical labour practices or transparency. I encourage the Government to look at this matter carefully. Can the Minister explain what measures will be put in place to ensure that there is oversight of Great British Energy’s supply chains? If Great British Energy is to represent the values of this nation, there is a strong case for tougher measures to prevent public funds being spent in a way that supports or sustains supply chains that exploit human beings.

On Amendment 109, while I recognise the sensitivity and complexity of this issue, it is crucial that we approach it with transparency and courage. Consumers and stakeholders have a right to know the origins of the products they use and the conditions under which they are made. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments made on this matter; we on these Benches will be very interested to hear his reply.

As a publicly backed entity, Great British Energy has an opportunity to set an example and be a model to other countries. I am sure the Government agree there are opportunities here and we look forward to hearing their response.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his expert introduction to the amendment. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his wise comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that we are, of course listening very carefully to this important debate, and I have no doubt whatever about the gravity of the issue. The amendments seek to highlight the importance of ensuring that our supply chains are protected from forced labour, and I wholeheartedly support this.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024.

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

My Lords, the draft order was laid before Parliament on 22 October. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, otherwise known as the 2020 order, as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.

We have brought forward this SI to enable several important changes and improvements to the scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net-zero consistent range. The cap sets a limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. That level reduces over time to drive down total emissions. When this scheme was established, the cap for the legislated period of the UK ETS, from 2021 to 2030, was set at 5% below the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap for the same period. However, this was not consistent with the UK’s net-zero trajectory for the traded sector. This instrument brings the overall UK ETS cap in line with our net-zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.

This statutory instrument also reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances which can be made available to existing installations for free, if no cross-sectoral correction factor mitigation is applied. This SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. While the share of allowances set aside for this purpose will increase from 37% to 40%, the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. That will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.

The statutory instrument creates a flexible reserve of allowances for maintaining market stability and sufficient carbon leakage mitigation. In addition to allowances specifically created for this reserve, unallocated free allowances from the industry cap and designated free allowances that are returned by operators due to changes in participant eligibility or activity level reductions will also stock the flexible reserve. The flexible reserve can be used to increase allowance supply for market stability purposes, if the cost containment mechanism is triggered. The flexible reserve can also mitigate application of the CSCF through a uniform reduction to all eligible existing participants’ free allocation if the eligibility for free allocation exceeds the industry cap.

Under current legislation, carbon dioxide released through flaring in the upstream oil and gas sector is included in the UK ETS, as it is within the scope of the regulated activity of combustion. This SI introduces CO₂ released through venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the UK ETS for installations already covered by the scheme. That means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price.

The controlled processes of venting and flaring can sometimes be essential for safety purposes. They are also used in more routine situations where the oil and gas hydrocarbons are unable to be used, exported or reinjected without the CO₂ being removed. The removed CO₂ can then be released in the process of flaring, when waste gas—including the stripped-out CO₂, as well as combustible elements—is ignited, or venting, where unignited gas is released through a vent. The legislation will remove a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gas that contains carbon dioxide without it being subject to a carbon price, even though it would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purpose of the scheme.

In line with the original policy intent, the instrument extends legislative amendments made by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2023 to Northern Ireland. The amendments include capping aviation free allocation at 100% of emissions, clarifying the treatment of carbon capture and storage plants, and amendments to free allocation rules for electricity generation.

In 2022, a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the Swiss Government was signed, setting out the intention to include flights from the UK to Switzerland in the UK ETS. Flights from Great Britain to Switzerland were brought into the scope of the UK ETS on 1 January 2023 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022. The statutory instrument before us extends the scope to cover flights that depart from an aerodrome in Northern Ireland and arrive at an aerodrome in Switzerland.

On enforcement and penalties, scheme regulators are responsible for enforcing compliance, including operational functions such as issuing penalties. The statutory instrument makes a number of amendments to the levels of scheme penalties to ensure consistency and proportionality of enforcement for all operators. It also introduces a new deficit notice, with an associated penalty, to strengthen enforcement of the fundamental scheme obligation to surrender allowances equal to an operator’s annual emissions.

Finally, this instrument makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation. The changes follow appropriate and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders. In the Developing the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) consultation in 2022, the UK ETS Authority considered proposals on changes to the rules for sectors covered by the UK ETS to ensure that more greenhouse gas emissions were covered by the scheme, along with changes to the cap.

The authority’s response to this consultation was published in two parts: in August 2023 and July 2023. A majority of respondents agreed with the UK ETS Authority’s proposals on creating a flexible share reserve of allowances; on bringing venting in the upstream oil and gas sector into the scope of the ETS; and on the addition of a new penalty and deficit notice. Several respondents expressed concern regarding the reduction of the cap and the changes to the industry cap.

An assessment of these responses informed the decision to set the cap at the top of the net-zero consistent range. Between 23 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, the UK ETS Authority ran a targeted consultation on the minor penalty amendments. The responses to this consultation were in broad agreement with the proposals or noted that they were not affected by them. The authority’s response to this targeted consultation has been published in advance of the laying of this statutory instrument.

In conclusion, the changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority and improve the operation of the scheme. The alterations to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. They show that we will take action to extend and improve the scheme where necessary. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the contents of the instrument so concisely but comprehensively. I support it but have a number of questions. Obviously, the issue of flaring would arise if the Government were to introduce a policy of fracking—hydraulic fracturing. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have a moratorium on fracking? It was a very real issue in North Yorkshire when I was still a Member of Parliament there; it caused real concern among the locals. It would be interesting to know the answer because flaring would be an issue there.

Secondly, I see that an impact assessment has not been prepared on this occasion because it is not a regulatory provision, but in fact one was done already in 2023, and before that in 2020. Can the Minister confirm that the costs in light of the change to the cap will not be deemed wildly different from the results of those impact assessments in 2020 and 2023, which I understand were different in nature in each case?

It is interesting that the Minister, the instrument and the Explanatory Memorandum refer to the amendment to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland within the scope. Why was this excluded in the first instance? Were there no flights from that airport? Have they suddenly increased in capacity? Out of interest, which flights are included? In the normal scheme of things, would all major airports and flights to the European Union and Switzerland be included? I imagine they would be, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I support this instrument. This order will expand the scope of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to include carbon dioxide venting in the upstream oil and gas sector. It will introduce deficit notices to allow regulators to penalise operators for failing to surrender allowances by a set date and makes technical changes to penalties. There is no doubt that climate change is an issue that any Government need to take steps to tackle. That is why the Conservative Government introduced the UK ETS, to ensure that businesses monitored, reported on and surrendered allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. We are glad that the Government recognise the benefits of the scheme and are taking steps to continue to use it.

However, this Government have prioritised their climate policy above financial and economic concerns. While we understand that there must be trade-offs to reach our net-zero targets, I caution them on raising taxes consistently on the North Sea oil industry—they are now running at 78%. This could put significant costs on companies already navigating a complicated regulatory environment. We must remember that net zero by 2050 does not mean zero hydrocarbons. We will still have about 25%. However, as this ETS will provide support by removing venting and flaring, we can have clean hydrocarbons. We must also consider the impact of the hydrocarbon companies in investing in renewables and the people required in the transition to net zero.

With that being said, I will ask the Minister one question that was left largely unanswered in the other place, to do with the impact of the carbon price rise to £147, as highlighted by NESO. What will the impact be on employment, industry and households, and will there be an impact assessment on those key areas?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their general support for the order, which is much appreciated. I will seek to respond to the points raised but will follow up if I am unable to answer everything.

Clearly, the emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of our climate and net-zero policy regime. It sets a cap on emissions in the sectors covered—currently around a quarter of the UK’s emissions. In doing so, it guarantees that the sectors will reduce their emissions in line with our net-zero target. We see maintaining a strong UK ETS playing a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering our mission of secure and clean electricity by 2030, and having a positive impact on bills.

I very much take the point about the impact on industry. In relation to the North Sea, in particular, I understand that noble Lords are concerned to make sure that the transition is as effective as possible—something that we are very much committed to doing.

On the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding ETS expansion, we see the scheme continuing to remain a key driver of decarbonisation. Our intention is to expand it further. We have recently consulted on proposals to expand the scheme to energy from waste incineration. We are also currently consulting on expansion to maritime operators and on a regulatory framework for integrating non-pipeline transport for carbon capture, usage and storage. We are exploring options to build the UK ETS into the world’s first integrated market for carbon emissions and carbon removal; subject to consultation, our intention is to include engineered greenhouse gas removals. We see that as supporting the new technologies we will need to meet net zero while providing a sustainable path for industry to decarbonise and to encourage that process.

To refer to the impact assessment and the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I think I can reassure her on fracking. We have no intention to permit fracking. As for the impact assessment, it was published alongside the decisions in the response to the report on developing the UK ETS authority. We stand by that assessment as the best assessment of the implications of our policy changes, and therefore we do not think it necessary to do any further work in that area.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right that, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was not possible to make changes to the UK ETS order that extended to Northern Ireland using an affirmative procedure. It is a very good thing that we have made progress in Northern Ireland and are now able to make that provision.

I should say too that the UK ETS authority agreed that the UK Government should amend the UK ETS auctioning regulations to give partial effect to the agreed policy of reducing the cap, and that the authority would pursue a legislative programme in line with the decisions and intentions made in the main UK ETS authority response, including for the cap, set out in the response for 2026 and beyond. As stated there, the authority is now taking the necessary steps to finalise that legislation, and the IA is being relayed alongside that legislation to support parliamentary scrutiny.

Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 28 October. They form an important part of the Government’s commitment to accelerate the deployment of the low-carbon electricity technologies that are critical to achieving the Government’s clean energy mission.

The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new low-carbon electricity generating projects in Great Britain. Contracts for difference are awarded through annual, competitive auctions where the lowest-priced bids are successful. The sixth allocation round, which ran earlier this year, was the largest round ever and more than double last year’s round held by the previous Government. It awarded contracts to 128 clean energy projects across Great Britain, capturing 9.6 gigawatts of renewable capacity and generating enough electricity to power the equivalent of 11 million homes.

