Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes amendments to the UK emissions trading scheme, including expanding its scope to cover CO2 venting for upstream oil and gas operations, lowering the emissions cap and introducing new penalties alongside a flexible reserve mechanism. It is crucial that industries and communities affected by these changes receive the necessary support during the transition period.

The amendments introduced by this order significantly expand the UK ETS. Notably, it will now cover CO2 venting from upstream oil and gas operations, requiring companies in this sector to purchase allowances for their emissions. The adjustment of the emissions cap ensures that the allowances for companies to buy in 2025 will be reduced by 12.4%. By 2027, the number of allowances will fall by 45%, ultimately reaching a 70% reduction by 2030.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the introduction of new penalties and a deficit notice in this instrument—fines for non-compliance linked to the carbon price, obviously designed to incentivise businesses to meet their obligations. How will these penalties be enforced in practice and are they really proportionate, particularly for industries already facing complex and burdensome regulatory frameworks? Additionally, the establishment of a flexible reserve to buffer against market volatility can be seen as a step towards ensuring stability in the carbon market, but can the Minister explain what assurances the Government can give that this mechanism will not inadvertently lead to market manipulation or instability, rather than solving it?

Requiring oil and gas companies to purchase allowances for CO2 venting could significantly increase their operational costs, placing UK producers at a disadvantage compared to international competitors in regions without similar emissions trading schemes. This could lead to carbon leakage. The Government must address how they plan to mitigate such risks.

Another concern is the regulatory burden. The introduction of additional regulations and financial costs tied to purchasing allowances may create a substantial compliance burden, particularly for smaller operators. It is essential that the Government provide clear guidance and support to ensure that businesses can adapt without undue strain.

On investment and mitigation technologies, while the scheme encourages decarbonisation, can the Minister outline how it plans to incentivise and facilitate the scale-up of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies? All these are said to be necessary to keep to the Government’s timetable. Further clarity is needed.

Market price volatility presents an additional challenge. Fluctuating carbon prices expose companies to financial uncertainty. While the flexible reserves aim to stabilise the market, further clarity is needed on how effective this mechanism will be in managing price volatility and ensuring long-term stability.

The introduction of penalties and enforcement provisions raises important questions about fairness and proportionality. Will penalties be applied equally to all operators, or will they be adjusted based on companies’ size or ability to comply? Can the Minister clarify how this will be structured?

It is essential that the Government spell out how they intend to carry through this order without unintended negative consequences for the industry.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on international co-operation on carbon pricing. I certainly accept that, as we transition to net zero, it is important that we work across international borders to drive climate ambition. Under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK Government and the EU agreed to consider linking our respective carbon pricing schemes and to co-operate on carbon pricing. The noble Lord will know that we are working to reset our relationship with the EU and strengthen ties and improve trade and investment relationships with it, including promoting climate, energy and economic security, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market or customs union.

The Prime Minister visited Brussels on 12 December 2024, and the joint statement with President von der Leyen illustrated that the UK and the EU would take forward this agenda of strengthening co-operation at pace over the coming months. As set out in the TCA, carbon pricing remains an area where we will continue to co-operate, and it is right that we will continue to develop the UK ETS to support our climate goals and support sectors in the transition to net zero.

The carbon price within the EU emissions trading scheme is determined by the market, and it is designed this way because competitive markets are likely to deliver the most efficient transition to net zero across the economy. This will give emitters the flexibility as to how they abate their emissions, thereby allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheaper for them to do so.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that, as I said earlier, we are here simply building on the work of his Government in just making a sensible adjustment to make sure that there is no free ride in removing the excess allocation of free allocations, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested. When the production has been ended as part of a decarbonisation programme, allowing them those free allocations recognises that. We do not think that these rules will lead to disproportionate regulation or that there will be potential manipulation of the market.

On oil and gas, I will write to the noble Lord with further details on his specific question.

Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

When one is first appointed to Parliament, one worries about addressing a huge crowd of parliamentarians and being on the telly as well. I am not feeling too nervous today.

I found the Minister’s explanation excellent; I did not understand it particularly from the legislation or the Explanatory Memorandum. I presume that the whole area around potential new gas, in particular combustion power stations, is about aiming for 95% decarbonisation by 2030 rather than 100%, which I understand in terms of pragmatism.

On the areas that I do not really understand, the one that I had not really realised is the hydrogen aspect of these regulations. I find it difficult to understand how one would ever convert a gas power station to a hydrogen power station in a way that would make any economic sense whatever in terms of gas storage coming in and perhaps being used as part of the capacity mechanism. The hydrogen would have to be green hydrogen, which means that it is probably generated by electricity in the first place—so why would one de-convert it through various inefficiency mechanisms for it then to go through a degassed power station? That just does not seem logical to me.

On that, the other risk seems to be that—I am not a technical expert on this, obviously—the conversion from a gas-fired power station to a hydrogen-fired power station is probably not that different, and therefore the cost of conversion, or of being hydrogen-ready, is not very great. Carbon capture and storage, however, is a major conversion and, presumably, it has to be near facilities that can store carbon: either a carbon pipeline, which we went through all the legislation for in the last Energy Act, or something on the coast, so it can go undersea. So I ask the Minister: is this effectively another loophole like the one that already exists, in that new combustion stations just say that they are hydrogen-ready? In terms of carbon capture and storage, does that very much restrict where they are?

I have another concern, although I fully accept what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister mentioned energy from waste plants. We all know that, as part of their planning permission, the plants often have to be ready to have heat networks—but this hardly ever happens. Occasionally it does; there are examples of energy from waste being tapped into heat networks. I just feel that there is a risk that these things can be built in a certain way—I do not know how much they have to be ready or near a connection—but in reality they will never happen. Certainly, that tends to be the track record in this area.

