Great British Energy Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for listening and constructively engaging with the many discussions that we have had on the issue of Great British Energy’s statement of strategic priorities and for bringing forward this helpful amendment.

I will be brief, as we have had a lot of discussion on this, particularly in Committee. Our position is that we support the intentions of the Bill and recognise that the Government are acting at speed to establish Great British Energy. However, we have always said that the Bill is too short for its own good. We recognise the difficult position that the Minister finds himself in. It is for Great British Energy, as an independent organisation, to write its own strategic priorities, as long as they are consistent with the objects set out in Clause 3. Great British Energy obviously needs to be established in order to write the strategic priorities, and discussions are required with the devolved Administrations.

Against these needs, we as parliamentarians were being asked to approve the Bill with no sight of the strategic priorities prior to the Bill being passed, or even after it is passed and the strategic priorities have been finalised. This was an issue that the Constitution Committee rightly highlighted as an area of concern. To us, it felt a little like we were being asked to sign a blank check, and your Lordships were rightly nervous about the implicit ask in the Bill as it was drafted.

From these Benches, we have consistently argued for progress on these matters and for the reaching of constructive compromise. Compromise needs to rightly balance the actions and operational independence of Great British Energy and, at the same time, the justified right of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the strategic priorities. Is this amendment absolutely perfect? No. Does it do a good and worthwhile job of balancing these competing needs and moving the issue forward? Yes, it very much does. I welcome the words the Minister has spoken from the Dispatch Box about a Written Ministerial Statement. This is an essential compromise, and I thank the Minister for this good progress.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. They represent an important step in ensuring that the development and operation of Great British Energy are aligned with the national interests and strategic needs of our energy sector.

Amendment 21, put forward by the Minister, ensures that the Secretary of State must prepare the statement of strategic priorities for GBE within six months of the passing of the Bill. This timely approach is crucial, as it establishes an early foundation for the strategic direction of Great British Energy, permitting the organisation to operate with clarity and purpose from the outset.

The inclusion of Amendment 26 in my name is equally important. It requires that the statement of strategic priorities must specifically address the development of supply chains in the United Kingdom. This is vital to ensure that the Great British Energy objectives are not only met but integrated into the broader goal of strengthening domestic industries and fostering economic resilience within our own borders. The definition of supply chains in this amendment reinforces the need for a comprehensive and interconnected approach to the creation and sale of commodities relating to Great British Energy’s work.

Finally, Amendment 33, proposed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, brings an added layer of scrutiny and collaboration by mandating consultation with Great British Nuclear and the National Wealth Fund before the publication of the statement of strategic priorities. This amendment will ensure that Great British Energy’s strategies are developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders, thereby promoting a more cohesive and informed approach to energy policy.

These amendments collectively reflect our commitment to a strong, secure and sustainable energy future. I support them, and I encourage the Minister to do the same.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 33, which is somewhat misplaced in this group. I have been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

23: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.”Member's explanatory statement
This ensures that the statement of strategic priorities includes the reduction of household energy bills by £300 by 1 January 2030.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 23 and 24 in my name. These amendments would require the statement of strategic priorities to include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 per household by 2030 and the creation of 650,000 jobs in the UK by 2030. As noble Lords will recall from our debates in Committee, throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that GB Energy would cut household energy bills by an average of £300 per household. In fact, a similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs, and the Science Secretary said:

“I can tell you directly … by the end of this Parliament that … energy bills will fall by up to £300”.


On 19 June last year, the Chancellor said:

“GB Energy, a publicly owned company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.


Finally, in an interview in June, the Secretary of State claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. Considering that the Government had no qualms about repeating this promise time and again and appeared proud to do so, it is strange that they do not commit to this promise by including it in the drafting of this legislation.

That was not the only promise made by the Government. They also said that GB Energy would create 650,000 new jobs. Despite this, in the other place, the Government voted against Conservative amendments to make cutting energy bills by £300 and creating 650,000 new jobs a strategic priority for GB Energy. In so doing, they were voting against amendments that would hold them to their word.