We must, though, ensure its continued success and evolve the contracts for difference scheme to drive progress towards 2030. So, building on auction round 6, we want to update the scheme through this instrument to continue our march towards a low-carbon power system. We propose, first, to extend the option of phased contracts for difference to floating offshore wind projects and, secondly, to enable the eligibility of repowered onshore wind projects to apply for a contract for difference.

On the first point, the Government have committed to radically increasing the UK’s offshore wind capacity, including floating offshore wind. As an emerging technology with less than 250 megawatts of capacity deployed worldwide, the floating offshore wind construction process is yet to be industrialised. Floating wind projects are likely to have a slower buildout rate than established fixed-bottom offshore wind, for reasons including limitations on suitable port capacity and increased sensitivity to adverse weather.

Phasing in the contract for difference allows projects to be built in multiple stages. It was designed to provide support for early fixed-base offshore wind projects by mitigating the specific commercial risks inherent in offshore project construction. Extending this policy to floating offshore wind projects will allow for greater flexibility in the construction phase, allowing delivery to more realistic timelines and providing more certainty and confidence to the wider supply chain. This reduction in project risk will, in turn, increase investor confidence in the UK’s growing floating offshore wind sector.

On the second amendment—to enable repowering for onshore wind—our analysis suggests that approximately 1 gigawatt of onshore wind will come to the end of its operating life between 2027 and the end of 2030. Repowering can help ensure that renewable generation capacity is not lost from older projects. It also provides an opportunity to increase the renewable generating capacity of existing sites through improvements in technology and more efficient use of the site. Enabling access to the contract for difference for repowered onshore wind projects offers them revenue certainty, encouraging retention and expansion of existing capacity. This supports our ambition to achieve clean power by 2030 and make Great Britain a leading place for onshore wind investment.

We have ensured a balance between decarbonisation, consumer value for money and security of supply objectives by enabling repowering only for projects which align to the fundamental contract for difference case for intervention, including high upfront capital costs, and which have reached the end of their operating life. At this point, this applies only to onshore wind. These principles will help enable us to protect the consumer, ensuring we intervene only when and where needed and where it is cost-effective to do so.

The consultation for these policy interventions sought views and supporting evidence on specific changes proposed for allocation round 7. We received a range of responses from across industry, including developers, electricity traders and suppliers, businesses operating in the offshore wind sector, and consumer and environmental groups with an interest in the electricity sector. Most respondents agreed with implementing phasing for floating offshore wind and repowering for onshore wind. Respondents also provided input on how the department should implement these policies. The department continues to engage closely with industry in the development of contracts for difference.

The instrument facilitates the evolution of the contracts for difference scheme by amending two statutory instruments made under the Energy Act 2013. It amends the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014 and the Contracts for Difference (Definition of Eligible Generator) Regulations 2014. The amendments will have two effects. First, they will expand the existing phasing policy to floating offshore wind projects. The allocation regulations will be amended to allow floating offshore wind contracts for difference units to be constructed in accordance with phasing rules. The second effect is to permit repowered projects to apply for a contract for difference. The contracts for difference scheme did not previously have a formal policy in relation to repowering applications. The amendments ensure that certain generators who repower eligible generating stations can be eligible for the contract for difference. They also remove barriers which would prevent repowering applications being made.

To conclude, we think this is an important step forward in delivering clean power. It builds on the existing success of the contracts for difference scheme, which is evolving to better reflect global market realities and drive progress towards clean power targets. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to this one. We are happy to support the amendment.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that consumers continue to get value for money from these contracts? Secondly, is the Minister certain that the repowering process is treading the right path between getting value for money for the Government with these contracts, while not impeding further development of onshore wind energy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their support, which is encouraging. I readily acknowledge that we are building on the work that the last Government undertook, and I think we are entitled to say that this has been very successful. It is very good to build on it.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that obtaining value for money is clearly an important issue. The clearing price for ONW was £50.90 per megawatt hour, meaning that it was our second-cheapest technology after solar. We think that the repowering policy will likely increase the amount of ONW bidding into the contracts for difference. This will increase competitive tensions further—unlike the resulting lower bid prices, which should lead to consumer savings. Generally, as I said, upwards of 1 gigawatt of onshore wind is clearly due to reach the end of its operating life at the end of government support by the end of 2030. It makes sense that we try to ensure that this is extended.

To hark back to the nuclear question, we are obviously awaiting EDF’s formal announcement about an extension of life, potentially, for some of the existing nuclear power stations. I take this as a whole and, where it is right to do so, some support for extending the life of some of these operations is worth while.

Motion agreed.

Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress Great British Nuclear has made with its plans to deploy small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors, and what assessment they have made of the process for evaluating their design and manufacturing.

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

My Lords, Great British Nuclear is pushing forward the SMR competition for UK deployment and is now in negotiation with bidders, with final decisions to be taken in the spring. The Government are also actively exploring how we can enable alternative routes to market for advanced technologies, including AMRs, and we will set out our policy position in due course.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he explain exactly what has caused the damaging schedule slippage within GBN? Is it the shortage of staff, underfunding, underestimating the workload required or the many layers of approval—11 separate Whitehall approval committees at the last count—in order to allow GBN to announce the latest download of SMR technologies?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will know the answer, because 16 months of the lifetime of GBN occurred under her party’s Administration. The fact is that we are working very closely with GBN. It has to go through considered processes. It has done two rounds of assessment and, as I have said, four technologies have been shortlisted, all of which are viable options for development. Crucial talks are now taking place. Companies will be invited to make final bids, and decisions will be made in the spring. I am confident that GBN will ensure that we get to that final decision as soon as possible.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister please consider how we might give good news to those sites in north-west Wales, principally the Wylfa plant in Ynys Môn—Anglesey—now dormant, and Trawsfynydd in Meirionnydd, now dormant? The communities around those great plants that generated nuclear power for Britain deserve consideration in so far as, throughout north-west Wales, skilled jobs with good wages and status are very rare and both communities have deserved investment from our Government.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I get the point my noble friend raises. He is absolutely right: new nuclear can bring many high-quality jobs, enhance our skills chain and help us grow the economy. He mentioned Wylfa in particular, and I well understand. He will know that Great British Nuclear has bought Wylfa, which is one of the sites identified in the planning statement in relation to nuclear. We are looking to make our siting policy more flexible to give us more opportunities in the future. We see new nuclear as having a hugely important role to play in our future energy structure.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As the Minister will be aware, we currently have an issue with dependence on Russian fuel for our nuclear fleet. What progress are the Government making in bringing forward legislation for a near-term ban on Russian fuel imports, with all the attendant benefits for national security, for convincing others to move internationally and for our domestic industries?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have already agreed internationally to go for a 2030 cut-off. I have had correspondence from the noble Lord and I know that others would argue that we should bring it forward, as the US has wanted to do. We are in very serious discussions about that.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will know about the global shortage of radioisotope supply for treating cancer. Is he aware that the Welsh Government, in co-operation with the Egino company, have financed a feasibility study into establishing a radioisotope production plant on the existing Trawsfynydd nuclear site, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred a moment ago, and for which an SMR would be highly relevant? Does he accept that such a project would help meet the UK healthcare needs, facilitate valuable exports, help the existing nuclear site to be managed and provide much-needed high-grade jobs? Please will he link up with colleagues in Cardiff to see what can be done on this through GB Nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the point the noble Lord is raising. My department is exercised by the advantage that could be brought. We are in discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. I cannot say at this stage whether we can bring this to a successful outcome, but I certainly see the merits in what he is arguing.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on the importance of the agreement reached on the sidelines of the COP summit with the United States, which seeks to speed up the deployment of cutting-edge nuclear technology, helping to decarbonise our industry? The agreement aims to support information sharing on advanced nuclear technologies to help make them available to industry by 2030. How important is this agreement, and how will it help us to make sure that this technology is actually deployed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a very important agreement. We have a very good relationship with the US on all things civil nuclear, and this will enable us to enhance that. I should also say that at COP, six new countries joined existing countries in declaration of an aim to triple nuclear power globally by 2050. There are now 31 signatures, which is very important. It is an indication that globally we are seeing a renaissance in nuclear, in which this Government wish our own nuclear industry to be a part.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

Last week, in answer to a question on COP 29 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referencing GB Energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested that the Government would look at nuclear energy, specifically small nuclear reactors. Can the Minister clarify whether that is indeed the case?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not sure I understand the question, but if it is whether we recognise the importance of SMRs in this country and generally, the answer is yes. On the benefits of the use of small modular reactors, having a modular approach in which much can be assembled off-site brings huge advantages. Going forward, we see that SMRs have great potential, and of course UK companies themselves have great potential.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister clearly shares my frustration at the time taken in moving this issue forward under the previous Administration. At the same time, is it not a fact that we have a major nuclear reactor constructor in the UK that has been producing reactors for our submarines for over 60 years? Is it not enormously important for that constructor, and equally important for its supply chain, to be able to tool up and organise in order to produce? Is it not the unfortunate reality that the United States is moving ahead on this and has a full-spectrum approach to selling its modular reactors while we slip behind? What is the Minister going to do to speed this up?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I hope we are not slipping behind. Clearly, the process that GBN is going through will take a few more months, but I hope the outcome will be a satisfactory conclusion. I cannot comment on the companies involved in the appraisal and the discussions taking place with GBN at the moment, but I take the noble Lord’s point about our defence capability and the supply chain. We are increasingly seeing the civil nuclear and defence nuclear industries working more closely together, and I see that as a very important foundation for the future. I take the noble Lord’s point about the US; it is important that where we have a technological advantage, we make the best of it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Are the Government going to consider security in the same kind of way?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, security is one of the key considerations not just on SMRs but on AMRs.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, there is a puzzle here. If the world acknowledges that SMRs and like designs can be built far more quickly than the larger-gigawatt traditional nuclear power stations, and if investors can be attracted to finance those SMRs—whereas the giants such as Sizewell, the so-called replica, will cost billions that will eventually fall on consumers and taxpayers—why are we not giving far more priority to ordering and developing SMRs and smaller reactors, as many other countries are doing? Many producers are finding that their order books are becoming full.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord paints too bleak a position. The UK is very well placed in relation to SMRs, and the programme that GBN is taking forward is being watched with great interest by a number of countries. In relation to investment, as the chair of GBN, Simon Bowen, told the energy Select Committee last week, of course there are issues to do with risk, timing and potential delays with first-in-class designs. But as we gain momentum and produce more modular reactors, the efficiency of the programme will get better and better. That is why we have to give support at this stage, and why we see huge potential.