I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but, generally, I welcome what the Government are trying to do.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will concentrate on a major area where I feel the Government must provide some clarity: regulatory burden. In doing so, I am of course mindful that it was the previous Government who introduced the initial consultation to expand and update carbon capture readiness requirements, now rebranded as decarbonisation readiness requirements. The immediate effect of these regulations will be felt across electricity generating stations in England, particularly those now required to meet the expanded decarbonisation readiness criteria. Operators will be required to submit a decarbonisation readiness report as part of their environmental permit applications, which must include technical details on the feasibility of carbon capture or hydrogen conversion during electricity generation.

A significant provision in this statutory instrument is the removal of the 300 megawatt minimum capacity threshold, which currently dictates when carbon capture readiness requirements apply. In this amendment, the requirements will apply to both new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants, as well as voluntary applications for existing plants. Additionally, the SI introduces assessments for hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture, usage and storage.

It is incumbent on the Government to outline comprehensively what specific support will be available to businesses as they are required to adjust to these new requirements. Can the Minister assure me that his officials in the department recognise that the onus must be on helping operators achieve compliance rather than face an undue burden? Will he outline whether exemptions have been considered—for example, for smaller or older power plants that may face specific challenges in meeting the requirements on day 1? There is a fine line to be walked between regulation and innovation, and, to use a familiar proverb, there is a real need here to make sure that we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face.

This instrument hands the Environment Agency direct assessment powers over compliance. Again, can the Minister provide the necessary detail on the actions that the agency will take to facilitate a smooth transition before the implementation date of February 2026? Additionally, will there be any further consultations, or will any additional guidance be issued, before the regulations come into effect?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Teverson, for their comments. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I am grateful for his support and for noting the clarity with which we have presented the proposals. In terms of the popularity of debates on energy SIs, we have had more colleagues here in previous debates, but we are presently on a rota of two SIs every Monday, and at some point I hope we might come to a conclusion in relation to that.

Internet Activity: Energy Use

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is in a better position to explain, since that was the position we inherited from his Government. It is our view, as well as that of the Committee on Climate Change, NESO and many other bodies, that the best way to get stability and then reductions in prices is to move fast to clean power.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the stark reality is that the green policies of successive UK Governments, however well-intentioned, have come at a prohibitive cost to the UK economy. The average UK industrial energy price is now five times that of the USA and seven times that of China. The sad reality is that the UK is locked out of the digital revolution in crypto and AI. Does the Minister think there are lessons that can be learned from the new US Administration’s approach to energy supply? Does he agree with me that this is now the time for common sense to prevail? Will he please go to the Department for Energy and persuade his boss to drill, Mili, drill?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the experience in the US will rather depend on the price of oil and gas than on any other intervention. Let me quote the figures. In the AI market, we have 3,000 companies, with £10 billion in revenues, and 60,000 people working in the industry. In data centres, 17,000 people are directly employed, with a total revenue of £4.6 billion a year. These are two very successful industries. Developments are taking place at the moment which will continue in the future. This Government will support them in so doing.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank and express my support for my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose amendments address the matter of subsidised renewable energy technology. Considering that GB Energy is already supported by £8.3 billion, I see no viable reason why it should invest in renewable energy projects that are already substantially supported by government subsidies and funded by the British consumer, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas highlighted. Surely it is essential that the renewable energy industry in the UK is not reliant on government handouts for ever. We must look to create an environment that promotes competition and innovation and mitigates the likelihood of inefficiency.

At present, the Government subsidise low-carbon electricity initiatives through contracts for difference, where they guarantee developers a fixed price for the electricity that they generate. This is funded via a levy on consumer bills and, at the end of last year, the Government were considering holding the largest auction yet in 2025 despite recent scrutiny over consumer energy bills. The British consumer is already burdened by the cost of turning off wind turbines to avoid overloading the power grid; this costs the UK £1 billion a year, with that predicted to rise to more than £3.5 billion in the next decade. Why should the taxpayer be burdened numerous times?

According to the OBR, environmental levies are around £12 billion. This amounts to £400 per household in the UK. Yet the cost of offshore wind is less than current market prices and those agreed in auction rounds. If renewables are supposedly cheaper, I query why we are paying these subsidies in the first place. The truth is that the Government’s clean energy by 2030 agenda will require substantial levels of borrowing, which will be spent on subsidising renewable energy technologies. This rushed target will only cost the consumer more. It will not cover energy bills by the £300 a year promised during the election campaign.

Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost would prevent the Bill being passed until the Secretary of State publishes a report calculating the costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. The amendment raises the issue of transparency. If we are to pass a Bill that is so financially consequential, we must have sight of the Government’s current spending on renewable technologies.

Amendment 118B from my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom would prevent GB Energy investing in a project

“that relies wholly or in part on”

government subsidies. Amendment 129 would prevent the Act being passed until

“the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further Government subsidy for offshore wind developments”.

These three amendments neatly touch on the concerns that I have raised. I ask the Minister to thoroughly consider the worries expressed by my noble friends.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which reflects previous debates in Committee. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, being worried that GBE will invest badly, not make money and invest in speculative projects, which he thought the Treasury might encourage it to do. My experience of the Treasury is that that is not how it works out in practice. Our challenge is encouraging the Treasury to make investment decisions, and the scrutiny with which it approaches this matter can be described as vigorous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving his amendment and all noble Lords who made contributions or comments. Perhaps I may take them thematically, starting with the importance of oversight. As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we on these Benches are in favour of the sentiment of Amendments 122 to 124.

As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the strategic priorities for GB Energy are not included in the Bill. Indeed, we have not had sight of those most important principles; we simply do not have any concrete examples of what GB Energy as a company will be trying to achieve. I must therefore ask the Minister: how can we support the Government if we do not even know what the proposed investment vehicle will put taxpayers’ money into? This House and the other place must have sight of the strategic priorities of GB Energy so that we can assess its goals, what it intends to achieve, how these goals will be achieved, in what order they will be prioritised, and how much money will be spent on those goals and priorities.

I turn to Amendment 125 in my name, which ensures that the Bill cannot come into force until a financial framework document has been laid before Parliament. Much like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am deeply concerned that we have not yet had sight of this most important information. I do not feel it is possible to move forward with the Bill, or GB Energy itself, until we have understood its financial structure. I therefore strongly urge the Government to produce a financial framework for GB Energy and let us examine it.

