Internet Activity: Energy Use

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

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.

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

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

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.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

111: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment of offshore wind energy installations and generation(1) The Secretary of State must assess the impact on—(a) the environment, and(b) animal welfare standardsof offshore wind energy installations and generation which occur under Great British Energy’s functions.(2) If an assessment under subsection (4) determines that relevant offshore energy installation and generation—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then Great British Energy must cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity.”Member's explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 111 and 112 in my name, and in support of Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller.

Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies. Amendment 112, also in my name, similarly requires an environmental impact assessment, but with the focus on the decommissioning of oil and gas structures.

The threat posed by the installation and generation of offshore wind farms and tidal energy is not new to the House. Many will be familiar with these concerns, as we on these Benches raised such issues in Committee in debates on the Crown Estate Bill, and discussed the purpose of electricity generation and the Crown Estate’s role in the stewardship of our seabed.

In considering the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fuller, we must again address the Crown Estate’s strategic and unprecedented partnership with Great British Energy, which is estimated to result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. We should expect to see considerable and accelerated growth in offshore renewable energy projects, with offshore wind contributing significantly to these efforts. The UK is the second largest offshore wind market in the world. Under the new Government, allocation round 6 has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream.

The speed and scale of these planned developments raises concerns about the impact on the marine ecosystem, as expressed by bodies such as Birdlife International. As stewards of our seabed and investors in and facilitators of offshore renewable energy projects, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation. GB Energy must restrict such installation and generation if it is found to cause the environment and its associated animals harm. Environmental concerns linked to the installation of offshore energy projects and the operation of these technologies include, but are not limited to, increased noise levels, the distortion in light pollution, and the potential impact on carbon storage and the biodiversity of the seabed and its composition.

In an overview of the ecological impacts of offshore wind on the marine environment, Birdlife International highlighted the impact of the installation and operation of offshore wind farms on marine animals. It found that the installation and generation of offshore wind technologies produces underwater noise, affecting the echo location behaviour of marine mammals. Porpoises, seals and marine birds have been shown to be displaced by wind farms, with some marine birds displaying consistent avoidance behaviour during breeding seasons. Noise pollution produced by piledriving has also been found to impact the behaviour of pelagic fish.

I have briefly outlined the impacts on our environment caused by offshore wind, yet other technologies also have the potential to cause significant harm. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for addressing the threat tidal energy poses to the fish which inhabit our seas. As he will no doubt discuss this impact in more detail, I will succinctly outline the problems associated with tidal energy generation, which is foreseen to increase rapidly in the coming years. Tidal turbines in open water could result in additional mortality caused by rotor blade collision. This is significant, as tidal waters serve as key feeding areas for fish, as well as passage corridors for migratory fish. Other risks include changes in underwater noise, electromagnetic fields and habitats, and displacement.

Finally, I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns highlighted in the amendments in this group and will confirm to the Committee that he recognises that Great British Energy is in a unique and critical position to assess and minimise the impact of offshore energy installations on our environment and the marine life which inhabits it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 113. I have previously tabled amendments to the Bill on land, and now I return to the sea, which well fits someone whose territorial designation is Gorleston-on-Sea in the county of Norfolk.

These amendments require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal energy technologies and their associated cabling. When we consider tidal energy, I am not thinking just about the fish, important though they are—in the tidal races, the machines can mash their flesh—but about sea-birds and the rest of the marine flora and fauna. I am thinking about not just living creatures but the wider environmental effects that may happen slightly away from the installations of the machines themselves, in the associated cabling that links those machines to land—a topic I will return to.

I am not against harnessing this almost inexhaustible supply of energy. The energy is there; it is year-round, predictable and reliable. It deserves to be won and it should be won. But I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building machines that can survive in the most hostile environment, pounded by the seas and eaten away by salt-water corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to reliably engineer things in these tough, salt-aggressive environments. It is hard to engineer reliability in these unforgiving places, but that does not mean we should not try.

We know that tidal generation is best located where the water flows fastest—where it is choked through the channels, so that the speed naturally increases—so the machines can operate most effectively. Last November, I visited Saint-Malo and saw for myself the world’s first tidal barrage power station, opened in 1966; it is nearly 60 years old. It was a really impressive spectacle. It is cheap energy, but it has not come without cost. Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at the University of Oxford, says that there has been a “major environmental impact” on the Rance estuary as a result of the tidal station. He said 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 of altering sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. I saw for myself that the fast-flowing water passing through the 24 turbines left nowhere for the fish to go. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, and the silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. Sand-eels are the subject of the very first post-Brexit EU fishing trade spat, and of course they are the preferred diet of British sea sea-birds, so this is an important matter. It is in the public interest that this all be taken into account, so that mitigations can be put in place.

My amendment would require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor them when assessing energy proposals. Examples include the cumulative impacts of the installations when considered alongside the predicted impacts of other projects in the area; transboundary impacts, whereby activities in other countries, such as commercial fishing, may be affected, as we have seen; and interrelationships whereby impacts on one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on effect on another and disturb species. Examples include sub-sea noise, which my noble friend mentioned, physical processes such sedimentation flow —we saw this in France—and the updated navigational risk assessment possibly deflecting vessels into the path of other sensitive zones.

For offshore tidal proposals, perhaps with tethered devices, we must have regard to the cables that will transfer the energy to the coast. Coming from Norfolk, I take particular interest in the Cromer shoal chalk beds marine conservation zone. It is one of 91 such protection zones established by the last Government, by an organisation lately chaired by my noble friend Lord Banner. The MCZ is a protected inshore site 200 metres off the north Norfolk coast, extending about 10 kilometres out to sea and covering 321 square kilometres. It protects our diverse species. It is predominantly sandy, but the chalk beds provide a stable surface for seaweeds and static animals to settle and grow, and they are home to the Cromer crab, one of the important exports of our county; it is an important source of economic activity too. So, even though marine energy machines may be some miles offshore, we need to consider the whole cable system as well, particularly if it passes through places like the Cromer MCZ on its way to the grid.

None of this is mentioned in the Bill, which is a slim Bill with fat consequences. The Secretary of State is not required to give directions to GBE to take these important environmental safeguards into account. My previous amendments observed that GB Energy is a company: there is to be a fiduciary board, and it is established under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its private self-interest. So, unless it is constrained, we should not be surprised if GB Energy acts in its private interests, not the country’s interests. If it follows purely commercial principles, why should it need to take the marine environment into account unless it is directed to? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide such directions.