COP 29

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this Statement and the progress made at COP 29. The world—indeed the very future of humanity—stands at a cross-roads. One path leads to a near-term end of the viable future of humanity on planet earth, and the other leads to concerted, collective and constructive change and a willingness to fight for humanity’s future. Time is a luxury that is rapidly running out. We are on the cusp of breaching our collective goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees. We must keep hope alive. We must fight for further rapid progress with the little time we have left.

The near future—one that our children will experience—is one where they will need to fight climate change and deal with the ever-growing consequences of the failure to do so earlier. The tragic loss of life and destruction from Storm Bert is the latest reminder of this fact. It is not acceptable that funding shortfalls mean that the number of properties to be protected from flooding by 2027 was cut by the previous Government by 40%. Will the Minister commit to including natural flood defences as a central part of the £5.2 billion flood-defence spending to protect our communities? Much more work is also needed on adaption and resilience programmes.

COP 29 concluded with a deal that, while welcome, still leaves much to be desired. The $300 billion a year is a start, but the developed world must do more to support the developing world to implement its own clean energy and adaption programmes. It is estimated that this funding can deliver reductions equivalent to more than 15 times the UK’s annual emissions. Simply put, we can either pay now or we can pay more later. The greatest cost of all is always that of doing nothing.

We very much welcome the return of UK leadership on the world stage on climate issues, after the dying days of the Conservative Government did so much damage to our international standing and reputation with their retreat from reality. I congratulate our negotiators on their work. We welcome the commitments to new ambitious emissions targets, including the reduction by at least 81% by 2035. Delivery depends on bolder and more decisive action. We support this programme and I express our willingness to work with the Minister to help the UK to seize this opportunity.

We need concentrated and immediate action to insulate our homes, reduce energy costs and ensure that no one has to choose between heating and eating. The delay to Labour’s warm homes plan until spring 2025 is unacceptable when millions of people, including 1.2 million pensioners, face a cold and uncomfortable winter due to the cut in the winter fuel allowance. We need clearer plans to roll out heat pumps, to increase the update of electric vehicles, to fix the unacceptable delays to grid connections, and to achieve rapid progress in improving our energy security and enabling a swift reduction in energy bills.

We will work to progress the GB Energy Bill through this House, but we call on the Minister to give clear commitments to deliver clear community energy programmes. Labour must do more to decentralise the energy transition, bring much-needed jobs and growth from the green economy, and work to ensure that the benefits of our transition and increased energy security are properly communicated. Climate leadership must prioritise solutions that protect communities and restore nature. The nature and climate crises are interlinked and intertwined. We are one of the most nature-deprived countries in the world. Our 30 by 30 target still has unrealistic delivery pathways.

I note that the Statement says:

“The UK will decide what our own contribution will be in the context of our spending review and fiscal situation, and that will come from within the UK aid budget”.


On loss and damage, are these funds ring-fenced against the development cuts announced in the Budget? Lastly, I call on the Government to give the gift of time to the Climate and Nature Bill—a Private Member’s Bill being discussed in the other place. It is so important that we update our climate legislation.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Earls for their comments and questions. I must say that it is good to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, to the Dispatch Box to talk on such an important issue; it is like old times. His comments were interesting because he started by talking about his own Government’s achievements in the area of climate change, net zero and the decarbonisation of our power supplies. But then he moved away from that, and it is worth reflecting that, of course, it was Prime Minister May who showed leadership on net zero, and it was the last Government who signed up to the £11.6 billion in international climate finance for the period 2021-26. They also signed up to the national adaption programme 2023-28.

It was the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, who so ably led the COP 26 Glasgow negotiations. I was just reminding myself of the ministerial meeting in Copenhagen only two years ago, co-chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, in which Ministers agreed the urgency of responding to climate change and of the need to accelerate practical action and support for a just transition to low greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me that the Conservative leadership is essentially turning its back on climate change, and it seems to be obsessed with fossil fuels.

As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both just now and in the Oral Question earlier, climate change is here. It is having damaging impacts in this country and globally. We simply cannot hold back: we have to charge on. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the importance of flood defences, charging on to net zero, heat pumps, and grid connections. His comments on the GBE Bill were helpful, and I noted his point on community energy. He mentioned the warm homes plan: we have that and continue to work on it, but we have already made some substantive announcements, which I hope he will be able to study.

There has been a lot of comment on the outcome of the negotiations, which were obviously very challenging. Developing countries were disappointed with some of the outcomes. The fact is that the focus was on finance, and the agreement calls on all actors to scale up financing to $1.3 trillion for developing countries by 2035 from all sources, public and private. Also agreed was a goal for public and publicly mobilised finances of at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035. I should say that this new goal will take account of contributions from major economies such as China that are in a position to support developing countries.

Although we made strides in relation to finance and carbon markets, COP did not make progress elsewhere. We wanted much stronger outcomes on taking forward the global stocktake, agreed at COP 28, on the transition away from fossil fuels and on keeping 1.5 degrees Celsius alive. We will continue to push that as we move towards the run-up to COP 30 in Brazil.

I acknowledge that both noble Earls have welcomed UK leadership, which has been very important. The visit of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State was influential, and it is right that Britain should be there at the negotiating table. I know that noble Lords say that we produce only 1% emissions, but there are many countries with 1% emissions, and collectively, we are very powerful. I acknowledge that we want to build on what the last Government achieved in this area. National consensus here is very important indeed.

On the 81% target for 2035, we think that that is in line with the advice from the Climate Change Committee. Clearly, we will now need to work through the implications of that. On our contribution to the £300 billion of public and publicly mobilised finance, clearly, I cannot be drawn on what that will be. As we have said, this will go into the multiyear spending review. However, overall, we can at least recognise that agreement was reached in very difficult negotiations.

I know that noble Lords are concerned about China, and I understand the issues they raise. The fact is that China disclosed that it has contributed £24 billion in climate finance to developing countries since 2016. We know that part of the COP agreement is to encourage more voluntary contributions on that basis. It is interesting that International Energy Agency figures show that China is accelerating its use of renewable energy.

There is clearly much to discuss and to tease out of the agreement, and a lot of work has to be done on the pathway to Brazil. But at least an agreement has been reached which gives us some hope that we can move forward, and for this country, the message is to charge on.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement clearly says that the move towards clean energy is unstoppable, and of course I welcome that, but I have two questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that to get consumers to buy more electric vehicles, reducing VAT from 20% to 5% would be incredibly helpful? Secondly, does he agree that the mayor of Liverpool’s proposals for a Mersey barrier—which, obviously, would generate energy not through wind but through tide—would be a fantastic step forward in investing in the long-term prospects of cleaner energy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on the issue of tidal potential, my noble friend may be interested to know that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has tabled a related amendment for consideration in Committee on the Great British Energy Bill, and I look forward to discussing it. Of course, I recognise the potential, and we will be very happy to discuss that with the mayor and other local bodies—that is without commitment, I have to say.

On electric vehicles, obviously there has been a lot of discussion recently of the decisions of commercial manufacturers. We are committed to the manifesto commitment to phase out new cars powered solely by internal combustion engines by 2030. We realise that there are many challenges for industry at the moment. Ministers in the relevant departments are engaging with key industry figures, and obviously, we want to work very closely in partnership with industry to tackle some of the challenges that have been raised.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister made it clear that a number of targets appear to be floating around, as my noble friend touched on when he opened the discussion. Is the 2030 target anything to do with net zero, or is that just an ambition for cleaner energy? I have heard that target described as “base camp”, which means we have not started climbing even when we get there. Would he agree with that description? It is rather different from some of the descriptions the Government have offered in the past.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always interesting to have the noble Lord’s perspective, given his long-standing interest in energy. He enjoyed being Energy Secretary, and it is good that we have a department focused very much on energy issues. I think the target is consistent: 2030 is the aim for clean power; the 2035 goal we have agreed on the reduction in greenhouse gases is the UK offer that we have made. The actual target we have set is an 81% reduction in emissions by 2035, against a 1990 baseline. I am clear that this is consistent with 2030—in other words, the 2030 target takes us on to the 2035 target we have now agreed. The noble Lord asked that question on Monday, and we are clear that we are being consistent; and obviously, we are taking the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that has improved hugely is satellite monitoring of emissions, particularly of methane. According to a recent report, some 1,000 major methane escapes have been identified and notified to the nations which caused them, but there has been very little reaction or implementation of measures. The UK has shown leadership here as part of the global methane pledge. How can we much better ensure that we implement the solution to emissions of this most concentrated of greenhouse gases, as doing so is really important?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who raises a very important issue. In fact, during or around the time of the COP 29 discussions, we announced £5 million to help developing countries tackle methane emissions from their fossil fuels. This is supporting delivery of the global methane pledge launched at COP 26. However, I am very happy to take a further look at this and to respond to the noble Lord in some detail about what further actions we might take on this important matter.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Peers for the Planet. There were two COPs this year but as far as I could see, in the Statement there was only one passing reference to nature, yet biodiversity loss and climate change are profoundly integrated and intertwined challenges. Does the Minister recognise that we need to find the policy synergies to address both issues and to manage the trade-offs that sometimes need to be made? Can he also think about where we could make a start with some integrated language in the Great British Energy Bill?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

That is quite a challenge from the noble Baroness. When we come to Committee next Tuesday, we will certainly discuss this issue further, but I very much take her point about nature and biodiversity. She is also right to highlight that there are sometimes tensions. Yesterday we had an Oral Question on the use of farmland for solar farm development; there is clearly a tension there that has to be managed, and I very much accept the challenge she described.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome both the tone and substance of the Statement. Indeed, I recall the £11.6 billion commitment made by the Conservative Government—because I made it myself at the UN meeting. However, my focus is on the progress that was made. Article 6 of the Paris agreement focused on carbon trading. Can the noble Lord focus on the UK’s approach to that? Linked to that, I associate myself with the just point made by the noble Baroness, on climate-based solutions. In practical terms, we have seen that when we are looking at climate solutions, nature-based solutions provide the best example of both mitigation and adaptation on the ground.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I readily acknowledge the noble Lord’s personal commitment and thank him for it. I do think a consensual approach to this is really important in giving long-term stability both to our country and to industry, in terms of the policies that we are taking forward.