Amendment 126, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard, requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. The Government are already putting at risk 200,000 jobs in the North Sea oil and gas sector in the UK but, of course, this will hit the city of Aberdeen particularly hard, as it is the centre of the UK domestic oil and gas industry. None of us would object to the Government looking to bring a more diverse range of sovereign energy sources online, but we should not be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs or people’s livelihoods in the process.

The transition to green energy, if it is managed correctly and done in an orderly fashion—not on an artificially accelerated basis—has the opportunity to provide a swathe of new well-paid jobs. We must therefore hold the Government to their word that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs, which is a big number and target. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. That will show noble Lords whether the Government are keeping their word, whether these jobs are created and will be of benefit to Aberdeen, and whether we have indeed seen the transition talked about.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 127 in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard. That amendment will ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We should transition away from the use of fossil fuels and reduce the volume of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, but it must be done in an economical and sustainable manner. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to these concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do listen carefully to what noble Lords have said. Our final debate in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggests, takes us back to some of the early debates and concerns that noble Lords have. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The point he made is that the cost of doing nothing will, in the end, be much more expensive than the cost of net zero. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that sticking to oil and gas is certainly not a free lunch, either. The noble Earl also pointed to the declining reserves in the UK continental shelf. This is a fact of life and why there were losses of jobs in Aberdeen under the previous Government. I will come back to the issue of Aberdeen in a moment.

Clearly, the effect of the amendments will be to defer the commencement of most provisions in the Bill until several requirements have been met. They include the laying before and approval by Parliament of a framework document and statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an outline statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an assessment on the expected impact of the Act on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and the publication of a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already discussed many of these matters in Committee and the Committee will be aware of the Government’s views and intents on this.

Our aim is to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as we can. It is also our clear intention that the statement of strategic priorities cannot be produced without the full involvement of Great British Energy in order to get its expertise, including that of the newly appointed non-executive directors, to inform the statement. This is why we do not believe that we can publish the statement of strategic priorities either during the passage of the Bill or before Royal Assent. Once parliamentary approval is given, we will ensure that we move as quickly as we possibly can to produce the statement.

On accountability, in the end, Ministers will agree with the statement that we are accountable to Parliament. I do not think your Lordships’ House is backward in holding Ministers to account for what they do. We have the Select Committee process, there are numerous opportunities for scrutiny of what we decide in relation to the statement and, of course, the statement is also subject to revision from time to time.

On the framework document, I suppose I can only repeat what I said before. We are committed to producing a framework document. It will, as framework documents do, cover the governance structure, the requirements for reporting and information sharing, and the financial responsibilities and controls. I have given this assurance from the Dispatch Box, so that is a government statement of what is going to happen. The framework document will be extensive and will follow the normal course of action. I hope that assures noble Lords that everything is being done in a proper way and with proper accountability, ensuring that Great British Energy is subject to the appropriate controls—as is only right for a body that is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State for its activities.

We think that it is a very good thing that GBE will be based in Aberdeen; a significant proportion of GBE’s staff will certainly be based there. We think that Aberdeen will benefit from new jobs in the economy created because of GBE’s investment in renewable energy projects. I understand and very much accept the need to ensure, as we have talked about, a just transition for the people involved in the oil and gas sector. We want to do everything we can to enable offshore workers to lead the world in the industries of the future, which is why we are working very hard with businesses, employees and workers to manage our existing fields for the entirety of their lifetime and are putting in place programmes to support a transition. It is interesting that research from Robert Gordon University shows that 90% of oil and gas workers have medium to high transferable skills for offshore renewable jobs; knowing the skills that people who work in the North Sea bring to the jobs they do, that does not surprise me.

This is all I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in relation to President Trump’s decisions: it is interesting that, in his first term, the US actually saw quite a drive into renewable energy. It may be that we will still see the same direction under the new Administration in the end; that is for the US Government to decide. We as a Government are sticking to the Paris Agreement and to the need to get to net zero and clean power as soon as we possibly can.

Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the clean heat market mechanism represents a clumsy attempt by the Government to impose unrealistic and burdensome targets on the heating industry. While the overarching goal of reducing carbon emissions and decarbonising heating in the UK is commendable, the regulatory approach taken here is flawed.

The mechanism requires that major boiler manufacturers—those selling more than 20,000 gas boilers or 1,000 oil boilers annually—must ensure that at least 6% of their sales consist of heat pumps by 2025-26. Although heat pumps, which run on electricity rather than gas, are often hailed as a cleaner alternative, these regulations fail to consider the practical challenges faced by both manufacturers and consumers.

This mechanism promises market certainty, investment in low-carbon technologies and a reduction in heat pump costs through increased competition. However, these lofty claims are undermined by overly ambitious targets, coupled with the Government’s failure to address the considerable barriers faced by consumers. Far from facilitating a smooth transition, these regulations risk causing significant disruption to the industry.

Set to run from April 2025 to March 2029, the scheme faces growing doubts about its ability to meet its long-term target of 600,000 heat pumps sold annually by 2028. This concern is further exacerbated by the fact that heat pump sales remain alarmingly low, with both the National Audit Office and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee warning that current sales levels are far too low to meet the proposed targets.

Returning to the effects of this SI, this initiative imposes stringent sales targets on large boiler manufacturers, forcing them to meet heat pump quotas. If these quotas are not met, manufacturers will face damaging fines, in some cases of £3,000 for every heat pump missed. Although manufacturers can carry forward up to 35% of their annual target to the following year, this strain on the industry cannot be overstated. When the original plans for the CHMM were first announced in 2024, some manufacturers pre-emptively raised their prices to account for the anticipated fines, only to lower them after the previous Conservative Government pragmatically delayed the scheme in March to allow the industry more time to prepare. Will this Government consider doing the same?