I expect the Minister to say, “This is all very well but it is not really necessary”. However, we must learn lessons from the water Bill, which flowed through this House as an example of what to do when you have a private company that is established for public purposes yet strays from the path. I do not want a repeat of that. Success does not look like having successive legislation later to cure the unintended consequences of GB Energy getting carried away because it acts in the private interest, not the public one.

Let us put protections in the Bill now. This amendment would provide a simple safeguard, along with those proposed by my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, so that the Secretary of State is directed to ensure that sensible precautions are taken to protect our fisheries, sea-birds and other flora and fauna in the whole end-to-end tidal generation system, from the coast all the way to the grid. I am not trying to block tidal power and I am certainly not seeking to add cost or complexity—still less a set of directions or to provide excessive control. My concern is to make sure that this private body, established for public purpose, acts in the wider public interest—not just its self-interest—as to its environmental responsibility and sets an example to others.

--- Later in debate ---

The key point is that the environmental protections are in place. Noble Lords may say that they need to be improved—and the Government will listen to that—but, equally, I think many of us agree that the current planning system needs reform and that we need to speed up approvals where appropriate. I am not going to fall for the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton; all I can say about what was in the newspapers this morning is that it was purely media speculation. However, lying behind it is the aim of the Government, which will have to be cross-departmental, to reform and speed up the planning system, and potentially to deal with the bat issue. But it must be done while ensuring that we maintain our environmental protections. It is on those protections that we should depend, not on giving Great British Energy a duty that it is not right for it to discharge.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in concluding this group, I thank all noble Lords who have made thoughtful contributions on it. We are dealing with the impact of GB Energy and its activities on our environment.

In my concluding remarks, I will briefly mention Amendment 118, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, which was discussed previously and is closely tied to the same issues raised in this group. That amendment would create a statutory duty for GB Energy to behave in a way that looks to promote nature recovery. The British Ecological Society has found that nature-based solutions can help to resolve the problems of climate change by reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. The alarming truth is that England is widely considered to be one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, following historic and ongoing declines.

We must also note a point raised in the debate this afternoon: it is not just the deployment of wind farms or tidal technologies that causes environmental damage. If GB Energy is also set to decommission, as we have discussed, or to repurpose oil and gas structures, it must assess and mitigate the risk of this practice on the environment. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so rightly explained, GB Energy is a public company; it is only right that it acts in the public interest. I do not see why the Minister would disagree, but I thank him for his detailed response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment 111 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a link between Amendments 118, 118A and 130.

On Amendment 130, it will be interesting to see whether we get the results, but my impression is that, in this country, there is not a single net-zero or renewable project that is not subsidised by the Government in some way. In fact, that is one reason why there has been so much private capital: with the electricity price being run off the marginal cost of gas turbines and the marginal cost of renewable energy—particularly from wind farms—being zero, in effect, there is no way not to make money in that business.

This raises a question around the subsidisation of the whole system, including whether GBE should pile in further when it is already subsidised. It also raises the question of whether we need GBE, because we already have private capital in the system. In fact, we probably have more wind energy than anybody else in the G7. We have said this before. There is a lot of private capital coming into this industry.

The real question is less about GBE and more about what level of subsidisation we are prepared to put in. This may explain why we have the highest energy costs in the G7—double those of the US. This morning, my noble friend Lord Howell talked about Stargate and the announcement made by the US. We will find it very difficult to compete—let alone not having the money, our energy costs are double those of the US—if we want to run LLMs and supercomputers.

[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 Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I wish briefly to comment on and support the intent of Amendments 122, 123 and 124 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the basic problem with the Bill is that it includes absolutely nothing about what GBE will actually do. Yes, there are the objects in Clause 3 but, as we debated at some length previously, they set out only what GBE is allowed to do, not what it is intended to do.

What it is intended to do—its objectives, if you like —will be set out in the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5. We have not seen those and it would appear that we will not see them for a while—certainly not before the Bill passes. As the Constitution Committee pointed out, that key document will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny—in fact, the Constitution Committee referred to it as “disguised legislation”—nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent GBE starting its activities before that statement has been published.

As I say, we have had several debates on this, so I will try not to repeat myself. There are a number of ways to do this: the new amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may or may not be the right way and we have had other amendments previously. However we do it, it is critical that at least some substantive level of parliamentary scrutiny should be available on how GBE intends to spend its £8.3 billion before it starts to spend significant amounts of money.

[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.

Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this instrument revokes and alters several provisions of the assimilated EU regulations relating to the internal electricity capacity market. The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market following our withdrawal from the European Union and they revoke the 10-year approval requirements. We do not oppose these changes—I just say that to start with.

Our electricity capacity market was introduced in 2014. The measure is designed to ensure that maximum output is always available and thus that we can maintain sufficient electricity capacity to meet future predicted demand, always ensuring the security of electricity supply. As we have heard, the capacity market covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnector capacity. It is about ensuring the security of this supply at all times. Auctions are held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, to ensure that we have supply when we need it and can meet future peak demand in a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator.

The capacity market was originally approved when we were part of the EU and was made under the European Union’s state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following our withdrawal, this requirement was brought in and enshrined in our domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulations. The capacity market will continue to be required to maintain the security of supply and investor confidence. This market will be of even greater importance as we seek to decarbonise our electricity generation by 2030 and, at the same time, see an ever-growing increase in electricity demand. The draft regulations revoke the requirement that

“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”

and

“shall be approved … for no longer than 10 years”,

and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The draft instrument also revokes several provisions that require minor correction. As I said, we do not oppose the recommendations in the instrument, but I wanted briefly also to turn to some broader points.

As we seek to reach net-zero carbon generation by 2030 and beyond, the Government have a continued dependency on unabated gas and propose that carbon capture and storage should be used as a key part of our energy mix. Indeed, the clean power 2030 plan has around 35 gigawatts of unabated gas on standby for security of supply, and this requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until more low-carbon dispatchable power comes on board to replace it. Although required, back-up reserve gas generation that is used intermittently and only when necessary is also very expensive, understandably. The Government have agreed to invest some £22 billion over the next 25 years in carbon capture technology to help make sure that we can have this unabated gas without adding to our greenhouse gas emissions.

The week before last there was a debate in the Chamber on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on long-term energy storage. We have also had a couple of Questions about the Russian shadow fleet and the attack on Baltic power cables. Of course, renewable energy is not always reliable, and everybody knows that it needs to be backed up by a wide variety of other sources to help ensure the security of supply. On that basis, can I ask the Minister about the Government’s proposed energy mix going forward to net zero and beyond? I am a little concerned that we continue to have this requirement: it is basically solar, wind and dispatchable gas backed by CCS and nuclear. Will the Minister say a word about how the Government will keep this mix under continuous review? I encourage them to invest in alternative renewable technologies, such as wave, tidal and geothermal, that are able to provide the dispatchable power that we need. What is the Government’s thinking on that?