On Article 6, at COP the parties agreed outstanding rules to fully operationalise it. This can enable higher global mitigation ambitions and facilitate flows of finance, particularly to emerging and developing economies. We obviously very much welcome this outcome. It delivers high-integrity rules to govern international carbon markets, which are underpinned by environmental integrity, as he said. Obviously, in terms of what we now do, we will be taking this forward. However, alongside some of the disappointments that have been expressed about the outcome, this is a very important one.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as working vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. According to the IAEA, nuclear power must significantly expand to new markets if climate rules are to be achieved. Currently, there are 31 countries using nuclear power. We learned from COP 28 and COP 29 that around 30 so-called newcomer countries are either embarking on or considering its introduction, and some are already building their first nuclear reactors.

As nuclear energy expands to new locations, it is critical that non-proliferation in nuclear security practices and standards keeps pace. This will require significant extension. Moving in the wrong direction could foster a world with more weapons-usable nuclear materials that are less secure, more countries with the ability to produce these materials and perhaps even more nuclear weapon states. Engaging with Governments who have established nuclear energy to promote key non-proliferation standards is essential. What steps are we taking in that regard? We need to make sure that Atoms4NetZero does not turn into “Atoms for Peace”, which left many dangerous materials lying about all over the world.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I understand that six more countries signed the nuclear agreement declaration at COP. These are the countries that have pledged to triple nuclear energy by 2050. It is quite clear that there is a global renaissance occurring in nuclear energy. I have attended a number of international conferences where there is a lot of interest in countries like ourselves, who have turned back to nuclear, in countries that have not had nuclear power stations. This has great potential for the UK. We have great potential for exporting technology and expertise and, in relation to what my noble friend said, efficient systems of regulation. I assure him that we are encouraging business and agencies here to do all that they can in an international setting. I have met a number of Ministers from countries who are going back to or starting nuclear on that. In relation to non-proliferation, the work of the IAEA is critical. I assure him that the United Kingdom plays a very strong role in it and contributes to it extensively.

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. I welcome the Statement today, but can the Minister reflect on the recent COP and those over the last few years and whether the format of discussion, debate and agreement is best achieved through the format of COP or whether there is a better way to move this forward on a more regular basis, perhaps holding to account some of the countries in the world on a more regular basis?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clearly an interesting question. The noble Lord will have seen that some of the country participants in Baku were very unhappy with parts of the process. Some felt excluded from some of the key corridor discussions, if I can put it that way. The problem is that it is the only forum that we have for discussing and negotiating these important matters. Whatever fora you have, if you have over 190 countries involved, it is going to be very complex. Notwithstanding that I understand the frustrations of many countries and the difficulties, the fact that agreement was reached and we can now see clear a line to Brazil next year means that we need to continue to work with the process and encourage it to be run as effectively as possible. I do not see any option but to go with the COP process.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the warm homes discount. I am the honorary president of National Energy Action. I see that the discount rate is still £150. Given the current level of electricity bills, this seems quite low and not to have been reviewed for some time. Will the Minister review this and look at the level of the warm homes discount?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Baroness that at the moment we do not have any plans to review it.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, China is a major contributor to global emissions. Much of its energy is still generated through coal and it is still building coal-fired power stations. China is not alone. India is also building coal-fired power stations and depends on coal for much of its energy as well. The result is that both countries are keeping their prices low, compared with the rest of the world, and the undertakings that we have from them seem rather hazy. What guarantees are there that they will reduce their consumption of coal and are they likely to keep to them?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Obviously, there are no guarantees, but that is why it is very important to move to Brazil and deal with mitigation, in a way that we were unable to do in the last COP negotiations. In relation to China, I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying. I understand entirely his concerns. However, China was a player at the COP discussions. It did indicate the voluntary payments that it has made to developing countries and I believe we have to work very hard to keep China in the tent.

I repeat again that, although clearly China has overtaken the EU and is now the world’s largest emitter, it is also developing extensively in renewable energy. What alternative do we have? In the end, we must come back to climate change and the awful consequences, for us and globally, of not taking action. It would be a huge mistake to put the brakes on, say, “No, we’re going to rely on oil and gas”, and hope that nothing happens. We just cannot do that. We have to work with China and India. We have to try as hard as we can to bring them with us and that is what we are seeking to do.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, this is a complex issue and I am a layman in what is a complex world. One thing which we are in control of but which we do not seem to make much progress with is building regulations for new properties. This confuses me. They still seem to allow gas boilers to be put in. They do not seem to encourage solar panels or glass that converts sunlight into electricity. Yet we are already building new properties. This Government quite properly have a huge ambition to build far more properties. Is this not the time to embed the price of some of these changes in the price of the new property, perhaps with some kind of taxation encouragement? At the moment, we are building properties that we know will not be helpful in the future when it is within our gift, with existing technology, to do about something it. It is confusing. Every time I have asked about this, somebody has said that they are looking into it. Is it not time that somebody did something about it and encouraged builders—incentivised them—to help us to make some progress, in this area at least?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the complexity of this whole area of policy, but he makes a powerful point. On Monday, we had an Oral Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on solar panels on roofs, when essentially the same question was asked by a number of noble Lords. I recognise the force of his argument. We are having cross-government discussions at the moment looking at building regulations. I hope that within a fairly short period of time we will have a positive outcome.

[Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)]

My Lords, I am perplexed by the slowness with which we pursue nuclear power. In 1980, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, announced to the House that we would build one PWR a year through the 1980s. I know because I drafted it. But it did not happen. Why is it so expensive and so slow?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Oh, my Lords. In 2007, the last Labour Government decided to go back to new nuclear—I was the Minister responsible from 2008 to 2010. We were starting to talk about Hinkley Point C with EDF and about developing a supply chain, and it was not until 2017 that the final investment decision was made. Hinkley Point C had many design changes because it was found that you could not simply take a model from France and put it in Britain without there having to be a lot of changes. However, there were a lot of positives, and it is being built—they are making substantial progress now. The second reactor has been much more efficiently built because they learned from the first reactor. Sizewell C, which will be 3.2 gigawatts, is moving to a final investment decision and will, in essence, be a replica of Hinkley Point C. So, although the noble Lord is right that there has been a lot of delay, I believe we can start to see greater progress. The small modular reactor and advanced modular reactor programmes have great potential for us in this country and for UK companies.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, when it comes to the UK share of the $300 billion, whenever it is paid out to developing countries, which we are all for, can the Minister give some assurances that the money will go to the destinations as directed, and that corruption, which can be prevalent, is taken account of? It may be that the new Government have made a reassessment of that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very important point. The integrity of the process is vital in terms of going forward. On our contribution, I think I said earlier that this will have to wait for the multiyear spending review.

Domestic Solar Panels

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they plan to increase the number of homes fitted with solar panels.

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

My Lords, rooftop solar on homes and buildings will play an important role in the drive for clean power. Details about how the Government will increase deployments of domestic solar panels will be set out in the forthcoming solar road map.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Labour promised a rooftop solar revolution, which I welcome, tripling solar power by 2030. It now appears that this commitment has not survived contact with the housebuilding industry. Are this Government still requiring that, as part of the future homes standards, all new homes will have to have solar panels installed, as promised? If not, why? Further, France is maintaining solar panel installations on all parking lots greater than 80 spaces, generating power for 8 million homes. What consideration has been given to doing the same here?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are not moving away at all from the idea of a solar revolution. The noble Earl will know that, in its scenarios for 2030, the National Energy System Operator—NESO—reckons that we will need 47 gigawatts by that time. We are committed to publishing a clean power action plan, which will embrace solar plans, very soon. The Solar Taskforce is there to provide clear advice and actions on how we will take that forward. What the noble Earl said about French car parks was interesting. There has been an easing up of development rights in this country in relation to that. On the 1.5 million homes that we pledged to build in the lifetime of this Parliament, we are in close discussion with our colleagues across government about mandation, and we very much take his point on that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was indebted to the Minister for his courteous reply to us at the end of the Second Reading debate a week ago. He will recall that I raised with him specifically the use of Uighur slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels in Xinjiang, and the use of 25,000 children in child labour in the DRC in lithium production, which is essential to our green technology. The Minister was unable to answer some of the questions I put to him during that debate. Will he undertake for his officials to write and give replies, so that we can consider them before Committee? Will he place a copy of the replies in the Library of your Lordships’ House?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I think the Lord will recollect that he asked me rather a lot of questions and, given that my winding-up speech was 20 minutes, with the best will in the world, I said that I would write to him. On the general principle, he knows that I have long shared his concern, particularly about Xinjiang province and the appalling use of the Uighurs. We understand those issues and are committed to tackling them. We have given guidance on the risk to business of trading in Xinjiang province, and we have pointed out the penalties for those who fail to report under the Modern Slavery Act. The noble Lord will find an invitation to meet in the next two days to discuss those issues.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, further to that point, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the keys to tackling this issue, especially in terms of exploitation in other countries, is to ensure that solar panels are built in this country and that our industrial strategy matches up with the energy strategy and Great British Energy to make that happen? Can he assure us that he is focused on that?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very interesting point put forward by my noble friend. One of the responsibilities of the Solar Taskforce is to look at the supply chain, and we will pick up the issue that she mentioned. It is also worth pointing out that if we look at where the content comes from in relation to placing solar panels on a roof, it is reckoned that 60% of the value of the work—including scaffolding and whatever else has to happen—is bought in this country.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, would it not be a great help if the owners of listed buildings could find it easier to obtain planning consent for solar panels? I also declare an interest in that members of my family have listed buildings.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

One of the main benefits of solar is that, in general, planning consent is not required. However, in conservation areas, there are many more constraints. I cannot give the noble Viscount a commitment, but I will make sure that the relevant department is made aware of his views.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to make a virtual contribution.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

With the price of panels a key consideration in housing costs, and with 75% of the world’s production in China, why can the Government not sponsor a taskforce of engineers and chemists et al with the task of designing and establishing a polysilicon manufacturing plant facility for use in wider solar panel production? The site could be located under a regime of regional development with climate incentives. Polysilicon stands at the heart of competitive solar panel production internationally. That is why the Chinese lead, and why we should be investing now.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that very helpful suggestion. I will make sure the taskforce gives it earnest consideration.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, as the Government’s Great British Energy Bill enters Committee in the coming weeks, can the Minister confirm whether this will include the deployment of solar panels as part of its strategy? Given that I have the Minister’s attention, and following on from the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I draw his attention to GB-Sol, a spin-out from Cardiff University, which manufactures Welsh slate-looking tiles, which are suitable for both listed and heritage buildings.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

That is a very interesting point. It is worth making the point also that a number of British companies are assembling some of the solar panels imported from China. I agree that we need to look at all these areas.