Furthermore, it is not only the industry that will face a financial burden from these regulations; the most pressing concern is the significant impact on consumers. Although environmentally beneficial, heat pumps remain expensive for many households, with installation costs ranging from £6,500 to £11,500. This is not just a challenge; it is a significant obstacle. Many families are already struggling with the cost of living, and these regulations threaten to impose yet another financial burden. The Government cannot continue to ignore the stark reality that these high costs will place heat pumps well beyond the reach of many ordinary households unless substantial and sustained financial support is provided.

The burden of financing such an expensive transition should not fall squarely and only on consumers. Despite the grants available through the energy company obligation and the boiler upgrade scheme, which offer up to £7,500 in England and Wales, the high upfront cost of heat pumps remains a significant barrier. This policy risks making a greener future inaccessible to those who need it the most.

Moreover, it is essential to question whether the Government have adequately considered the industry’s capacity to meet these targets. The regulation requires major manufacturers to ensure that a specific proportion of their boiler sales, 6%, consist of heat pumps. However, given that the heat pump market is still in its early stages, with many manufacturers struggling to scale up production, where is the recognition of this challenge?

Lastly, the proposed scheme risks undermining the very people it aims to help. The Government’s approach, imposing fines on manufacturers that fail to meet the sales targets, could lead to price hikes for consumers. There is already evidence that some manufacturers have raised prices, as has been said before, and if that trend continues it will not be the manufacturers that bear the cost; it will simply be passed on to the consumer.

In conclusion, although the Government may be well meaning, the clean heat market mechanism, as it stands, is flawed and could have serious unintended consequences for consumers, manufacturers and the wider heating industry. It is vital that the Government reconsider this approach, provide proper financial support for consumers and work with the industry to ensure that the transition to low-carbon heating is both achievable and affordable.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, says that although he understands the intent behind the regulations, we are clumsy and have overambitious targets. He asks us to repeat his Government’s actions in delaying or not going ahead with implementation. We are not going to do that. We are confident that we have a scheme that is practical. As a new Government, we have engaged in extensive discussions with industry.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was critical of us for reducing the level of the fine. The fact that we have done so shows that we are concerned about ensuring that we introduce this in an evolutionary way, which is why we have started with the fines at the level we have set. We are confident that industry can rise to the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, said that sales of heat pumps were disappointing. I thought he might have said that in the last year, 2024, sales had an encouraging increase. We want to build on that with the incentivisation for householders plus the introduction of potential fines for manufacturers, although overall we think that manufacturers will be able to rise to that challenge.

On the issue of cost, which a number of noble Lords raised, of course heat pumps cost more money than gas boilers, but as when one introduces most new technologies, or extends them, the price will come down. We think it will fall significantly, making pumps a more attractive and affordable options for UK households. As noble Lords have referred to, at the moment we are funding installations to kick-start the market, for example through schemes such as the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes local grant.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked whether non-UK manufacturers of heat pumps could earn and sell credits under the scheme. The intention here is that any manufacturer of heat pumps sold on the UK market acquires credits and can make them available to other parties in the scheme. Of course, there is no obligation on manufacturers to acquire those credits; this is one of the various options available to them. In parallel, the Government are supporting the expansion of UK heat pump manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition. The noble Lord is absolutely right that further legislation would be required to revise targets for future years of the scheme.

The instrument today sets a target for the first year. This would roll over to year 2 if there were no amendment by further legislation. Here, the Government have committed to consult further this year, before setting targets for future years, and then returning to the House if we wanted to change the target. I hope this reassures noble Lords that we are fully engaged with industry. We will obviously discuss the implications carefully before we come back with any further proposals.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 88, 89 and 92, which stand in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard and other distinguished colleagues, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Cameron of Dillington. These amendments, although technical in nature, are vital to ensure that Great British Energy operates with the highest standards of transparency, accountability and good governance. This is not simply a matter of administrative precision; it is the fundamental issue of public trust.

Amendment 88 ensures that GBE files its reporting accounts within the same timeframe required of public companies under Section 442 of the Companies Act 2006. This alignment with established statutory requirements is essential. It demonstrates that GBE, although a public body, will not be afforded preferential treatment or lesser obligations than private enterprises. The public expect and deserve this parity, especially given GBE’s role as a steward of taxpayers’ funds.

Amendment 89 introduces additional requirements for GBE’s annual reporting accounts. Crucially, it provides the Treasury with the flexibility to define additional reporting requirements over time. This ensures that GBE can adapt to evolving priorities and maintain accountability as it grows. It is worth emphasising that comprehensive and transparent reporting is not an administrative burden; it is a cornerstone of effective governance. This amendment guarantees that GBE will meet not only the letter of the law but the spirit of public accountability. By ensuring this level of scrutiny, we are demonstrating a commitment to good governance that transcends political or ideological divides but sends a clear message that public funds and the public interest will always be protected.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this debate, both today and in our deliberations on Monday. It seems quite a long time ago since then, and I am looking forward to a very constructive engagement today and welcome the contributions that all noble Lords are going to make.

Let me say at once that I very much understand the importance of information being provided in order to judge the performance of GBE and of it being held to effective account. There is no disagreement at all between me and other noble Lords on this. Noble Lords will know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained very clearly in her remarks on Monday, that her Amendment 88 requires GBE to file its annual reports and accounts within six months from the end of its accounting reference period. As she said then, and as noble Lords have repeated, this aligns with the Companies Act 2006 for public companies whose shares are publicly traded. Of course I agree that a six-month filing period is appropriate for public companies. Financial markets need up-to-date and timely information on the performance of a company, as do its range of stakeholders and shareholders, to help them make informed decisions when companies are seeking to raise capital.

I also understand why noble Lords wish this discipline to be applied to GBE, but it is a private limited company owned wholly by the Crown. It is not unreasonable for the Government to say that, on that basis, we should be in line with the Companies Acts requirements, which set a nine-month filing period for private limited companies. I should also say that this is an arrangement applied to most government-owned companies: for example, the National Wealth Fund, the National Energy System Operator and the Low Carbon Contracts Company. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about the filing deadline, but it is also the case that the vast majority of these organisations, government-owned companies, file their accounts well in advance of the statutory requirement.