We must also ensure that all the wind energy we generate is available and can be used. As I said, there is also a need to radically increase our medium and long-term energy storage, which is available to help us get through periods when other sources of renewable energy are not on tap. I hope that the reforms to the capacity market already announced will help make that happen. More must also be done to reduce demand; as the Government know, the best energy is the energy we never use.

Turning to this SI, I note that, as the Explanatory Memorandum says,

“there is a requirement to review the Electricity Capacity Regulations … at least every five years to determine whether they are meeting their objectives and remain fit for purpose”,

and I note that the Minister said the Government will continue to keep the controls in place. As we are going through such a rapid period of change, we welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward the plan to decarbonise our power generation by five years, but what consideration have they given to the need to review these mechanisms more than every five years? What might trigger that? What is the Government’s thinking on those matters?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations represent an essential step in ensuring the continued security of electricity supply in Great Britain. This SI builds on the work initiated by the previous Conservative Government, which reviewed electricity market arrangements in 2022. The task in hand is to amend the existing provisions of the Energy Act 2013 following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and align our national electricity market with the post-Brexit reality. These amendments are crucial to ensure that the capacity market can continue to operate effectively and flexibly in a changed regulatory environment.

As we transition towards a low-carbon energy future, securing a reliable electricity supply requires robust mechanisms that incentivise investment in reliable and flexible energy sources. The amendments introduced by these regulations are intended to bolster the capacity market’s role in supporting the security and reliability of electricity supply in a period of evolving energy needs and shifting market conditions.

These changes enable the UK to pursue an independent course, while ensuring that the capacity market continues to provide the stability and security our energy grid requires. By revoking outdated EU provisions, the UK can define its own market mechanisms that better reflect national priorities, including transition to a low-carbon energy future and enhancing energy resilience across Great Britain.

Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

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

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

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 ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this group of amendments.

I generally give my support to Amendment 93. I understand that these things are being done quickly and urgently to get GBE established and that the Government need to get that done, but there is a general lack of detail in the Bill and we do not have the framework agreement. If the Minister could update the Committee on where that framework document is and what stage it is at, that would be useful. In the interests of trying to find a compromise and a way forward on these issues, I do not know whether it might be possible for the Minister to provide the equivalent of heads of terms or to say something from the Dispatch Box about what he would expect the framework document to cover or to send us an outline of what is likely to be in that document. We are keen to support the principles of this Bill, but the Bill is extremely short and lacks detail.

On the other side of the fence, there is a slight feeling that we are being asked to approve things without knowing what it is we are approving. If it were possible to find a way forward on these issues before Report, that would be appreciated, but I am interested to hear from the Minister what stage these documents are at and what impediments there may be beyond the Minister’s control in these matters.

[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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

94: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effective delivery(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the effectiveness of Great British Energy in—(a) delivering its objects under section 3,(b) meeting its strategic priorities under section 5, and(c) complying with any directions given under section 6.(2) After each review, the independent person must—(a) prepare a report of the review, and(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State,as soon as is reasonably practicable after the completion of the review.(3) The independent person must submit to the Secretary of State—(a) the first report under this section within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, and(b) subsequent reports at intervals of no more than 12 months thereafter.(4) On receiving the report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable in each case,—(a) publish the report,(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, and(c) prepare and lay before Parliament a response to the report’s findings.(5) In this section, references to an “independent person” are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of—(a) the Secretary of State, and(b) Great British Energy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that the Secretary of State appoints an independent person to review the effectiveness of Great British Energy in delivering its objects, meeting its strategic priorities, and complying with its directions.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 94 and speak to the amendments in this group, which, once again, address the review, scrutiny and governance of a publicly owned company.

It is alarming that so many in this House have had to table so many amendments to ensure that GB Energy undergoes proper independent review and governance. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position in which provisions to ensure the thorough review and governance of GB Energy are missing from the drafting of the legislation. This is rather strange. Why should publicly owned companies, funded by billions of pounds, not be subject to reviews by independent bodies or have to report on their successes or failures? The incoming chair himself has stated that “independently run” will mean “excellent governance” and that he will ensure that this is the case, but how? Although the Minister claims that these amendments, which would indeed ensure excellent governance, do not need to be included in the Bill, I strongly disagree. He claims that there will be many opportunities for review by the Secretary of State and, ultimately, for the usual sort of public scrutiny, but how will this be the case when the Bill does not include a single measure that requires GB Energy to be reviewed or allows for public scrutiny?

I am not alone in questioning the lack of governance to which GB Energy is presently subject. Marc Hedin, head of UK and Ireland research at Aurora Energy Research, also asked:

“what are the governance arrangements to ensure that Great British Energy carries out its duties and focuses on its remit? ”.—[Official Report, Commons, Great British Energy Bill Committee, 8/10/24; cols. 20-21.]

Amendment 94 in my name seeks to address this shortcoming. It requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to review the effectiveness of GBE in delivering its objects, meeting its strategic priorities and complying with its directions. The amendment is closely aligned with Amendment 103, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. While demanding an independent review of the success or failure of GB Energy in achieving its objects, the amendment neatly requires a review of the company’s impact on private investment.

I draw your Lordships’ attention to Section 9 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, entitled, “Reviews of the Bank’s effectiveness and impact”. Under that section,

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of … the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives”,


and the results must be laid before Parliament. If the UK Infrastructure Bank—now known as the National Wealth Fund—has to undergo an independent review of its performance, why should GBE not face the same? It does not make sense. The Great British Energy Bill is almost a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act but with one glaring difference: provisions to ensure sufficient governance.

I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns I have raised and will be receptive to the worries other noble Lords will undoubtedly raise on this issue. I beg to move.

--- 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.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments in this group regarding the appointments of the chairman and board of Great British Energy. These amendments, in the names of my noble friends Lord Frost, Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard, attempt to fix a glaring omission from the Bill as it stands. As drafted, there is no mechanism to govern the appointments process of the chairman and the board, and this is a concern as we have heard on many occasions that GB Energy will be responsible for £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. Those at the top of the company will have enormous responsibility and therefore it is paramount that adequate scrutiny is given to these appointments.