Only last week, in a rather unconvincing interview on Sky News, the chair of GB Energy admitted that the Government’s pledge that GB Energy would create 1,000 jobs at its headquarters could take 20 years to deliver. In the same interview, he repeatedly refused to say when household bills would be cut, although the Prime Minister promised that GB Energy would save consumers £300 each. These promises are important to the British people, and the Government have already put at risk 200,000 existing jobs in North Sea oil and gas. They impact on people’s energy bills, their business and their jobs.

It is essential that the Government are held to account. We know there is a transition; we know that those 200,000 jobs can transition to the direction of travel in renewables and nuclear, but by accelerating unilaterally, there is going to be a gap, and the problem is that we are going to lose skills in the middle.

With that said, I look to the Minister to confirm exactly by how much consumers can expect their energy bills to fall—by £300, or pick another number. Will he give a commitment that GB Energy will reduce household energy bills, and how many jobs exactly will GB Energy create in the UK by 2030? I look forward to receiving a clear and positive reply, and I intend to test the opinion of the House on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Yes.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I remind you all of what the Prime Minister said:

“I stand by everything in our manifesto and one of the things I made clear in the election campaign is I wouldn’t make a single promise or commitment that I didn’t think we could deliver in government”.


The number of £300 is not our number. The number comes from the Labour manifesto and a commitment to the British people.

The great British people think that GB Energy is a new electricity company that is going to deliver them cheaper energy; what we have discovered is that it is actually an investment plan employing 200 people in Aberdeen. It is a big delta: 650,000 jobs compared to 200 jobs rising to 1,000. These are not our numbers; these are the Government’s numbers. All these amendments are trying to do is hold the Government to account on commitments made in the election campaign, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

24: Clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 1 January 2030 resulting directly or indirectly from Great British Energy’s pursuit of its objects under section 3.”Member’s explanatory statement
This ensures that the statement of strategic priorities includes the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the UK by 1 January 2030.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made on these issues. There will be times when there may be differences of opinion, but on devolved matters it is right that the devolved authorities should have the proper say. I welcome the change being proposed by the Government.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling these amendments on devolution, which I welcome. They follow concerns that we raised in Committee. I emphasise that it is important that consultations on devolution are published. Amendment 27 proposes a significant change to the current wording of Clause 5, and we agree that we need to move away from “consult” to “consent”.

The key tenet here is the Sewel convention, which we know well in this House. It is not a trivial matter of semantics; it reflects the principle that the devolved Administrations must have a genuine say in matters that affect their legislative domain. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament in particular has responsibility for significant aspects of energy policy, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and environmental protection. We have mirrored that in Amendment 29 for the Welsh Government.

All in all, we think that by requiring consent from the Scottish and Welsh Governments we can ensure that the energy priorities are developed in a way that respects the distinct needs and perspectives of each nation. I urge the Government to monitor those relationships carefully.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Wigley. I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 41 and 42 not moved.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 42.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I have already called it. We have finished that group.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

46: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment on erection of pylons(1) Great British Energy must assess the potential impact of the erection of pylons which occurs under or in support of its functions on—(a) local communities, and(b) the environment.(2) If the assessment under subsection (1) determines that the erection of pylons—(a) will cause significant harm to local communities, or(b) will cause significant environmental damageGreat British Energy must not facilitate, encourage or participate in the relevant activity.(3) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, Great British Energy must produce an annual report on the impact of the erection of pylons used to support its activities on local communities and the environment, and lay all such reports before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require Great British Energy to assess and report on the impact on local communities and the environment of the erection of pylons used to support its activities.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 46 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Effingham. This seeks to place a duty on Great British Energy to produce an assessment on the impact that the erection of pylons will have on local communities and the environment. Following such an assessment, if the erection of pylons will cause significant harm and damage to the above-listed categories, GB Energy must not continue to build them. The amendment also seeks to include an annual report on the impact of the construction of these pylons that must be laid before Parliament so that the proper accountability measures are in place.

To achieve the Government’s rushed and ideological target for clean energy by 2030, it has been proposed that nearly 1,000 kilometres of new power lines will have to be built. It is the undeniable truth that the infrastructure of the electricity network will need to be built at a far faster rate than it has been in the past decade if the Government are to meet this pledge.