I understand the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made about public interest in Great British Energy, and I welcome that. Indeed, I want GBE to be well-known and seen as spearheading the drive we wish to see in relation to Clause 3 and the statement of priorities in Clause 5. We wish GBE to be as successful as possible.

My point is that, in a sense, what is in statute in relation to the Companies Act is a minimum requirement because, as GBE is owned by the Secretary of State, it will be subject to the usual mechanisms that apply in the public sector. They are put in place to ensure that the public interest is discharged and proper public accountabilities are in place.

On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made an interesting point: one of the concerns some people have is that, because of GBE’s structure and because it is publicly accountable, it will be subject to a considerable number of the controls put in place for bodies that fall within public accountability. The key question is: can we ensure that GBE has sufficient operational independence to perform effectively in its work? There are a number of issues here around the way it will work in future.

I should also say that the annual report and accounts are not the only means of scrutinising the funding allocated to GBE. All funding to GBE must be voted on by Parliament; because of that, it will be scrutinised through the supply and appropriations debates in the other place.

Amendment 89 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes specific topics to be included in the annual reports and accounts of Great British Energy, as well as the granting of an additional power to His Majesty’s Treasury to require further information. I can confirm that much of the proposed content will already be included and publicly available in the annual report and accounts, as required by Clause 7, and will be laid before Parliament. As an example, the financial assistance details under new paragraph (a), proposed by this amendment, will be included in the accounts of GBE. Details are likely to include issued share capital and items on the balance sheet of the company, such as borrowing from government if that method has been utilised.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone were concerned that Great British Energy would need only to follow the provisions of the Companies Act in preparing its annual report and accounts. However, I can assure them that that is not the case. GBE will adhere to the additional reporting requirements for government-owned companies over and above the reporting requirements under the Companies Act. These include the obligation to follow the Treasury’s directions on accounts through the powers extended in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, laid out in the government financial reporting manual and related “Dear Accounting Officer” letters. The most recent of these account direction letters requires bodies to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs, including net resource outturn, the application of resources, changes in taxpayers’ equity and cash flows for the financial year.

Furthermore, GBE will be required to report on its governance around exposure to and risk of climate-related scenarios in its operations, as set out by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Finally, any future funding of GBE will be subject to agreement through a government spending review, or another mechanism, as the Government see fit.

Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes to require the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor of Great British Energy; I think she said on Monday that it is a probing amendment. I am very happy to reassure noble Lords in this case. It is already the case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be the external auditor of Great British Energy. The company will also need to comply with the provisions set out in the Treasury’s Managing Public Money document, which requires the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor for non-departmental public bodies such as Great British Energy. The requirement will also be set out in the framework document for Great British Energy, which we will debate shortly.

Amendment 90A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, seeks to require additional reporting from Great British Energy. Again, I assure her that much of the information that she seeks will be provided in GBE’s annual report and accounts, as a matter of course. The annual report and accounts will include key achievements and milestones, general business information relating to its strategic direction, a review of the company’s performance, challenges and future outlook, as well as financial statements and resourcing levels. It will also include reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

GBE may also make more information available through reporting, such as when projects or investments are announced. We want to set this company up to be transparent and accountable, with a reporting regime appropriate to its company basis and status. The accountability of Ministers to Parliament for its performance will also be in place.

We very much take the point about the need for this organisation to be transparent and accountable. In the light of this debate, I will set out how this all comes together in detail and send a note to noble Lords. I hope that provides some greater reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, in her absence, for her amendments in this group. In fact, this amendment, Amendment 93, ties closely with Amendment 125 in my name, which would ensure that this Bill does not come into force until a financial framework document has been published. Together, these amendments address an essential issue in the governance of GBE: the need for proper financial oversight and clear frameworks that ensure that this body is held accountable. That is the reason why I support Amendment 93 and why it is so critical to the Bill—because it would require the Secretary of State to prepare a framework document that sets out not just the operating principles but the financial principles through which GBE will pursue its strategic objectives.

Without this clear framework, GBE would operate without the financial clarity and accountability required to protect public funds and to ensure that GBE’s financial practices align with the UK’s broader energy strategy. A financial framework is not just a bureaucratic detail; it is fundamental because the energy sector is complex and fast-moving. GB Energy will be responsible for substantial public investment. Without this financial framework, there is a risk of financial mismanagement and inefficiency or lack of transparency. The framework simply provides clear guidelines on budgeting, expenditure, revenue generation and risk management; it also ensures that GBE’s financial decisions align with the Government’s energy and climate goals, such as achieving net-zero emissions and maintaining energy security.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who spoke in her absence. As the noble Baroness raised earlier on in our debates, her amendment inserts an additional clause requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a framework document setting out the principles underpinning the relationship between the Secretary of State, my department and other relevant public bodies and also requires financial and operating principles to be included in that document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I will start with Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. As he said, the amendment focuses on Great British Energy’s relationships with its key stakeholders and would require the company to publish a report every two years detailing its relationship with a number of named public bodies.

As I have already said, we of course expect and want Great British Energy to enter into a number of partnerships or relationships with other public bodies. This will include public bodies beyond those highlighted by the noble Earl, including, for example, those operating in the devolved Administrations—although I agree with him very much about the importance of the relationship with the Crown Estate.

I think it was implied in what I said earlier that we are absolutely certain, as part of the rigorous reporting requirements that the organisation will need to take part in through its annual reports and accounts, that it will report on activities undertaken as part of these partnerships. That seems to me a perfectly sensible request, which I can affirm readily. In view of that, I am not sure that you need a separate report, but we can make it very clear to GBE that we expect it to report on this regularly. We have already publicly committed to setting out how Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund will collaborate and complement each other. I can assure noble Lords that we have made the same commitment on Great British Energy’s relationship with Great British Nuclear.