My noble friend Lord Frost has attempted to address these concerns with his amendments in this group. Amendment 98 requires the chairman of GBE to undergo pre-appointment scrutiny in front of the Treasury Committee. This amendment has not come out of the blue: it is exactly the same process as the appointment of the chairman of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, otherwise known as Ofgem, which is the regulatory authority for the energy sector. Once the Secretary of State appoints the chair, they must appear before the House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. This is also the case for the chairs of the Climate Change Committee and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The Commissioner for Public Appointments keeps a list of significant appointments, which details the public bodies of which the chairs must undergo pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament. There are no fewer than 40 current chairmanships of public bodies for which this appointments procedure applies.

There is clearly precedent for the chairmen of significant public bodies with responsibility for large sums of public money to be subject to pre-appointment parliamentary scrutiny. If this is the case for these three other public bodies with responsibilities in the energy sector, why should the chair of GBE not also be subject to the same pre-appointment parliamentary scrutiny process?

The Bill also fails to detail the procedure for the appointments and tenure of the directors of Great British Energy. As drafted, there are no requirements for the composition of the board, no limits on the number of directors that may be appointed and for how long a director may serve on the board, and no statutory duties to be conveyed on the board. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Frost plugs this gap.

Once again, there is precedent for having this level of detail regarding appointments to the board of a major public body. The Utilities Act 2000, which created Ofgem and which—we must not forget—was passed by the last Labour Government, did exactly that. Schedule 1 to that Act lays out, for example, that:

“An appointment of a person to hold office as chairman or other member must be for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 7 years”.


So that Act includes details of the tenure and the appointments of the chairman and the board, yet the Bill does not. I ask the Minister why Labour thought it pertinent to specify the executive composition of Ofgem but does not believe it necessary to do the same for Great British Energy.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost on his two amendments in this group, which deal with the governance of GBE. There is, as has been said in previous debates, almost nothing in the Bill about the corporate structure of GBE or how it will be managed. I welcome my noble friend’s proposals to require that the chair should be full time and be required to attend the office in Aberdeen, from which it follows that he must be based there. That would also ensure that the person will be fully committed and be a real check on the powers of the chief executive, who may need oversight in interpreting the priorities and actions needed in response to directions received from the Secretary of State. My noble friend’s proposal that the board must comprise at least five and no more than eight directors makes perfect sense and provides for the assembly of a group of people with the appropriate skills and experience.

I have also considered and support Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which requires scrutiny of any proposed appointments by the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee of another place. That committee should ensure that an appropriate balance of skills and experience among the directors is maintained at all times.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

106: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual report: impact on coastal communities(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter, Great British Energy must annually report on the impact of their activities on coastal communities.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of these reports before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require Great British Energy to annually report on the impact of their activities on coastal communities.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendments 106 and 107 in this group and to support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 118. These amendments are closely aligned with Amendments 27, 28 and 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Effingham, which were debated on the first day in Committee. Amendment 106 introduces a new clause that ensures that Great British Energy must annually report on the impact of activities on coastal communities. Amendment 107 similarly requires GB Energy to report on its impact on commercial fishing.

The Government have committed to substantial wind developments, promising to double onshore and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. It goes without saying that there is a difficult balance to strike when undertaking considerable developments while minimising the damage to the communities and industries that are most likely to be affected. That said, we must not lose sight of the communities and sectors to which GB Energy’s activities may be costly. I remind noble Lords that the Government have said that GB Energy will work closely and collaboratively with local communities to achieve their clean energy targets. I therefore see no reason why they should not consult and report on the impact of its functions on the communities they suggest will reap the rewards of GB Energy.

The impact of GB Energy’s activities and the Government’s green energy agenda on communities throughout the UK has been a recurring theme and a point of serious concern throughout the debate on the Bill. Last year, I highlighted the burden facing rural communities in particular, as the Government looked to ramp up transmission and distribution infrastructure. It is essential that the energy transition, and GB Energy’s role within it, do not come at the expense of the communities and associated industries.

Many in this House urged the Minister to ensure that the Secretary of State and GB Energy consult local communities. I point to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who rightly raised concerns that offshore wind development risks forcing fishermen out of the seas in which they operate. It is essential that we carefully consider the use of our country’s marine space. Preliminary results from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory concluded that all the proposed offshore wind farms in the UK are predicted to impact fishing, with fishermen pointing to both financial and safety concerns resulting from the construction and operation of offshore wind farms. Ultimately, this is an issue of spatial competition.

Amendment 115 of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is broader, addressing the impact of GB Energy’s activities on both fishing and commercial shipping. He is right to extend the scope to commercial shipping. I turn to the UK Harbour Masters’ Association, which notes the challenges faced by the sector from offshore renewable energy installations. It calls for a report on the impact of such installations on the shipping industry and insightfully draws a link with commercial fishing, noting that fishing vessels may be squeezed out of their usual channels and enter shipping routes to avoid sites of renewable energy generation. We must not ignore the worries and recommendations of these industry bodies. With this in mind, many environmental, biodiversity and wildlife bodies have called for GB Energy to deliver for nature alongside climate. I welcome and support my noble friend Lady Bloomfield’s Amendment 118, which requires GB Energy to make

“a positive contribution to nature recovery”.

Careful consideration is key to the success of GB Energy. We must not isolate but include those communities and sectors that will be most impacted by the Government’s attempts to create this green energy superpower. Additionally, we ought to consider how GB Energy will act in a way that seeks to benefit both the climate and biodiversity, which are inextricably linked.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of all noble Lords in the debate on this group of amendments, and the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 in my name would introduce a new clause which requires GB Energy and its partners to make only investments that make a positive contribution to nature recovery. As my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel rightly explained, the UK is facing both a climate and a nature crisis.

Nature recovery, the restoration of our country’s biodiversity and the climate are matters that are so closely interwoven. They cannot and should not be considered in a separate capacity. Therefore, if GB Energy is to be established in an effort to achieve clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions in an attempt to tackle climate change, GB Energy ought to operate in a way which looks to make a positive contribution to nature recovery.

The Government themselves recognised the ties between climate and nature recovery. Indeed, they were elected on a manifesto which said:

“The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”


and

“The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis”.


The omission of a nature recovery duty is another shortcoming of the Bill. Climate change and the loss of biodiversity both compound and reinforce one another. The Royal Society has acknowledged that a flourishing ecosystem has the ability to combat the effects of climate change. We know that the UK’s biodiversity is under serious threat, yet we know that natural habitats have a significant role to play in absorbing and storing carbon and regulating the climate.

Wildlife and Countryside Link has called for nature recovery to be put in the Bill and the amendment in my name would do just that. It recognises that restoration of the UK’s nature has the ability to provide up to a third of the climate mitigation effort that is required if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. Rightly, it describes the Government’s failure to include a nature recovery duty as a “missed opportunity”.