In relation to the GB Energy Bill, the noble Baroness will know it is not our intent to place in the Bill the exact amount of energy generation we require from each source. That will be a matter for the GBE board in light of the Government’s overall priority-setting towards clean power and net zero.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have had solar panels on my roof for many years. There is a local town in Devon near Exeter—Cranbrook—which is growing vastly and does not have a single solar panel on any of the buildings, and there are thousands of houses and other buildings. Can the Minister make sure that cannot happen again?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am intrigued, my Lords, to learn as to why there should be a desert in a particular part of the noble and learned Baroness’s county. Certainly, if she would like to send me more details, I will have a look at it.

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have pushed for solar panels on roofs, but they have not got a strategy on batteries associated with those panels—it seems to be left up to the individuals. Can the Government say whether they are going to bring forward a storage strategy linked to solar panels?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, storage is of course important. If you apply to have a solar panel, you are usually asked whether you wish to opt for battery or not. This is part of the work that the Solar Taskforce will take forward.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the Government clearly believe it to be of great strategic national interest to get so many solar panels built in a very space of time. As for heat pumps, a tiny fraction of heat pumps were actually built in this country—that was the last Government’s obsession. This Government want to massively expand the use of solar panels. How is the Minister going to ensure that, between now and 2030, the majority of solar panels will be built in this country? How will he also ensure that they are not filled with Chinese chips?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, of course, I cannot guarantee that the majority of solar panels between now and 2030 are going to be built in this country. What I can assure noble Lords is that, as part of the work we are taking forward, we will look at the UK supply chain. However, the essential point here is that we must strive towards clean power. I do not discount the positive impact of heat pumps. The Government, in their warm homes plan, are as committed to heat pumps as they are to solar.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, one of the best ways of increasing solar panels on the roof is to incentivise people to put excess capacity over their own usage requirements. What assessment have the Government made of peer-to-peer trading arrangements, which would allow people to sell their excess to their neighbours at a price higher than the smart export guarantee but lower than the retail price? I hope the noble Lord will agree that would be a win-win situation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord has raised this with me, and I think mentioned it at Second Reading of the GBE Bill, so we are giving it consideration. Of course, one should say that in terms of the incentives for people to invest in solar panels, we already have the smart export guarantee, which is a payment for excess electricity generated. However, as part of the warm homes plan, we are looking at the role of incentives and the use of private finance to find a way to help people with the upfront cost, which—even though solar is cheaper than other renewable energies—is always one of the main problems in relation to people being able to invest in their own solar panels.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seeks to delete Clause 1(4). It is worth looking at that subsection. It says:

“For the purposes of this Act, a product presents a risk if, when used for the purpose for which it is intended or under conditions which can reasonably be foreseen, it could … endanger the health or safety of persons”


or of domestic animals—I paraphrase—

“property (including the operability of other products), or … cause, or be susceptible to, electromagnetic disturbance”.

That is a bit beyond my knowledge grade.

I looked at this provision and it really is very broad. Where does it end? We say that the provision must be removed because it provides excessively broad powers to the Secretary of State to address things we simply know nothing about. It comes, of course, under the skeleton legislation; I have already made my points about the problems with that.

The definition of risk here has the potential to be so expansive that nearly any product, except an aircraft or certain other things which my noble friend has just identified, could be construed as presenting a risk under certain circumstances. A motor car can be perfectly safe and wonderfully designed but, if driven too fast or just badly in some other way, it will of course endanger life. That happens every other day. The same applies to a whole raft of mechanical tools and instruments—anything one wants to think about. If misused, they will cause danger.

If we have at some time in the future a Government who feel very strongly about something which, at the moment, none of us object to, they will be able to address that by secondary legislation, which will not be ultra vires—outside the scope of the legislation. It can do almost anything. We can all think of almost anything that we use at home, such as a power drill or a stepladder. If you misuse and fall off that, you break your skull. It could be motor cars or anything. This is absolutely absurd and far too broad.

If the Government want to legislate to say that motor cars must have a speed restriction, or must have brakes which do this or that, they should do that with specific regulation under specific legislation directed at that target, because Parliament has said, “We’ve had far too many accidents of this sort. We’ve got to address it”. That is the normal process we have as society develops, but a clause of this sort is just extraordinary. It really is Brave New World stuff.

Our complaint is simply that the broad scope of this definition could, in future, empower regulators to impose unnecessary restrictions on products where the risks are minimal or purely hypothetical—and certainly not within the scope of the imaginations of those of us in this Room—because somebody comes along, or a Government come along, in five years’ time and decides that they want to deal with it. Rather than having an embarrassing and difficult debate in Parliament, the Minister just has his way. That is not how we proceed in this country. We are a parliamentary democracy under, as we have been told, the rule of law. We would suggest that the Government have already attacked businesses, high-street retailers and farmers. Will these relentless, unidentified attacks on businesses ever stop? This provision, like others, risks creating legal uncertainty and regulatory overreach. We really must put a stop to it.

I say again that Clauses 1 and 2, as they stand, must be significantly revised or removed entirely, or the promise remains that we will move for them to be removed on Report.

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this particularly interesting debate. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his new position. I must say, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Sandhurst, seem to have undergone a conversion, certainly since the former’s time in the Department for Business. I have not been able yet to count the number of regulations in primary legislation that the noble Lord took through but, given that he was a Home Office Minister and given the Home Office’s—how shall I put it?—productive record in producing legislation in Parliament, I hasten to suggest that it was quite a few.

Clearly, behind that is an important consideration about the shape of the Bill and why we need a regulation-making power. On the other hand, the Government would say to noble Lords that the intention is to use those regulations proportionately on the back of the policy consultation that has just taken place. We see here, in a sense, a tension between those noble Lords who wish to make sure that the legislation covers areas of concern—we have heard about the areas of concern for the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Fox—and those noble Lords who feel that the regulation, or the power given here to Ministers through regulation, goes too wide. Clearly, a balance needs to be drawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

There is no dichotomy. We do think that the powers are too wide but part of what we want to do is channel those powers by making the sort of suggestions to which the Minister just referred.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I was hoping to assure the noble Lord that the way the Bill is constructed should give him comfort in relation both to the issues he has raised around safety and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Clearly, we think that consumer safety is very important. It is central to the Bill and a key component of our product regulation.

The Bill as drafted seeks to uphold a high standard of consumer protection and guarantees that the risks associated with products are minimised; Clause 118 provides for this. Although some products have risks that may be reduced through improvements to the design or clear warnings, others may be so dangerous that they should never be allowed to be sold in the first place. Baby self-feeding pillows are an example of this. They were recalled by the Office for Product Safety & Standards in 2022 due to the fact that the risks they presented could not be mitigated.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to Clause 1(1)(a), which refers to “reducing or mitigating risks”. We believe that that wording puts safety at the heart of the Bill while permitting regulations to acknowledge the wider spectrum of risk. This concept of a wider spectrum of risk covers the point that the noble Lord was trying to make.

That really is the same response as the one to Amendment 10, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred—essentially, how the Bill explains the term “risk”. My noble friend Lord Leong explained how the Bill puts product safety, and reducing the risks associated with it, at its heart. That includes risks to the health and safety of persons, and Clause 10 makes it clear that “health” can refer to the physical or mental health of a person.

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was saying. He was concerned about the wide scope of the Bill, particularly Clause 1(4). However, in a sense, we have to capture in the Bill a definition wide enough to allow us to deal with some of the circumstances that noble Lords have raised. The aim is to be comprehensive but also proportionate. The noble Lord said that the Minister could just do this willy-nilly, but the fact is that regulations have to go through Parliament. He knows that in your Lordships’ House, one Member, even on a statutory instrument under the negative procedure, can ensure that a debate takes place. To come back to the words he used, at the very least for Ministers that can be a challenging and extensive process. A regulation will not be produced without full consultation as well. I would therefore argue that this is not an overweening power of the Executive; it is a sensible balance whereby we try to set out a broad enough definition to cover the kind of risks that noble Lords are concerned about. However, because it has to go through a parliamentary process and a consultation process before that, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that any future Government or Ministers are not overriding in the way that the noble Lord suggested.

Clause 1(4) also ensures that damage to property is also included within the meaning of risk, meaning that regulations made under the Bill can be made for the purposes of mitigating risks to property, including the operability of other products. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, therefore, that the Bill captures the spectrum of risks that products may present to the health and safety of people and their property.

I also emphasise that not every element of our product safety framework is focused entirely on safety in the traditional sense. Our current regulatory framework covers a wide range of topics. This includes the use of radio spectrum, the ergonomics of protective gear and noise emissions from some outdoor machinery, such as concrete breakers and lawn-mowers. A number of our existing regulations, such as those covering fireworks and pressure equipment, also cover risks to domestic animals. By the way, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that that is why domestic animals are mentioned in the clause; it is also for this reason that we cover the interoperability of products and their susceptibility to electromagnetic disturbance, along with the risks to domestic animals, as I said.

Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would create in the Bill a category of high-risk products where regulations can apply across the board. He worries that the Bill is too discretionary. I understand where he is coming from.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Just for absolute clarity, I did not say that the Bill was too discretionary; I said that the current arrangements were too discretionary and I want a change from that situation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am sorry if I misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, but I get his drift. We believe that the operation of our current product regulation framework already recognises the point that he made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I apologise but I am not quite sure what the Minister’s concern about my amendment therefore is. It specifically suggests that we put into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to choose to bring forward regulations that will enable the classification of high-risk products in the way that he has just described. They are all included, including the recently developed framework, as possible ways of doing that within the amendment. I genuinely do not understand the Minister’s argument. I am giving an opportunity for clarity—so that in all circumstances there is an opportunity to use that framework.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We do not think it is necessary.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Why?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will let me explain, Clauses 1 and 11 grant powers to make regulations relating to product safety for a range of purposes, general or specific. The Government have set out in their response to the product safety review our intention in the months ahead to begin a process of sector reviews. They will consider whether any changes are needed to our existing regulation of higher-risk products to reflect modern challenges, such as those that the noble Lord has pointed out in two speeches this afternoon. We will also consider whether updates to the GPSR are necessary to ensure that cross-cutting and emerging risks are properly addressed, particularly where products fall outside current sector-specific rules.

Furthermore, in December 2022, the Office for Product Safety & Standards developed a product safety risk assessment methodology for GB regulators to use with non-compliant products. The methodology requires consideration of the tolerability of the risk identified. Where a risk is intolerable, a regulator can act robustly in relation to risks that may have a low possibility of occurring, but where, if they did, the outcome would be disastrous. A noteworthy example is the effort made by the Office for Product Safety & Standards to protect young people from the dangers of ingesting small, powerful magnets.

In Amendment 95 the noble Lord, Lord Fox, makes the sensible point that safe disposal can be a key part of protecting consumers and businesses. Clause 1(5) makes clear that regulations can cover safe disposal of products. We will consider whether particular products need specific regulation in this area on a case-by-case basis.

On the disposal of batteries specifically, the Government are committed to cracking down on waste as we move toward a circular economy. We shall have a discussion on the circular economy—I was going to say “in a few minutes”, but that might be a little hopeful. We are reviewing and propose to consult on reforms to UK batteries regulation before setting out our next steps.

Finally, regarding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on the Schedule to the Bill, the things mentioned in the exclusions are covered by separate legislation. It is as simple as that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s indulgence; I have a straightforward question regarding Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. The Minister has answered it thoroughly but I still do not understand. What else would the Government be doing, in looking at the efficacy of product safety, that is not already in the amendment? Surely the noble Lord’s amendment merely formalises actions with regard to product safety that the Government themselves would do in analysing what they need to do to protect consumers. I cannot understand the Minister’s resistance to at least being a bit more emollient towards what seems to me quite a sensible amendment.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that is surprising support from the noble Lord, Lord Foster. This is an iterative process in Committee, and we are certainly always prepared to look at suggestions put forward. My response is simply that we think the Bill as it stands, and the reviews that will take place, cover the points he raises. The Attorney-General’s advice also suggests that we should not unnecessarily add to legislation, but we will give it some consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting mini debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their amendments. I want to remark on the miraculous conversion to regulatory purity of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I can only refer to Luke, chapter 15, which states that

“joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over 90 and nine just persons, which need no repentance”.

I am not a crazed zealot but perhaps in my case, with due acknowledgement to St Augustine, “Oh Lord, make me regulatory pure, but not quite yet.”

We have encapsulated a very interesting debate because I think we all accept the really important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. On the other hand, there are issues about the wording of the amendment and the unintended consequences, alongside the fact that we believe that current legislation allows us to do what both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would require us to do.

Amendments 30, 115 and 125 are intended to reduce waste. They promote recyclability, repair and reuse of products, and seek to mandate that all product regulations made under the Bill would require an environmental impact assessment and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy. Amendment 50 of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to achieve similar by making it a requirement that regulations made under the Bill include provisions to promote circular economy principles. The noble Baroness’s amendment then goes a step further, requiring the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such principles within 12 months, and to review and update that guidance at least once every three years.

Under the duty set out in the Environment Act 2021, Ministers and policymakers must already consider the environmental impact of all new government policies. I certainly empathise with the whole concept of the circular economy, on which both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke with such eloquence. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set the reduction of waste by moving to a circular economy as one of Defra’s top five priorities. In fact, the Secretary of State has convened a small ministerial group on the circular economy and asked his department to work with experts from industry and academia to develop a circular economy strategy. I will feed this debate and noble Lords’ contributions into the ministerial task force.

I understand the importance of the right to repair. The product regulations made under the Bill will cover many types of products, some of which may be inappropriate to repair. That is really part of the point; for instance, cosmetics is one example—the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 introduced measures including requirements for repairability for the first time in Great Britain. Those regulations contribute towards circular economy objectives by increasing the lifespan, maintenance and waste handling of energy-related products. Our aim is to introduce further right to repair measures when regulating individual products under the ecodesign for energy-related products regulations, where appropriate. That is probably the best way in which to approach it, rather than putting a generic requirement in this piece of legislation.

With regard to Amendments 5 and 28, I reassure noble Lords that the provisions in the Bill do not prevent the UK introducing new environmental regulations. Should we wish to set out broader regulations that exceed or differ from EU rules, we already have powers under other legislation to introduce wider environmental protection rules.

I understand the desire of noble Lords to have something in the Bill in relation to these important issues, but there is a problem of imposing requirements where they cannot reasonably be met or duplicate existing policies. I know that is not the intention, but we think that would be the effect of the amendments before us. We clearly want to avoid conflicting or duplicating regulations. In essence, we agree with the principles put forward by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. We think we are covered by existing legislation and regulations, but I am grateful to them for bringing them forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords who have taken part in this time-constrained debate. I take some encouragement from the expressions of at least general support. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I look forward to further discussions with the Minister on this issue. That is part of the reason why I tabled a number of amendments taking different approaches and going into different parts of the Bill because of the different ways of approaching it. We are very open to anything that might put in some kind of guard-rail.

If I may say so, the Minister gave a classic Civil Service response: “But it is covered by other legislation”. I point him to the figures I cited about how little progress has been made on waste reduction towards a target that is only three years away. What we are doing now is clearly not enough, and it is not working.

We are talking about the product regulation Bill, and on the point about right to repair and cosmetics, there are obviously different rules to be applied to different products. That is true of any Bill that covers product regulation.

I wish briefly to pick up the points made the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who suggested that these amendments might produce a further burden on consumers. If consumers found that their fridge lasted longer, for the kind of period that fridges used to last, that would be not a burden but a considerable advantage. If they were able to fix their mobile phone instead of having to pay a multinational company a large sum of money for a new one, that would certainly not be a burden on consumers. It would perhaps be a rebalancing of the Government acting in the interests of consumers rather than those of giant multinational producers.

We can see clearly that this is a debate that will continue, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I say at once that I pay due regard to the Civil Service and the advice I receive, but these are the words of Ministers. There is a judgment here that you do not want to add legislation where you already have it. The point the noble Baroness makes is that the legislation is not being used effectively. The whole point of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’s task force is to look at the progress we are making and to refocus in relation to the circular economy. I hope the noble Baroness will not think that this is a damp squib of an answer because we take what she says very seriously. Of course, we will be happy to meet her and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to discuss this important matter further.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that my fridge is more than 20 years old, and I have a very good mobile-phone repairer.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open the debate on the Great British Energy Bill and to welcome the interest shown by so many noble Lords. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett. It is almost impossible to do justice to her remarkable career and her service to the country and my own party. It is a long time ago, but I particularly valued the discussions I had with her when she was shadow Health Secretary. I wish her a long and happy membership of your Lordships’ House.

I welcome too the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay; he comes to this House with considerable experience in the other place. He earned the admiration of so many people in the country and in Parliament for his brave battle following sepsis. He is very welcome to your Lordships’ House and we look forward to what he has to say.

Our country faces huge challenges, more than two years on from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as families continue to pay the price for Britain’s energy insecurity. At the same time, we are confronted by the impacts of the climate crisis all around us, not as a future threat but as a present reality.

On climate change, human activity has already resulted in warming of 1.3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, leading to widespread impacts on people and nature. Professor Penny Endersby, chief executive of the Met Office, has made it clear that if we do not limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we will see many more weather and climate extremes, including loss of food, water and energy security, leading to increased global conflict, so we have to act fast to reduce emissions to get to net zero. The pace of that reduction is as important as the eventual date when net zero is achieved, because it is cumulative emissions which determine global temperature rises. As the Climate Change Committee has said:

“The faster we get off fossil fuels, the more secure we become”.


That is why the Government’s mission is to make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering a decarbonised power sector by 2030 as part of an acceleration to net zero. In the first four and a half months of the new Government, we have: lifted the ban on onshore wind; consented some major solar farm developments; agreed major developments in carbon capture, usage and storage; signalled our support for the role of nuclear power as an essential baseload for our electricity generation; conducted a hugely successful allocation round, which delivered a record number of new clean energy projects; announced funding of carbon capture, utilisation and storage; signalled reforms to the planning system and the grid to speed up consent connections; and launched Great British Energy.

We see Great British Energy as a new way of doing things at the heart of our clean power mission. It is a new, publicly owned and operationally independent clean energy company, designed to drive clean energy deployment to create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefit of clean, secure homegrown energy. Headquartered in Aberdeen, with branches in Glasgow and Edinburgh, it will own, manage and operate clean energy projects across the country, generating abundant homegrown electricity and accelerating the energy transition. Backed by a capitalisation of £8.3 billion of new money over this Parliament, Great British Energy will work in partnership with the private sector, local authorities and communities to spread skilled jobs and investment across the country.