In terms of Great British Energy’s relationship with Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, again, we would expect GBE to be subject to the same legal and regulatory frameworks as other entities. Clearly, when it comes to the Crown Estate, I readily say that, of course, GBE will report on its relationship, just as the noble Earl said. The Crown Estate will be doing similar, and we hope that there will be a consistency of approach in their reports. I am sure that there will be.

Turning to Amendments 94 and 103, which would require independent reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for putting their names to them. We all agree that Great British Energy needs to be accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering against its objectives and the statement of strategic priorities. The Bill already ensures that GBE will provide regular updates through its annual reports and accounts. These documents will be laid before Parliament, ensuring public accountability. Clause 5 provides that GBE must “act in accordance” with the priorities set out by the Secretary of State. To ensure this, Great British Energy must publish a strategic plan on how it will deliver those priorities, and it will update this plan regularly.

On the question, generally, of a review, I certainly understand the point that noble Lords have made and agree that reviews are important. I am prepared to consider the principle of a review between Committee and Report. I would not want to get into a debate about how regular those reviews should be. It is important that GBE has a good run before it is subject to such a review. Equally, I do not think you want a review happening on a regular annual basis because that would detract from its ability to perform effectively, but I understand the principle of a review. I will take this away without commitment at this stage, but I am happy to talk to noble Lords between now and Report about it.

Coming back to additionality, we obviously agree that it is an important principle, and we would expect Great British Energy to learn from the UKIB/National Wealth Fund approach. Of course, GBE has rather a wider role than the National Wealth Fund, particularly in that it is not just an investor but a developer, and it has an important future role to play in trying to get rid of some of the barriers to investment that we have seen in the energy sector.

Having said that, I think additionality will be covered. Equally, we accept that undertaking reviews from time to time is important. But they should not be done so frequently that they lose impact in what they are there to do. I hope noble Lords will accept that I have tried to be constructive in my response to these amendments.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group, and I thank the Minister for listening to these concerns, which, as always, are to do just with the review and governance of GB Energy for it to be held to rigorous and proper account. I thank the Minister for considering how he deals with this. In the meantime, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to have to take advice on that as I do not have the information. However, if there are regulations which apply to companies, GBE will be expected to comply, and to act consistently with general government policy towards biodiversity. I will write to him about that in some detail.

On community benefits, I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that communities which live near new clean energy infrastructure projects can directly benefit from them. We are considering at the moment how to effectively deliver community benefits for those who live near new energy infrastructure, which includes new energy generation and transmission technology. We are developing guidance on community benefits for electricity transmission network infrastructure and onshore wind, which we will be publishing in due course. We are also reviewing our overall approach to community benefits, both to ensure consistency and quality and to ensure that communities are properly recognised and are able to come with us on our net zero and clean power journey. This includes looking to existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked elsewhere. I look forward to updating the House on our approach to community benefits shortly.

The role of Great British Energy has been set out in its founding statement, and our commitment to putting local communities at the heart of the energy transition is a very strong component of what we are doing. The local power plan will support local communities to take a stake in the shift to net zero, as owners and partners in clean energy projects. They are important in themselves, as there is a huge appetite in many localities for community power, engagement and involvement. I agree that seeing a tangible benefit for local communities is important in itself, but it is also growing general support for the move to clean power and net zero, which is very important indeed.

We take the noble Lord’s point. It is clearly important, we are working on the details and will be publishing further information in due course. In my first week as a Minister in the department, I visited Biggleswade onshore windfarm, a small windfarm with 12 turbines. The company there is voluntary and there is a good practice trade guideline of paying £40,000 a year to the local community for such things as the local parish church, the community hall and other things. It was really good to see and is an example of what can happen.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I rise to close this group and indeed this sitting of the Committee today. It is worth saying that the chairman of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, has acknowledged the importance of communities. He used the words that GBE should be considered “a three-party partnership”, involving the private sector, the public sector and the community. If we also take account of the Labour assurances that have been given to communities along the way, I see no reason why we cannot consider these amendments further at the next stage, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not really think I can go any further than the remarks I have made this afternoon. It will ultimately be for GBE’s board to decide how it will arrange its board committees. I have noted what the noble Lord said about an investment committee. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of Jürgen Maier, who may not be an investment expert, as the noble Lord suggests, but my goodness me he has a lot of experience in this sector.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in bringing the debate on these amendments to a close, I can deal head-on with the Minister’s comments and those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the time given to the Bill. We have so far had one and a half days in Committee and we have one further day allocated, which will be only two and a half days on a Bill that spends £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, has no detail on how that money will be spent and gives endless power to the Secretary of State for Energy. It is entirely reasonable that we scrutinise it. The weekend’s press was full of the energy crisis that we face, with the shortage, storage and national grid issues.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, there is no energy crisis.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I said, the point of government is to ensure that there is no energy crisis and at the weekend we had reports of there being gas supplies for less than one week, which is concerning to the public. Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable that Parliament debates that in some detail.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what we had was one company looking for government subsidies using the opportunity to make alarmist headlines.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The point is that this is a topical debate that the whole of the public are interested in. They understand energy prices like nothing else now. They understand that, in terms of their household budgets, this is a major part of their cost of living and it is only reasonable that we get to debate this.

The amendments in this group are straightforward and simple. They are nothing to do with micromanagement; they are only to do with the accountability and transparency of this new company, which, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out, is not an operating company. The public think this is a company that makes cheap energy. It is an investment company sitting on one floor of a building in Aberdeen making investment decisions, and we have no idea how it will do that.

At the last election, the Government made promises to working people on this topic: to reduce energy costs, create jobs and drive forward our energy transition. Therefore, taking my noble friend Lady Noakes’s constructive point, we can argue about how we deliver the substance of these amendments, but we should not ignore the substance. Is it not fair and reasonable that we have in the Bill some consideration of government promises made to the public about the cost of energy—£300 in savings, which, incidentally, is £8 billion, the same amount as is being invested in 28 million households at £300—or the fact that 650,000 jobs are to be created? Is it not reasonable that the Bill somewhere talks about the fact that we want a strategic priority for the UK to develop its own energy supply chain? Is it not unreasonable that we have amendments that deal with how we make sure that the supply chain is fair? We have talked about a fair transition: well, where is the fair transition, to pick up what the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Alton, said, when we destroy our own highly skilled jobs in the north-east or end up using products made under dubious circumstances in overseas territories?