A nature recovery duty ought to be a general principle of GB Energy. It would hold the Government to account on the manifesto they were elected on. It would introduce a clear condition, ensuring that GB Energy and its partners operate in a way which seeks to contribute to the biodiversity targets introduced by the previous Government in the Environment Act.

Nature recovery must not be seen to inhibit the facilitation of the production, distribution and storage of clean energy. Instead, it must go hand in hand with the objectives of GB Energy, helping to protect and restore carbon-rich habitats. Indeed, it is complementary to the objectives of GB Energy surrounding clean energy generation and distribution.

We must be cautious that the establishment of this body to rapidly ramp up the installation and generation of renewable energy technologies does not adversely affect biodiversity in the UK. We must seek to mitigate the risk of further diminishing or undermining the UK’s natural assets. The amendment in my name would do just that by embedding a nature recovery duty into law.

--- 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.

Amendment 106 withdrawn.

Gas Storage Levels

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, last week, Centrica commented on Britain’s storage levels as being “concerningly low”. We know that the UK’s gas supply is pretty tiny in comparison to the rest of Europe, but the Government’s position seems to be that there is no problem and no threat to our gas supply because we can simply import LNG to bridge the gap. The industry is saying that, looking forward to 2030, up to 80% of our gas will come from costly imports. Surely we should be supporting our own oil and gas industry in Britain, rather than shutting it down in favour of imports from abroad.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

59: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of reducing household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030. (1B) A report under subsection (1A) must include a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years. (1C) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the day on which this Act is passed, and annually thereafter.(1D) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on how Great British Energy’s activities are contributing towards taking £300 off consumer energy bills.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 59 and to speak to Amendments 60, 61, 63, 65, 69, 70, 72 and 76 in my name.

Amendment 59 requires an annual report on how Great British Energy’s activities are contributing to reducing consumer household energy bills by £300. This frequently repeated claim, that the purpose of Great British Energy is to save each household £300 on their energy bills, seems conspicuously absent from the legislation, which states that the “objects” of Great British Energy are only to facilitate, encourage and participate in the production of energy,

“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions … improvements”

in

“energy efficiency, and … measures for ensuring security of … supply”.

It is imperative that the Government be held accountable for their promises. The Secretary of State has reiterated that clean energy will deliver cheaper energy, and this has been repeated in this House, in the other place, on the campaign trail, in videos and on leaflets. It is therefore important to enshrine accountability for that ambition in the Bill that creates the institution of Great British Energy. We must introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are accountable to households for their pledge to reduce bills through investment in renewables, and for their specific promise to reduce household bills by £300 per household.

Amendment 60 in my name also seeks to introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and Great British Energy are held accountable. Amendment 60 holds the Government to their word by requiring Great British Energy to report to the Secretary of State on the progress made towards creating 650,000 new jobs—another election pledge.

Amendment 61 in my name introduces a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and requires that an annual report be produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, particularly hostile foreign states. I am sure we can all agree that we want the so-called “clean energy” transition to utilise British industry, whereby offshore wind turbines and solar panels are produced by domestic manufacturing companies and erected by British workers. It is with that in mind that I bring Amendments 61 and 76.

Amendment 61 requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied from UK manufacturers. The transition to net zero presents our country with a great opportunity for investment and job creation; we must ensure that it is domestic companies and the British people who benefit from the increased investment promised by Great British Energy.

We must not outsource our energy transition. Amendment 72 in my name requires Great British Energy to report on the impact it has on imported energy. The Government’s target to achieve clean energy by 2030 must not increase our reliance on imported energy, which risks jeopardising our energy security and exposing British consumers to price spikes. It is already concerning, given that the hike in the windfall tax to 78% is already cutting investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production, and will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply.

The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production of clean energy as set out in Clause 3. It is therefore critical that Great British Energy should take all reasonable steps to ensure that access to the national grid is ready for any energy infrastructure invested in by Great British Energy, and Amendment 65 in my name works to do just that.

The “Great Grid Upgrade” is without doubt a necessary component of our journey to net zero by 2050. Currently, new energy infrastructure—new wind turbines and new solar farms—have a significant wait time for grid connection. That is why the previous Government commissioned the Winser review, setting out recommendations on how to reduce this timeframe. The previous Government accepted advice on all areas—all 43 recommendations—to ensure that we could continue the work to drive down construction and connection times.

Despite the work that we on these Benches initiated in government by accepting these recommendations, the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new project can be as long as 10 years. In fact, a project without grid connectivity today might not come online until the mid-2030s, well beyond the Government’s ambitious goal of grid decarbonisation by 2030. It is therefore essential that the development of the national grid coincide with the development of renewable energy production.

Amendments 69 and 70, in my name, require GBE to report to the Secretary of State on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions and on the progress made by GBE towards reducing those emissions. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Petitgas and Lord Trenchard, whose Amendment 80 would require Great British Energy to produce a quarterly unaudited and an annual audited report, including on the rate of returns for and the carbon emissions resulting from each investment. I support my noble friends’ amendment, which neatly covers both emissions resulting from, and the rate of return of, each investment. I expect that the latter will be debated thoroughly in the following group.

Supposedly, Great British Energy is to be established to drive the Government’s clean energy by 2030 goal and net-zero target, yet the Bill makes no provision for reporting on the impact of each investment on carbon emissions, which is critical if the Government are to achieve that pledge. Amendments 69 and 70 in my name, and Amendment 80 in my noble friend Lord Petitgas’s name, seek to rectify that, as does Amendment 85A in my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s name, which I wholeheartedly support.

Finally, I return to the strategic priorities of Great British Energy as set out under Clause 5. As I have discussed previously, it is critical that we have sufficient oversight of and reporting measures on the financial assistance provided to Great British Energy. In that vein, Amendment 63 requires Great British Energy to report on the projected cost of fulfilling all its strategic priorities.

I trust that the Minister has listened to and carefully considered the array of issues raised in the amendments in my name and in those in my noble friends’. We must not lose sight of the sweeping powers that the Bill provides to the Secretary of State in issuing Great British Energy with directions over which Parliament will have no oversight. We must give due consideration to the purpose and impact of each direction. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77 in my name

“would require … 75 per cent of all materials purchased as part of an investment by Great British Energy”

to be produced in the UK. I will speak only briefly, as my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel’s Amendment 61, for which I thank him, similarly requires a fixed percentage of materials sourced or purchased as part of any investment made by Great British Energy to be produced in the UK and supplied by UK manufacturers. However, I will make some additional points.