We have published Great British Energy’s founding statement and announced its first major partnership, with the Crown Estate, to exploit our offshore wind asset. Progressing the Great British Energy Bill to Royal Assent is the next stage of GBE’s journey, giving it the statutory footing needed to deliver on our ambitions.

The Bill itself draws on best practice from previous legislation, including the Great British Nuclear provisions in the Energy Act 2023, and the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, which have set up successful government companies. The Bill is drafted deliberately to give GBE the flexibility and independence that it needs to carry out its functions and achieve its objectives over time, giving it space to develop and grow. It is focused solely on making the necessary provisions to support the company, provide the finance and set the appropriate guardrails to ensure that it delivers on the Government’s ambitions.

The Bill underpins the wider programme needed to deliver both Great British Energy and our wider mission to establish the UK as a clean energy superpower. The founding statement for GBE confirms that the company will have five key functions to support this:  first, project investment and ownership, by investing in energy projects alongside the private sector, helping to get them off the ground; secondly, project development, by leading projects through development stages to speed up their delivery while capturing more value for the British public; thirdly, local power plans that support local renewable energy generation projects through working with local authorities, combined authorities and communities across the UK; fourthly, building supply chains across the UK, boosting energy independence and creating jobs; and, fifthly, exploring how GBE and Great British Nuclear will work together.

Great British Energy will be accountable to Parliament. It will be overseen by an independent board and benefit from industry-leading expertise and experience. The appointment of Jürgen Maier, the former CEO of Siemens UK, as start-up chair exemplifies this; he brings a wealth of experience to the GBE board. His background, in a variety of roles across sectors, positions him to drive GBE’s mission to innovate and to expand the UK’s clean energy capabilities.

The case for GBE is simple: it will speed up the delivery of the clean energy we urgently need. The only way to protect families from the risk of future price shocks is to accelerate the transition away from volatile fossil fuels and towards clean energy. GBE will mobilise and crowd in investment from the private sector, and it will invest in technologies such as wind, solar, tidal, hydrogen, nuclear, and carbon capture. In the October spending review, the Chancellor announced £25 million to establish the company, with a further £100 million of capital funding to spend in 2025-26 so that GBE can get to work. By backing clean energy projects up and down the country, GBE will help to build a new era of energy independence, firmly establishing us as a clean energy superpower.

GBE will ensure investment in clean energy and create good jobs across the country. We have made progress on the rollout of renewables over the last two decades, but the reality is that we have underdelivered on the jobs that should have come with it. GBE will help to support our plan to create the next generation of good jobs, with strong trade unions and decent wages, by joining forces with our national wealth fund and the British jobs bonus, and working hand in hand with industry to build supply chains up and down the country and driving the reindustrialisation of Britain.

Great British Energy will generate a return for the taxpayer and will own, manage and operate clean energy projects around the country.

I will briefly go through the details of the Bill. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to designate a company as Great British Energy, provided that it is “limited by shares” and “wholly owned” by the Crown. A company has already been incorporated for that purpose, so it can be designated as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Clause 2 ensures that Great British Energy is not regarded as a “servant or agent” of the Crown and will be subject to the law in the same way as any other company.

Clause 3 restricts the objects of Great British Energy, providing the framework for it to carry out the functions I mentioned, which are

“facilitating, encouraging and participating in … the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy … the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels … improvements in energy efficiency, and … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to GBE, which is key to unlocking the £8.3 billion committed. Financial assistance to GBE will occur in line with its agreed financial framework and His Majesty’s Treasury’s delegations. Financial assistance may be provided in any form, including grants, loans, guarantees and indemnities, as well as through acquisitions and contracts.

Clause 5 requires the Secretary of State to provide Great British Energy with more detail on where it should prioritise and focus its activities, via a “statement of strategic priorities”. The clause also requires GBE to secure that its articles of association provide for the company to

“publish and act in accordance with strategic plans”—

which must reflect the Secretary of State’s strategic statement—and for it to update those plans whenever the Secretary of State’s strategic statement is revised or replaced.

Clause 6 allows the Secretary of State to direct GBE; for example, in the interests of national security. The Secretary of State is not able to do so until they have consulted GBE and such other persons as they consider appropriate. Any directions given must be published and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State.

Clause 7 ensures that GBE is subject to parliamentary and public transparency by requiring its annual reports and accounts to be laid before Parliament.

Clause 8 sets the territorial extent of the Act and the date on which it will come into force, which is immediately once passed to enable GBE to start delivering benefit for the people of this country.

The Bill will help ensure that every part of the UK has a role to play in delivering energy independence for our country. With GBE, we will harness the UK’s clean energy potential and ensure we are never again at the mercy of volatile global fossil fuel markets. It will speed up delivery and drive investment. It will create good jobs and build supply chains. It will protect family finances and ensure energy security, reaping the benefits for all. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this—yet again—very interesting debate about energy, climate change and the future. I particularly welcome the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Beckett; her emphasis on UK climate leadership was particularly welcome, and hospital passes are something I certainly know a bit about. I was also very moved by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay. I echo his tribute to the Sepsis UK, with whom I have worked in the past, and I am glad he was able to meet the Secretary of State. I certainly agree with him about the importance of Parliament being able to scrutinise energy policy and I look forward to his further engagement in these debates.

The noble Lord made a reference to what was happening globally. I would say, though, that the International Energy Agency has shown very recently in its Renewables 2024 report that there will actually be a massive—2.7 times—increase in renewables leading up to 2030. It is clear that countries are not turning away from it. It is also clear that there is a global renaissance in nuclear energy, in which the UK will play a full part. This is the fourth time I have said this, because the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asks the same question each time. What more can I do to say that nuclear is a very important part of what we are developing in the future, in terms of low-carbon and clean energy?

I think my noble friend Lord Grantchester and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, really said it: in this area, government intervention is essential, and the link to climate change is absolutely critical here. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was so right: we are talking about the survival of the human race—nothing less than that.

[A noble Lord]

No we are not.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We are. There is always going—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I tabled a Question some time ago to ask the Government whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science or any science collected by the IPCC which suggested that there would be extinction of the human race if we did nothing worldwide—not as much as we are doing now, but nothing—and they said that there is no such peer-reviewed science. Why does the Minister rely on alarmism?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not alarmist at all. I rely on report after report showing the consequences. Shall we turn to our own independent Climate Change Committee? The noble Lord supported the Conservative Government over a 14-year period. I did not see that Conservative Government disowning the independent advice they had received. He might as an individual, but I do not think his Government did. Noble Lords opposite, when they run down organisations such as the Climate Change Committee—or, indeed, the OBR, as they seem to now—need to remember that they listened to and reflected on the advice of those bodies during that 14-year period.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that if climate change is critical, energy security comes a close second. That is, of course, what makes the Bill so important, so I hear what noble Lords are saying. The noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Duncan and Lord Bourne, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield and Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Hanworth, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a number of other noble Lords have commented on the structure of the Bill, with concerns about a lack of detail and questions about the accountability of GBE to Parliament, how it is to be reviewed, and its relationship with the national wealth fund, Great British Nuclear, the Crown Estate, NESO, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned, the Climate Change Committee.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the fact that GBE is going to be headquartered in Scotland of course does not inhibit its UK-wide responsibilities. I have noted what he had to say about investment in Wales.

However, I accept that there are a number of organisations here and I will take it upon myself to write to noble Lords, setting out how we think the relationships will work together, as I think that will inform our discussions in Committee. On the structure of the Bill, noble Lords will know that this was laid in the Commons very soon after the election as an early priority of the Government. Because of that, we have focused, inevitably, on the provisions that are fundamental to the establishment of Great British Energy. Clearly, we are still working through some of the policy issues on which we need to come to a view, including, of course, discussing them with GBE and the devolved Governments. That is why the Bill, to an extent, does not have the detail which noble Lords wish to see.

However, I have listened very carefully. We will come to Committee, and I hope I can respond constructively to some of the issues that noble Lords have raised. Equally, I want to ensure that GBE is operationally independent and able to make its own decisions within the structure of the Bill and the strategic priorities laid down by the Secretary of State. We are listening very carefully to what noble Lords have to say.

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, last week in our debate on energy, I fully accept that our drive towards clean power by 2030 is but one aspect of the decarbonisation of society in this country and the move to net zero. In relation to transport, heating and industrial processes, this is a huge challenge and one which we are committed to achieving. The noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about the clean power target. There are a number of different ways of reading the report from NESO, but it is quite clear that the number one message from NESO was that it is possible to build, connect and operate a clean power system for Great Britain by 2030 while maintain security of supply. I accept that it is very challenging—there is no doubt whatever about that—and the NESO report contains a number of those challenges. However, this is independent advice; it says that it can be done and we believe it can be done. It is very challenging, but it is doable.

On cost, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the biggest cost is doing nothing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the Climate Change Committee has said that the net cost of transition will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050. The OBR has highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts and that acting early could

“halve the … cost of getting to net zero by 2050 compared to acting late”.

I noted also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this.

I come to the Bill itself. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised that we have partly used the UKIB legislation as a model for some of the clauses in this Bill. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were particularly focused on the make-up of the board of directors. The fact is that we have brought in clauses from the Great British Nuclear provisions in the Energy Act. The structure very much follows that. We do not think that it was necessary to put into primary legislation provisions in relation to the board, because this will be covered. It is a company, and so will be encompassed within company law, the code of practice and sound corporate governance. GBE will have a chair and a chief executive officer, both of whom will be accountable to Ministers. It will have a board of directors that follows sound corporate governance practice, including the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code and those published by the Financial Reporting Council.

We want GBE and the national wealth fund to work closely together. As Great British Energy scales up, we will set out how the two institutions will collaborate and complement each other. On the issue of crowding out investment, surely my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was right. The whole point about GBE is to speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies but with a focus on where this can complement existing private sector activities.

I must say that the references that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made to HS2 and the Post Office were a bit rich, considering the record of the Conservative Government’s stewardship, or not, over 14 years.