I would argue that all these amendments need to be considered. There is consensus in this House that we need energy security and that we need to get to 2050. The question is: why is this being speeded up artificially when we and the technology are not ready? Why are we doing this artificially?

My final point has been mentioned by many noble Lords so far: none of this works without the plumbing working. The national grid needs a serious upgrade and comprehensive investment to deliver this. If in these straitened times—we are continually reminded by the Government Benches that there is no money—there is a spare £8 billion, should it not be better used by being put into the national grid once and for all? In the meantime, given that we are where we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very interesting and wise contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that of course I have heard the expression that Governments are not very good at picking winners. That is why we have set up GBE. We will have a company with people with expertise to enable investments to take place within the context we set under Clause 3 and Clause 5 as strategic priorities. None the less, it will have operational independence.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right; noble Lords in their various amendments are seeking to pin down GBE through excessive reporting requirements. The risk is that GBE, far from being allowed to flourish and develop, will be inhibited and micromanaged. That is why these amendments are wholly inappropriate in relation to Clause 6. The power of direction is not to be used in the way that noble Lords are suggesting; it is a backstop power. What is the point of setting up GBE if we are to undermine its independence in the way these amendments suggest?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, as in the previous group, these amendments are not designed in any way to micromanage. There is very little in the Bill that gives us any indication of how this company will operate. As indicated by my noble friend Lord Petitgas, it is an investment company without an investment committee or any investment directors. All that is being sought by these amendments is some level of accountability and scrutiny.

Once again, I say that when promises are made to the public that the Bill will address their concerns, it is not unreasonable that we ask for amendments to be made accordingly. For example, looking at employment in Amendment 68, we are simply asking for a report—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said—on the impact these investments make on employment and bills. Why is that an unreasonable thing to say? We have 200,000 people in highly skilled jobs in the North Sea. They are worried that they are about to be phased out unilaterally and prematurely. Why is it unreasonable to have somewhere in the Bill a requirement that GBE comes to Parliament and explains what it is doing in relation to employment in this key sector?

As we have said before, the Bill has failed to substantiate the promises made. The job of the Opposition is to highlight that and to make it clear that this needs to be debated and scrutinised. That is what we will continue to do. In light of that, for now I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill, as well as in the other debates in this House on the future of our energy, we know that renewable energy by its nature will always be unreliable. It is, by its nature, intermittent. Many of us have expressed concern that this undeniable fact will result in shortages. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Murray, last year Europe in fact experienced several episodes of Dunkelflaute. On the other hand, as has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, what happens to energy supply in periods of persistent sunshine and wind?

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position in which the national grid is unable to cope with excess renewable energy supply. Grid capacity is a particular challenge for the offshore wind sector, because those sites are necessarily located far from sources of demand. Currently, the national grid pays renewable energy generators billions to reduce supply when there is more renewable electricity than the grid can manage. This problem will only be compounded by the Government’s ambition to build renewables faster than we can develop and connect them to the grid.

With that in mind, we should address the fact that the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new energy project can reach 10 years. Not only this, but a project without a grid connection today may not come online until well after the Government’s target of grid decarbonisation by 2030. There is no doubt that the renewable energy projects that will supposedly be supported by the establishment of Great British Energy will face the same connectivity difficulties.

As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, over £1 billion was coughed up by bill payers last year to pay renewable energy generators to curtail excess supply, including £20 million in one day alone. This will only worsen under the Government’s agenda, and it will be consumers who will bear the cost via their energy bills. If renewable generation is scaled up so rapidly without the grid capacity to transmit it to the areas of high demand, those curtailment payments will only increase. We know that excessive curtailment fees are already being paid to wind farm operators who are generating more power than can be used. This is paid to get operators to switch off their wind farms and avoid overloading the grid. How ridiculous is that? We expect these curtailment costs only to rise under the new Government’s regime, and by 2030 it is possible that there will be a staggering £20 billion a year in subsidies and in maintaining back-up grid capacity. That equates to roughly £700 per household each year.

I turn to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which I support in their entirety. Amendment 85E requires Great British Energy to

“report annually on the impact of each investment it makes on the levels of curtailed renewable energy in the UK”.

Amendment 85D requires Great British Energy to

“invest in additional energy storage infrastructure to store excess renewable energy”,

and thereby minimise the cost of curtailing excess supply. In tabling these amendments, my noble friend has addressed many of the issues that I have discussed.

It is essential that the establishment of Great British Energy does not cost the taxpayer more than the already allocated £8.3 billion, and that it assesses the impact of its investments on the cost of wasting excess supply and prioritises the means of storing renewable energy. I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for Amendments 85D and 85E, which are focused on the issue of renewable energy curtailment. I must repeat, as I said earlier, that this debate is, in essence, about technologies, rather than the appropriate use of the directions in Clause 6. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are determined to increase significantly the deployment of short-term and long-term duration electricity storage to reduce curtailment.

I, too, was present in the debate on energy storage last Thursday, which was very interesting. My noble friend Lady Gustafsson recognised then that a variety of energy storage technologies would be needed to achieve net zero. That includes technologies such as lithium batteries and pumped hydropower storage—which can deploy at different scales and provide output over different lengths of time—and it can include emerging technologies, such as liquid air energy storage and flow batteries. Low-carbon hydrogen, too, can act as a low-carbon flexible generating technology and provide very long duration energy storage.

Today, around 7 gigawatts’ worth of grid-scale electricity storage is operational in Great Britain. This is made up of 2.8 gigawatts of pumped hydrogen and 4.3 gigawatts of grid-scale lithium battery storage. I add that we have announced a long-duration energy support scheme. We will publish a technical document in February. Applications will open in the second quarter, and we hope that the first agreements under the cap and floor system will take place in early 2026. It will be technology neutral, and it will be for projects that could not be built without the cap and floor system.