The reality is this: it would be possible to find a way of distributing and transmitting electricity that will not permanently damage the countryside if the Government were to uphold our 2035 target. We understood this; we committed to exploring the use of undergrounding, because the energy system operator said that in the long term that can save costs and it will avoid irreparable damage to our countryside. It is strange that the Government have dismissed this advice, choosing to base their energy policy on ideology. This is particularly true, given that an official report into the East Anglia network has discovered that in the longer term it is cheaper to bury the cables underground. The evidence suggests that, if the Government stick to our original target, they may save £600 million through the use of underground cables rather than pylons.

However, if the Government insist on achieving a decarbonised grid by 2030 at the expense of the British countryside, it is essential that GB Energy assesses and reports on the impact of their use of pylons and ceases activity if it is causing significant environmental damage.

I am minded to test the opinion of the House. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that transporting electricity will continue to be a challenge; much of it is generated offshore in Scotland, but the need is far greater in the south. Pylons are not loved infrastructures by most but are a necessary evil. There is therefore an absolute need to assess their effect on not only those communities that live nearby but the environment, as pylons march across the countryside, often through much of our most scenic areas, not to mention the flora and fauna.

I suggest that pylons are not the only method of transport; my noble friend Lord Offord mentioned underground cables, and sea cables are also an option. There remain environmental factors, but power still has to come ashore to the areas of demand. The onshore issues therefore still remain.

The spend to achieve this, according to NESO, is some £40 billion a year for six years until 2030. I suggest two items of practicality: can the infrastructure be built on time, and do we actually have the workforce to complete this massive task? Local communities deserve nothing less than an assessment of the potential impact for the years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we come to the issue of pylons. This is of course an interesting issue; I well understand that pylons are not necessarily popular with the public. They are, I am afraid, just a consequence of what we need to do to expand the grid.

The projects that Great British Energy is involved in may require the erection of pylons, but the assurance I can give is that they will be subject to existing rigorous planning processes and the relevant regulations, as with any similar projects, including environmental impact assessments and statutory stakeholder engagement. We recognise that poorly sited pylon projects can have an impact on the local area, as has been mentioned, such as in relation to wildlife, heritage or sense of place. That is why we are retaining the checks and balances in the planning system and why we want to ensure that all developers continue to engage with communities.

Noble Lords have mentioned offshore solutions. We are already building an extensive offshore network. Indeed, the latest network design from NESO means that, by 2035, three times as much undersea cabling could be laid than pylons across Britain, so we are not ignoring the potential but we will need pylons. We are not reducing the planning regime in any way at all; we want to speed it up, but we will have the protections in place and environmental considerations will come to the fore.

We do not need this amendment. I am quite satisfied that the provisions in statute at the moment are sufficient.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that the Government’s tunnel-visioned focus on renewable energies means that the grid will have to be developed at a far greater rate than if we turned our attention to gas and nuclear. Renewables are by nature less dense in energy and require more infrastructure to connect their assets to areas of high demand. It is striking that, as reported by NESO, we will need twice as much grid to be built in the next five years as we have built in the last 10 years combined.

Under this Government, communities are being overridden and their concerns ignored. This is not the way to undergo a successful clean energy transition. By choosing to bring forward unilaterally their clean energy target by five years to 2030, the Government have shown that it is ideological dogma. Where is the community benefit scheme that we set out when in government?

NESO has also said that all grid projects need to be met on time and that three will have to be fast-tracked ahead of schedule. If that does not happen, the Government will not meet their target and families will pay billions of pounds in extra curtailment costs. This is the cost of these accelerated power plans. We must balance carefully the necessity of enhancing our energy infrastructure with the preservation of the landscape and the communities that rely on it.

This is not simply about building pylons; it is about ensuring that the energy transition does not come at the expense of the environment or local economies. That being said, I hope that noble Lords will look to support the amendment in my name. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendment. In tabling it, he raises a matter of utmost importance: our nation’s food security and the agriculture industry, which has been subjected to punitive tax measures by the Government.

This debate is not about whether we should install renewable energy technologies; it is about where we should develop renewable energy. At best, we can hope that, indirectly, GB Energy will help to power and heat British homes in a bid to achieve clean power by 2030. However, it is imperative that the Government’s race to renewables does not come at the expense of British agriculture and food production. It should be known that, when land is used for solar farms, it does not see agricultural use for decades. We must look to protect the most versatile and fruitful land to feed the nation. This is not to say that there will not be land that can be used for renewable energy production. Ultimately, we cannot find ourselves in a position where we have warm homes but no food on our plates. Our energy security trumps food security.