I will come on to Clause 3, the objects, which has drawn quite a lot of comment. I say to my noble friends Lady Winterton and Lord Grantchester and to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Naseby, among others, that emerging technologies such as CCUS or hydrogen could be very much part of GBE’s portfolio once it is operational. I noted the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on waste. On Drax, we had a good run on that a couple of weeks ago, although I may not have convinced noble Lords of the Government’s position. I look forward to discussing storage with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on the potential of floating offshore wind.

We, of course, are reluctant to see a list of technologies. Noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench will be readily aware of the list argument, and it is well taken. If you list, you are at risk of excluding other technologies. One must be very careful not to constrain the ability of GBE in its operational independence and its ability to spot the technologies that need supporting. I do accept, with my noble friend Lady Young, that community energy has huge potential in itself and as a way to leverage public support generally for the kinds of changes that we need to see happen. We certainly believe that GBE will deliver a step change in investment in local community energy projects and will work strongly in partnership with local authorities and community groups to deliver this. I know that local authorities would welcome a much stronger partnership to enable this to happen. I take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Young about biodiversity. I look forward to discussing that further with them and in Committee.

I come now to my favourite topic: nuclear energy. First, we want to make sure that GBN can carry on with its work—the technology appraisal of the shortlisted technologies for the SMR programme is particularly important—and that it will work in complementary ways to GBE without there being duplication of effort. I picked up the important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that nuclear power is not being underprioritised in my department. I need no persuading of the importance of nuclear energy. It acts as the essential baseload, and when it is aligned with gas that, in future, will be abated by CCUS, we will have the right balance to complement the intermittency of renewable energies.

On nuclear and resources, we have just announced a huge resource allocation to Sizewell C to get it over the next two years. We are working very fast towards final investment decisions over the next few months; we have the SMR programme and we are very excited by the potential of AMRs. I very much take what my noble friend Lady Winterton said about the potential of SMR manufacturing in the UK.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the grid and planning and what they described as the roadblocks to developers. I very much take that point. We have already signalled, in parallel with GBE, our intention to reform the planning system to enhance our grid connections. I take the point about the delays to the connection which developers are suffering at the moment. Clearly, we have to do something about that, but GBE’s main priority will be to help developers get through some of the roadblocks and focus on the energies that need support.

I noted with interest the comments the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made about the impact on farmers and on fishing fleets. I accept that consultation and environmental assessments must continue to be made in any more streamlined planning process and expansion of the grid.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of state subsidies and competition law. As an operationally independent company, GBE will be subject to the same legal and regulatory framework as other entities in relation to subsidy control and competition law, such as the Subsidy Control Act 2022. The Bill does not alter that framework.

I hear what noble Lords say on Clause 5 in relation to strategic priorities and the statement. It is unlikely that we will have published the statement of strategic priorities before Royal Assent, but I have listened to what noble Lords have said. I will reflect on that and I am sure we will discuss it further in Committee. Noble Lords seem to be indicating that they would like to discuss it in Committee.

On power of direction, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was particularly assertive that the Secretary of State would wish to take almost micromanagement control. I assure him that that is not the intention. It is a backstop, reserve power.

On the annual accounts and reports, there will, of course, be accountability. The chief executive officer will be the accounting officer. The National Audit Office will oversee. Ministers will answer to Parliament. Select Committees can invite GBE in to give evidence. Noble Lords will debate. We will have Questions and more general debates.

I listened to noble Lords and I understand that they have looked at the UKIB legislation. We will reflect on that, but my noble friend Lady Young is right: there is a balance here between due accountability and not putting a load of bureaucratic micromanagement on this organisation, which is not what we want to happen.

I absolutely agree with noble Lords that we must make the most of the supply chain. I picked up the point about skills and managing the transition in the North Sea.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton—my noble friend, if I may call him that—and I have worked together on these issues. I congratulate him on his work and the huge effort that he has made in Parliament, the influence that he has had on legislation, and the help that he gave me around enforced organ harvesting, particularly in Xinjiang province but in China more generally. At this stage, we expect UK businesses, including GBE, to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. They should not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour. I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about the energy potential of Merseyside, as he suggested, and to discuss the issues that he raised so eloquently.

I have reached the time limit. This has been a very good debate and I am most grateful to noble Lords. I would like to think that contributions were constructive, and I look forward to debating this in Committee.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Drax Power Limited: Ofgem Investigation

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Ofgem’s investigation into Drax Power Limited, which found “Drax misreporting data” and “being unable to provide Ofgem with sufficient evidence … to support the reliability of its profiling data reporting of forestry type”, and what plans they have to ensure that companies receiving public subsidies are not able to claim them without concrete evidence.

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

My Lords, Ofgem’s investigation found that Drax had failed to report data accurately. Data misreporting is a serious matter and the Government expect full compliance with all regulatory obligations. Drax’s £25 million redress payment underscores the robustness of the regulatory system.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. KPMG was commissioned by Drax to look into the results; this was done in secret at its behest, and it was reported in this week’s issue of Private Eye. It corroborated that Drax had provide inaccurate data to Ofgem and that there was evidence of

“material financial misstatement … fraud or misconduct”.

Therefore, we cannot trust Drax to be honest or to behave honourably. Will the Minister use his good offices to put an end to the enormous subsidy that we pay to Drax on an annual basis, which, according to one of the latest adverts put out by an environment group, is costing every individual in this country £100 a day?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on the issue of data, I have checked with Ofgem. At the moment, it has no reason to think that Drax is not compliant, but it will not hesitate to act if required. On the question of subsidy to Drax, the noble Baroness is referring to the ROC system of subsidies, which the last Government oversaw for many years. The ROC comes to an end in 2027. The last Government issued a consultation on whether there should be transitional subsidy arrangements. We are considering the results of that work at the moment.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Noble Lords will remember the “Panorama” exposé of the illegal sourcing of wood pellets from Canadian forests, a charge vigorously denied at the time by Drax. Our Conservative Government introduced the strict criteria that allowed Ofgem to conclude that there was not “sufficient evidence”. What plans do this Government have to ensure that Ofgem can continue to investigate any company receiving a subsidy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is clearly very important that companies in receipt of the ROC payments—and, indeed, where their biomass electricity generation is classified as low-carbon—are acting according to sustainability criteria. The last Government issued a call for evidence in 2021 and then took two years to publish a strategy, in 2023. On the revision of sustainability criteria, they rather ducked it, saying that they would produce a cross-sector consultation this year, which never happened. We are now working on that. It is clear that sustainability criteria need to be kept up to date. We will ensure that that happens.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I have seen the deeply troubling allegations presented by a staff whistleblower to at least one member of the Drax board. It is troubling reading. They allege outright dishonesty, cover-up, offers of under-the-table bribes and naked threats by some senior Drax executives. Has the Minister seen this evidence, or, as already mentioned, KPMG’s internal investigations following the BBC “Panorama” report on Drax? If not, given the substantial public funding that Drax receives, will he ask to see them?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have seen the media reports, but I have to say to the House that it is the responsibility of Ofgem to make judgments as to whether a company is applying the sustainability criteria. The issue before us today is data information. Clearly, Ofgem found that Drax was not complying with the requirements—hence the redress payment. However, it did not find that Drax was not complying with sustainability criteria.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, given the amount of private money that has been spent in this area, is it not important for Ofgem to be rather more ahead of the curve on these issues? I notice in the report that Drax is now going to have external audit. Why did it not have this before? More importantly, why does not Ofgem get off its backside and go to the United States and Canada to check these items out for itself? Is it about to do that?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, it is not for Ministers to tell Ofgem how to regulate; we have to rely on its rigorous approach. Secondly, in the US and Canada, we depend on the rigorousness of the regulators locally. Ofgem’s job is to ensure that, as a whole, sustainability criteria are correct. I do not believe that it would be fair to say that Ofgem is not doing a thorough job. That is not my experience.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is clear that this Government know that what is coming from Drax is not renewable energy. At the moment, every single energy bill payer in Britain pays Drax for renewable energy. It is not renewable; the company emits 12 million tonnes of carbon a year. The Government know that and choose to allow international regulations to cover it up.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not recognise what the noble Baroness says. It is true that Drax is an emitter of carbon but that is offset—netted off—by the new forestry growth that takes place and absorbs the carbon. This is not a fanciful notion by the Government; the International Energy Agency, the IPCC and the Committee on Climate Change all accept that biomass, as long as sustainability criteria are applied and accepted, is in that way a low-carbon renewable energy.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is not the problem, as the noble Baroness has said, that the idea that cutting down trees in North America and California, turning them into pellets, dragging them across the Atlantic Ocean using diesel-powered ships, shipping them across the country and then burning them at Drax is somehow saving the planet is mad?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that it sometimes sounds counterintuitive. None the less, the carbon emitted during the supply-chain process, and in the process at Drax and places like it, is netted off by the growth in forestry, which absorbs the carbon. That is a well-accepted international approach. It produces 2.6 gigawatts at Drax, 4% of our electricity generation in this country, with over 2,500 people employed in the local region, and it is classified as renewable.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have introduced further environmental levies, which the OBR predicts will add an additional £2.8 billion to electricity bills between 2025 and 2030. Can the Minister please explain what support the Government will offer to consumers so they are not adversely affected by this move?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I remind the noble Lord that policy costs on bills have increased from £115 on average in 2010 to an estimated £309 in 2024, so a lot of this increase occurred under his Government and the previous Conservative and Lib Dem Administrations. If we are serious about going towards clean power and net zero then we have to accept that we must finance the development of new energy-generating structures, and that is the case for biomass. Equally, that has to be done under sustainability criteria regulations that will ensure it happens. As for the OBR, its analysis has highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is this not a case of the regulators letting down the public again? Do we not need to have more accountability for our regulators? I suggest that each regulator has to produce an annual report that goes to a committee of the House of Commons, so that we can review what they are doing. At the moment, they are badly letting us down.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that, by implication, my noble friend is being critical of Ofgem, but I must say that that is not my experience. Ofgem is actually a rigorous regulator. It produces an annual report, and of course it would appear before a Select Committee if required.