There are some developments in train: SSE, for instance, is doing exploratory tunnelling in the north of Scotland for pumped-storage hydro. Highview Power has reached FID in terms of liquid air energy storage near Carrington. Points on curtailment costs are well made; we see it as a key priority to accelerate network infrastructure to increase capacity on network and reduce constraints.

I do not think there is a lacuna; the Bill is constructed in the way it is. We have Clause 3 and the strategic statement of priorities in Clause 5. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the substantive point he raises is important and accepted by the Government.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed: the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for opening this group, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lord Hamilton, Lord Effingham, Lord Howell, Lord Trenchard and Lady McIntosh. I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her detailed scrutiny of the Bill and her expertise.

The debate has raised crucial issues regarding how our energy future is shaped, particularly community energy, transparency and the governance of strategic priorities. It is evident that we in this House today share many of the same concerns about the absence of a statement of strategic priorities and plans. I reiterate that this is in the context of the Bill being responsible for £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, with no detail as to GBE’s plans, priorities, objectives and purpose. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, the Bill is merely a skeleton, providing unabridged powers to the Secretary of State without clarity on how they can be used.

With that in mind, I welcome Amendment 119, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would delay the commencement of other provisions in the Bill until a statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament. This is a sensible and necessary step to ensure that Parliament and the public have sight of the plans that will guide the operation of this great new company, GBE. Furthermore, Amendment 58 would ensure that Parliament is made aware of Great British Energy’s strategic priorities, and Amendment 52 would give Parliament the power to reject a statement of strategic priorities once received. We cannot, in good conscience, simply allow this Bill to proceed without the opportunity to scrutinise these priorities, which will guide £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ investment.

Amendment 51 would introduce a clear time limit for the Secretary of State to publish the statement, while Amendment 54 would ensure that a motion for resolution is tabled in both Houses of Parliament. These amendments provide the necessary transparency and accountability to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise and approve those priorities before any further steps are taken. The Bill cannot and should not proceed until we have seen the strategic priorities.

This brings me to the question of whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. In its report, the Constitution Committee expressed concern that Clauses 5 and 6 amount to disguised legislation and that Clause 5 does not offer an adequate degree of parliamentary oversight. This is a serious constitutional issue, and I hope that the Minister takes the committee’s concerns seriously as we continue our debate.

Amendment 53, tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, seeks to insert a provision into Clause 5 requiring the Secretary of State to produce a statement to the chairs of the relevant Select Committees in both Houses of Parliament. This amendment is fundamentally about transparency, and its purpose is simple: to ensure that Parliament can properly scrutinise the actions of the Secretary of State and guarantee that public money is being used efficiently and in the public interest. This is why we propose that a copy of a strategic statement be sent to the relevant Select Committees for their review and input.

As discussed earlier on Amendment 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Effingham, transparency is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Transparency ensures that decisions are made openly and subject to public and parliamentary scrutiny. He brought to our attention consideration of the requirement that GBE deal with the devolved Administrations throughout the UK.

Finally, Amendment 90 seeks to insert at the end of Clause 7 the provision that the Secretary of State must

“arrange for a statement to be made in each House”.

The intent behind this amendment is to ensure that the actions of the Government in relation to Great British Energy are made public and accountable. For such a significant and impactful initiative, there must be a mechanism for direct communication with Parliament. This would allow both Houses to question, debate and hold the Government to account on any developments or changes in the direction of the company.

A comparison has already been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, with the National Wealth Fund, previously the UK Infrastructure Bank. That organisation experienced thorough scrutiny and testing before its establishment. Why should we treat GBE any differently? If we expect such rigorous assessment for the UK Infrastructure Bank, it stands to reason that a similar level of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny should apply to Great British Energy. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, as it reinforces the principles of accountability that should be at the heart of this Bill.

In conclusion, I welcome the amendments and the ongoing discussions regarding the strategic priorities and transparency of Great British Energy. The strategic priorities are critical to the success of the Bill, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed similar concerns. I reiterate my support for my noble friend Lady Noakes and all other noble Lords who have raised similar issues.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful again to noble Lords who have raised a number of very interesting points in relation to Clause 5 and the statement of strategic priorities. I remind the Committee that the founding statement set out GBE’s purpose, priorities and objectives, including its mission statements and its five functions. The first statement of strategic priorities is intended to ensure that Great British Energy will be focused on driving clean energy deployment, boosting energy independence, creating jobs and ensuring that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy.

Clearly, Clause 5 is important in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, will not be surprised that I will resist his opposition to it standing part of the Bill. He made another point in relation to the investment bank legislation. I understand the point; he knows that we have looked at this legislation and taken parts from it, but we have also looked at Great British Nuclear, which his Government put through in the last Energy Act. In some cases, we think that that is appropriate to look at in relation to the way this legislation has been framed.

Amendments 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 90, 119 and 128 all refer to the statement of strategic priorities, with some amendments seeking to defer commencement of the Bill in relation to the statement. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, always speaks with great experience on energy, and he is threatening us with many more amendments the next time we meet. We believe that the best way to get stability on prices and security of energy, and to deal with climate change, is to move in the way that we have set out. Numerous organisations have looked at it and say that, in the context of value for money, investment decisions and cost to government, this will be the cheapest way forward in the end, and that staying reliant on fossil fuels, with the unreliability of the international market, would not be a productive use of our resources and would do nothing for climate change. That is why we are going down this path.

I come to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and his opening remarks on this group. We do not wish to escape parliamentary scrutiny. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we do not want to weaken accountability processes. I assure her that there is no way we will use the power of direction in the way that she suggested might happen. She referred to the power of direction and from what she said I took it that she thought it could be used in a way which would simply direct GBE, instead of the statement of priorities, but perhaps I have confused that.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

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.

--- 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.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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.

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Offord of Garvel

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.