My noble friend raised his concerns in Committee but, regretfully, the Minister’s response was rather unsatisfactory. It is essential that the protection of agricultural land for renewable energy development is embedded in law. With that in mind, I urge all noble Lords to support my noble friend. The amendment in his name presents us and the Government with an opportunity to take decisive action to reserve agricultural land for food production. I will support my noble friend Lord Fuller if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 50 and 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to in his prose poem of a speech. The importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture and of supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and quality of environment are values that we share with the noble Lord. However, for the reasons that I will now set out, I must resist these amendments.

Great British Energy will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land and minimise the effects on food security. The National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy products. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land—namely, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said, grades 1, 2 and 3A.

More broadly, looking beyond these specific amendments, the Government recognise that food security is national security—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, said. The Government do not believe that the accelerated rollout of solar generation poses a threat to food security; I will come on to that in a minute. The total area used by solar farms is very small: even in the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. Furthermore, solar generation can be co-located with agriculture, and many projects are designed to enable continued livestock grazing alongside energy generation. Innovation may also reduce the impact of solar farms on agriculture. The emerging science of agrivoltaics is developing innovative ways in which solar can be integrated with arable farming

On statistics, it has often been argued that the land use framework says that 9% of land will be used for energy development. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned the 9% figure; although he did not actually say that that would cover energy generation entirely, it was implied. This is not actually correct. The 9% figure covers agricultural land that would be used for the creation and restoration of habitats—I emphasise “restoration of habitats”—such as woodland, heathland, grassland and peatland. It does not cover generation alone. Defra will publish in the near future a land use consultation as an important first step in starting a national conversation on land use. There is also evidence that solar can improve biodiversity in certain areas and under certain circumstances when it is installed on agricultural land.

For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord is assured that Great British Energy will always consider the effects on our agricultural land as a necessary element of its regulatory approvals and will, therefore, withdraw his amendment—although I am not holding my breath.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the reason why I am degrouping this amendment, and indeed Amendment 55, is because there have been developments that affect both these amendments.

Amendment 54 asks the Government to publish an assessment of the expected impact of the Bill on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. Since tabling the amendment, we have had a very remarkable interview with the new chairman of Great British Energy, who goes by the name of Jürgen Maier. For some reason, he did not seem even to know that the Government were committed to lowering people’s energy bills by £300. When he was asked about this, he just sort of waved the whole thing away. He also was asked about the number of jobs that were going to be brought to Aberdeen, and he said 300, which I think is a sort of top whack for the number of people he is going to employ in Great British Energy in Aberdeen. I think there was some hope that there would be rather more jobs than that in Aberdeen, but he did not seem to think that that was very important at all and, indeed, was something that stretched out to the next 10 or 20 years. He did not seem to want to be committed to any of this at all.

I think the Government have a slight problem if that is going to be the spokesman for renewable energy via Great British Energy, and I am not absolutely certain that they have the right man for the job. It seems to me important that you have somebody who stands up for the whole business of renewable energy and the ambitions—indeed, some of the things we voted on this evening—and objectives of Great British Energy. I think he should have a rather clearer idea of what he is trying to do because, if he does not, he will do nothing but bring embarrassment to the Government and everybody who believes in renewable energy.

The other thing, of course, that we must look for when it comes to jobs in Aberdeen is the renewal of the licences for the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields. I gather the Government are looking at this quite closely. It does seem to me to be absolute madness—which can only really be entertained by the Energy Secretary, Mr Ed Miliband—that, at the end of the day, we envisage a future where, inevitably, we are going to need oil and, for some extraordinary reason, that oil cannot come from our oil fields; the oil and gas will have to be imported from other countries, with, of course, a greater carbon footprint than there would otherwise be. That does not seem to be anything other than complete insanity.

I think the world is coming to realise that, although there have been these very ambitious goals of reaching net zero, the fact is that we are going to need fossil fuels for much longer than most people think. If that is the case, we might as well use our own sources of oil and gas and employ our own people, rather than employ Americans and people in the Gulf and import it from there. As I say, there will be a larger footprint if the whole thing is imported into this country from abroad.