It is essential that the race to clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 benefit British industry. As my noble friend Lord Offord explained, we must not outsource our energy transition. I draw attention to the warning from the former head of MI6 that the courting of Chinese investment risks handing power to Beijing. Up to 40% of solar panels in Britain are produced by companies linked to forced Uighur labour in eastern China. Furthermore, Chinese businesses have funded or provided parts for at least 14 of the 15 offshore wind projects in, or about to be in, operation. Firms owned by the Chinese Government have large stakes in three projects, together producing the energy for 2 million homes. While the Government’s energy agenda is overly ambitious, it could benefit the domestic manufacturing industry if we look to prioritise British industry over that of foreign states.

I am sure that the Government will have no hesitation in supporting my amendment, considering that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that Great British Energy will deliver jobs for the British people. Can the Minister tell the Committee what impact Great British Energy will have on British industry? Will he confirm that the Government’s clean energy targets will not increase our reliance on foreign supply chains?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

62: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State within three months of each investment it makes on the impact that the relevant investment is projected to have on wholesale electricity prices over the following ten years.(1B) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a requirement that Great British Energy reports to the Secretary of State (and subsequently Parliament) on the projected impact that each of its investments would have on wholesale electricity prices over the following ten years.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 62 and to speak to my Amendments 64, 68, 71 and 75. Aside from the promises to cut consumer energy bills and create 650,000 new jobs made by the Government throughout the election campaign, the British public were assured that GBE would turn a profit for the taxpayer. Yet there is nothing in the Bill that elucidates an investment profile or targeted rate of return. Why not? The British taxpayer must be able to see what the Secretary of State is doing with £8.3 billion of public money.

With that said, Amendment 64 requires GBE to provide an annual report to Parliament on its annual rate of return on investment and a projection of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. That point was picked by my noble friend Lord Petitgas in the previous group. The company intends to invest in and de-risk projects in new clean energy technologies and it would be useful to see the return on investment of these projects. The point was well made in the last group and this amendment continues to hammer that point home.

During the last election, the Government made countless promises on bills and energy costs—again, a point we heard in the last group—that were rehearsed, debated and put out by the Prime Minister, Chancellor and various Cabinet Ministers, who gave the figure of £300. Once again, it is only fair that we have amendments that hold the Government to account on these promises made to the British people. It is widely understood that the cost of electricity is a matter of serious concern and, again, as has been indicated, it is now the major part of any household’s weekly costs. Therefore, it is deeply worrying that the Government are voting against enshrining these promises in law when they made them so directly to the British public.

The Government have said that GBE is part of their plans to ramp up renewables, which they say will result in cheaper energy. But, again, we do not have the background and analysis. The only analysis we have had so far, from Cornwall Insight, found that in the last contracts for difference, the Secretary of State, on these assumptions, will potentially increase people’s energy bills by £5. So, again, we have conflicting reports from different experts in this space. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that removal taxes will increase by 23% by 2030, again highlighting the cost of this transition to the ordinary consumer. It is with that in mind that I bring forward Amendment 71, which requires GBE to produce and report

“a cost benefit analysis of the price of electricity produced from renewable energy technologies compared to that produced from gas”,

which plays a critical role in energy generation.

I return again to the Government’s promises of 650,000 jobs with no detail as to how that will be deployed, other than the fact that we know there may be 100 or so in the Aberdeen headquarters. I believe that the Government’s punitive attack on the North Sea oil and gas industry will actually cost jobs, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, already mentioned in the last group—some 200,000 highly paid, highly technical jobs in the North Sea, which are critical to the transition to the new green energy world for which we all wish.

Finally, Amendment 75 would require GBE to carry out an environmental impact assessment on each investment it makes. The Secretary of State and GBE should give due regard to their role in maintaining the protection of our environment while ensuring that they deliver healthy returns on investment.

I am pleased to speak to this group. I look forward to the corresponding debate. The function of GBE as a type of investment body is central to its operation as a company. It is therefore essential that the Bill makes provision to report on the success and impact of each investment it makes, backed by £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his clear and well-argued introduction of his amendments in this group, to most of which I have added my name. As he said, the taxpayer must be able to see what the Secretary of State is doing with £8.3 billion of his money. State-owned companies do not have a great track record in realising a strong, positive return on their invested assets.

Unless GBE does that, it is likely to have a negative, rather than a positive, effect on wholesale electricity prices. Amendment 62 will ensure transparency on that. GBE intends to invest in and de-risk projects involving new clean energy technologies. It is clearly necessary to have full transparency as to the rate of return on each of the investments that GBE achieves. The amendment would require GBE to consider every single investment it makes in terms of the impact that it will have on electricity prices in the future. Does the Minister not agree that this would be a good discipline for GBE? Amendment 64 would ensure that we have such transparency on the whole portfolio of GBE’s investments across the board.

Amendment 71 contains a requirement for a cost-benefit analysis of the price of electricity generated by each of its investments compared with that of electricity generated by gas. We certainly need to know that. Many of us think that we are already saddling the consumer and industry with unnecessarily expensive electricity. The grid is always bound to draw electricity from renewable sources when they are available, in priority to gas. This means that gas power stations are constantly being fired up and down, and are seldom operated at full capacity. This distorts the price of gas, which in turn distorts the price of electricity because gas power stations produce much cheaper electricity when operated consistently at or near full capacity than they do under the current modus operandi. The price of gas used in the cost-benefit analysis required by this amendment ought to be the price achievable from constant operation rather than the distorted price resulting from prioritisation of renewable sources.

I also refer briefly to Amendment 75. It is clear that the main purpose of GBE’s collaboration with the Crown Estate is to build a large number of offshore wind farms in coastal waters. This amendment will require GBE to consider carefully the environmental impact of its activities on marine life and inshore fisheries, among others.

The Government have made much of their determination to cut energy bills. Their refusal to accept Amendment 71 and other amendments would show that they are less than certain that their plans will result in lower energy prices. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- 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.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Similarly, I do not support Amendments 86 and 86A, because they are based on the premise that certain organisations will always have an interest in any possible direction that could be given to Great British Energy. I do not think that that will always be the case. In addition, I certainly do not think that the Climate Change Committee should have any locus whatever: that organisation is already too big for its boots, and its remit does not naturally encompass the individual energy projects in which Great British Energy will be involved. I believe that Clause 6 is already well drafted, because it includes reference to consultation with relevant organisations without pre-judging who those consultees should be. I point out that, for many other powers of direction already on the statute book, there is often no requirement to consult beyond the body that is the object of the power. Consultation as drafted in the Bill is actually an important advance on that.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friends Lord Roborough, Lord Howell, Lord Trenchard, Lady McIntosh and Lady Noakes for their contributions on this group. The debate raised critical issues regarding the sweeping powers, as we highlighted, given to the Secretary of State. Why is it that any and all directions that the Secretary of State gives to GBE are hidden from the eyes of the public and lack parliamentary scrutiny? Considering once again that GBE is funded by £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, is subject to an unlimited cap on financial assistance and will not cut the British consumer’s energy bills, this is deeply concerning.

Let me turn to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment 66 would ensure that the Secretary of State does not give any direction to GBE without first delivering an oral Statement before Parliament setting out those directions. I am acutely aware of the lack of detail in this legislation, and it is crucial that we have proper oversight of the wider activities of GBE as ordered by the Secretary of State. It is not only I who thinks this: the Government have agreed. In fact, in Committee in the other place, the honourable Member for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks, said that the Government want Great British Energy to be

“accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives”.—[Official Report, Commons, Great British Energy Bill Committee, 15/10/24; col. 168.]

I therefore see no reason why the Minister should not support amendments that seek to improve accountability and reporting measures in the Bill and ensure sufficient oversight of the objectives, directions and activities of GBE. If the Prime Minister stands by his statement that he would not make a single promise that he was not confident he could deliver, the Minister ought to support these amendments, which would ensure that GBE was indeed “accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives”.

The UK Infrastructure Bank, referenced by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, was set up with the explicit purpose of financing projects to drive our energy transition, and it already includes rigorous safeguards to ensure that taxpayer money is spent effectively. Governed by strict rules and subject to detailed annual reporting, it provides the public with comprehensive information on its performance and investments. Given that these robust mechanisms are already in place for the Infrastructure Bank, is it not fair—indeed, essential—that GBE undergoes the same level of scrutiny and oversight? If we are truly committed to safeguarding public funds, surely the same level of accountability should applie to all publicly funded energy initiatives.

Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh would require a Minister to table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on any directions that are given by the Secretary of State to GBE before the directions are adopted. In a similar fashion, Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent the Secretary of State from directing GBE unless they have delivered an oral Statement to Parliament. I am grateful to both noble Lords for bringing these amendments, which will undoubtedly improve the levels of scrutiny and oversight to which the directions which are given to Great British Energy will be subject.

The only details included under Clause 6 are that

“Great British Energy must comply with the directions”

and that:

“The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament any directions given to Great British Energy”.


This is simply not good enough. It is the bare minimum to allow Parliament to have sight of the directions issued to Great British Energy before they are acted on. In fact, it would be negligible to allow Great British Energy to be directed without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised by Amendments 66 and 87.

Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, seeks to ensure that, before giving any direction to Great British Energy, the Secretary of State must consult

“the National Energy System Operator”—

known as NESO—

“the Climate Change Committee and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority”.

I discussed in detail the importance of consultation in our debate on Amendments 56 and 116. As I said, engagement and consultation with the relevant parties is crucial if GBE is to be a success. The Secretary of State must not act in isolation. It is crucial that he or she consults with the relevant stakeholders. I therefore welcome the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the concerns raised by noble Lords in the debate on this group.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Cryer) (Lab)]

My Lords, I now turn, as you would expect, to Amendments 66, 86, 86A and 87, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. As I have said, and as my noble friend has said previously, Clause 6 sets out that the Secretary of State will be able to give directions to Great British Energy, and that Great British Energy must comply with those directions.

As Great British Energy will be operationally independent, the intention is that the power will be used only when it is really needed. This will ensure that GBE has the space it requires to fulfil its role and deliver its strategic priorities. I draw the House’s attention to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in this context.

The purpose of the clause is to ensure that there is a mechanism in place should any urgent or unforeseen circumstances arise. For example, it could be used if the Secretary of State considers that they need to give GBE a direction that is in the interest of national security or otherwise in the public interest. The amendments before us would risk delaying the Secretary of State’s ability to give Great British Energy that direction, potentially compromising national security under certain circumstances.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the perfectly reasonable points of accountability and scrutiny. I am not impugning his motives—or the motives of anybody else who has tabled amendments—but if there was an issue of national security that perhaps took place at the start of a recess, it would seriously hamper the Secretary of State’s ability to act.

The noble Earl also raised, interestingly, the possibility of Labour losing the next election. It may come as a shock, but we are not actually planning to lose the next election. However, the mechanism of accountability and the decisions of this Government and future Governments are subject to the views of voters. That is part of the democratic process. We might not like a future Government exercising the directions we have put on the statute book, but that probably applies to past Governments as well. It is part of the democratic process and the process of accountability and scrutiny.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would take this point further by requiring the resolution of each House, which I genuinely do not think is practicable. However, to ensure transparency and accountability, any directions given to Great British Energy will be published and laid before Parliament before they are given.

Further, Clause 6 requires that the Secretary of State must consult GBE and other persons considered appropriate, before giving directions to GBE. This means that GBE’s management and its board—yet to be appointed—will have the opportunity to express any reservations they have about the direction to Ministers before any such direction is made. If appropriate, this could include the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee—which has been consulted by successive Governments—the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, Great British Nuclear and the National Wealth Fund, as well as groups not referenced in Amendment 86.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned at least two of the organisations on that list; he mentioned others too, as I think did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. We could end up with a list as long as your arm of bodies that have to be consulted, which would seriously hamper the Secretary of State’s room for manoeuvre.

Finally, it is not unusual for a Secretary of State to be able to direct an arm’s-length body and such powers are found in several pieces of legislation—again referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. In the specific context of government-owned companies, such powers are, for example, included in the Energy Act 2023, which created Great British Nuclear, where named stakeholders are also not included in the directions clause.

For these reasons, I hope the noble Earl recognises that adding this detail would not be beneficial and will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, onshore wind has a remarkably small footprint in terms of its use of the land, which seems to get forgotten. I can see 30 wind turbines from my bedroom window; the nearest is about 1 kilometre away. They are excellent: they show that renewable energy is working. We should have more of them, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it easier for these developments to take place towards our 2030 objective of decarbonised electricity.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Roborough—Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105. In bringing forward these amendments, my noble friends raise the matter of great importance that is the agricultural industry, which has been subject to punitive measures by the Government in the form of the family farms tax raid.

Amendments 67 and 104 prevent Great British Energy from supporting projects on or owning land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good and high-quality agricultural land. Alternatively, Amendments 73 and 105 encourage GBE to pursue developments on land that is designated grade 4 or 5 —essentially, the worst agricultural land. It appears obvious that the Secretary of State, who directs Great British Energy, will support an approach that balances the need for renewable energy with the need to preserve our nation’s food security.