So it strikes me that we have our priorities very seriously mixed up on this, and the Government will have to change their attitude on all of this, because otherwise we are going to make ourselves look absolutely ridiculous and do nothing to lower global emissions, which is the objective we are all trying to get.

My Amendment 55 deals with the viability of the Government reaching their net zero target. This, for me, has been very much affected by the breakfast I had this morning with people at JCB, who are very keen that we move to a much greater production of liquid hydrogen, because they believe that that is the one fuel that can actually drive heavy vehicles such as theirs, and that that fuel has a great future there. The good news about liquid hydrogen is that they think it could be very effectively used not only in heavy vehicles such as lorries and so forth but also in trains. They were not so happy that this was an answer for aviation—but aviation is a big and growing business, as the Government recognise, with their dedication to building a fourth runway at Heathrow. Obviously, aviation is going to be a growth business as more people fly around the world, and if we are not going to have a constant source of CO₂ emissions from that, we have to move to a better fuel.

So there are many reasons why hydrogen ticks many boxes, but the problem about it is that it is not actually a silver bullet but a golden bullet. It is extremely expensive to produce and uses very large amounts of electricity. So I hope that what we will be looking at is using small modular reactors dedicated to actually producing hydrogen. Perhaps—and I am not saying this will happen—this will be able to bring the price down to a level that is bearable and something we can live with, because, if we could get the price of liquid hydrogen down, it would make a massive difference to the ability to run heavy vehicles and aircraft and other forms of transport without polluting the atmosphere and increasing the CO₂ footprint, which is one of the problems that we have today. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about both my amendments and I beg to move.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendments 54 and 55. My noble friend referenced an interview given on 3 February 2025, in which the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, admitted that only 200 to 300 jobs would be created in Aberdeen by Great British Energy and it could take up to 20 years for the 1,000 promised jobs to materialise. Yet in January, the Energy Minister, the Member for Rutherglen in the other place, confirmed that the Government’s plan for Great British Energy to create 1,000 jobs in Aberdeen “has not changed”. It seems that we are told one thing by Ministers and another by Great British Energy’s chair.

It seems that the Government have given Great British Energy the responsibility for delivering on their commitments, but Great British Energy does not agree that Ministers’ ambitions are its responsibility. While Ministers and Great British Energy executives can disagree, the British people will be left without the tangible benefits they were promised. It strikes me that this should be of great concern to Ministers, who will be ultimately accountable for Great British Energy’s failure to deliver on the promises they themselves made.

Turning to Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, I supported his decision to probe the costs and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already had discussions around this question, most notably when we discussed pylons in an earlier group. We agree that the Government’s net-zero targets are driven by ideology and need to be reviewed to ensure that they are practically and affordably achievable. I hope that the Minister will look kindly on my noble friend’s amendment in his reply.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I always look kindly on the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and enjoy debating these with him. However, sadly, I am not going to respond sympathetically to either of his amendments, perhaps to his disappointment and surprise.

The amendments would delay the designation of Great British Energy under Clause 1 and the ability of the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance under Clause 4. I must object to that. It is essential that Great British Energy starts its operations as soon as possible.

On Amendment 54, I will just say this: anyone who has met Juergen Maier will have been impressed with the quality and energy, and breadth of knowledge, experience and wisdom, that he brings to the job. He certainly has the backing of His Majesty’s Government.

We need to put to rest this nonsense around Aberdeen. I have stated very clearly already this evening that we expect Great British Energy to employ 200 to 300 people, initially at its Aberdeen headquarters. The substantial issue is that GBE’s activities will create and support thousands of jobs across the country.

As far as the continental shelf is concerned, I readily acknowledge the great contribution that it has made to the United Kingdom and the work of the skilled people who work in the North Sea. However, it is a declining asset. We have said that it will continue to play an important role in the future, but the future of energy in this country is to move to clean power as soon as we possibly can. We want to see continued extraction from the North Sea while that is necessary. We want to ensure a just transition for people working in the industry to other sectors, because they have a huge contribution to make.

In respect of the 200 or 300 people, the fact is that we are talking about this Parliament. As the years go by, there will be more jobs in Aberdeen and the GBE contribution will be enhanced.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will recognise that the Government are fully on top of these issues, and that we have a consistent, coherent policy to lead us to energy security, and will not press his amendment.