As explained by my noble friend Lord Fuller within his allotted time, the purpose of this group of amendments is to protect the best and most versatile land for food production. I echo the concerns of my noble friend Lord Roborough that some of the largest and most significant solar developments seem to be approved without due consideration given to the quality of the land which is being sacrificed in the process. It is an undeniable fact that grade 2, the best and most versatile agricultural land, is being lost to existing solar developments. That is not merely a matter of farming but of our country’s food security. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so neatly put it, at best Great British Energy may help to turn our lights on and heat our homes, but there will be no food on the British people’s plates.

The question is not whether we should develop renewable energy but where we should develop it. The goal of achieving energy security should not come at the expense of food security. I ask the Minister to give us his full assurance that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that undermine our nation’s ability to feed itself.

Recent analysis of land take by ground-mounted solar installations shows a concerning trend: solar developments are disproportionately targeting the best and most versatile land—that is, land classified under grade 1 and 2. Across England, only 17% of land is classified as grade 1, yet 19% of the land used for solar installations falls into this category. This trend violates the general recommendation to avoid productive agricultural land development. In contrast, grade 5 land, the poorest agricultural land, has been disproportionately avoided. That is exactly the type of land that solar projects should be prioritising, yet it remains underutilised. Only 0.5% of solar installations are on grade 5 land, despite such land constituting 8% of England’s agricultural landscape.

The issue is particularly pressing, given the Government’s ambitious target to triple solar power capacity to 50 gigawatts by 2030. As we expand solar energy, more and more land will be acquired. However, unless active measures are taken to ensure that the correct land is used for these installations, we will continue to see the loss of high-quality agricultural land, exacerbating concerns over our nation’s food security. Amendment 73, therefore, is vital: it seeks to ensure that renewable energy development does not come at the cost of our most productive agricultural land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it seems quite extraordinary that no reference is made in this Bill to nuclear because, let us face it, if you want to have clean energy generation, nuclear is the only thing that is available at the moment. My noble friend Lord Trenchard must be right when he says that we should be much more seriously considering both small modular reactors and large ones for our energy supply in future, because that is going to be the only way we really get clean energy. I find it quite extraordinary that this has all been parked somewhere separately when it all should be integrated. We should certainly be looking at the potential for nuclear, because that is where the future lies.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for tabling the amendments that we are discussing in this group. All three amendments address a matter that many in this House have questioned—that being GB Energy’s role and involvement in the production of nuclear energy and its relationship with Great British Nuclear. Amendment 85B requires GB Energy to consult with GB Nuclear before it invests in nuclear energy. Amendment 85C requires GB Energy to report on the impact of its investments in nuclear energy and private investments in the UK nuclear industry. Amendment 118C ensures that the Secretary of State reports on the impact of the Bill on the competitiveness of the UK nuclear industry.

Nuclear energy will be critical to achieve the Government’s net-zero targets. However, historically, those on Government Benches have dismissed nuclear’s role in the energy mix. Let me draw on the Government’s own nuclear record. Since the 1970s no new nuclear power stations have been built under a Labour Government. Instead, all nuclear power stations still in operation were commissioned under Conservative Governments. Labour’s longest-serving shadow Energy Minister, Alan Whitehead, even said that we do not need nuclear. I disagree, and I am sure many in this House do too and I call on the Minister to update Labour’s thinking on this matter.

If the Government, via GB Energy, recognise the importance of nuclear, it is only right that they consult with GB Nuclear before investing in nuclear technology. Can the Minister confirm exactly what relationship is envisaged between GB Energy and GB Nuclear? Have the Government already consulted with GB Nuclear on the functions of GB Energy, and if so, will they continue to do so? We urgently need the development of new nuclear sites, as energy generated from nuclear technologies is both reliable and low carbon. Therefore, it is essential that GB Energy and GB Nuclear have a more formal collaboration. Industry bodies such as the Nuclear Industry Association have called for greater clarity on the interaction and relationship between the two organisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very keen that my noble friend Lord Ashcombe should reintroduce the whole prospect of hydrogen, because I thought that it was rather rubbished by my noble friend Lord Roborough, who said that it was all going to be much too expensive. I think that the future lies in hydrogen, and I hope that it will be developed much more cheaply, so that it can be available for so many different uses, not only in power stations but also in aircraft, heavy vehicles and so forth. As I understood it, it was being developed and the price was coming down, but maybe I am completely wrong on that. I would be very grateful to hear from the Minister what the position of liquid hydrogen is: whether it is still prohibitively expensive and not likely to be a solution to our problems or whether the future lies in liquid hydrogen.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it is worth stating what is going on out there on the national grid right now. Gas and wind are supplying between 42% and 43% each; therefore, it is the gas price that is driving the price for everything. We are in the unusual position right now where we are exporting electricity to the continent because they need it more than we do. To have 42% driven by gas, with the price at over £100 a megawatt hour at the moment, seems worrying, and what we can do to curtail that must be important; but gas is not going away any time soon, and we have to be careful about how we moderate the reduction in it.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I whole-heartedly support Amendments 85G and 85H in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, as well as Amendment 85F in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The objects of GB Energy, as outlined in Clause 3, state that they are restricted to

“facilitating, encouraging and participating in ... the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.

The Minister has made a virtue in this House that the Bill does not focus on any one particular technology or solution, but would it not be correct to assume that GB Energy has actually been set up in an effort to boost the production of renewable energy in the UK? Otherwise, what is the investment of £8 billion to be spent on? The Government say that GB Energy is part of their mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, but how can we ensure that it delivers on these promises? I have seen in both the previous days of debate in Committee that the details in this Bill are at best scarce, and the Bill makes no provisions to report on the impact of each investment that GBE makes on renewable energy production. How, again, are we supposed to measure its success in delivering for the British people, as promised throughout the election campaign?

It is in the public’s interest to disclose the impact of GBE’s energy investments and activities on the level of energy produced from renewable sources, whether that be solar, wind or hydrogen. It seems incredible that this Bill, which establishes a so-called clean energy company, does not include a means by which GB Energy is required to report on the generation of clean energy. Indeed, this is an alarming oversight.

My noble friend Lord Fuller has rightly outlined an additional reason as to why the reporting on the impact of GB Energy’s investment on the levels of renewable energy generated is so critical. As has been mentioned many times, Europe has recently experienced another dunkelflaute. Just last month, for three consecutive days, more than 60% of electricity generation in the UK had to come from gas, as wind output dropped. At the same time, our partners in Germany paid the highest average price per megawatt since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with a lack of wind being the main factor behind this escalation.

It is essential that renewable energy generation associated with GB Energy’s functions is closely monitored, if we are to maintain our energy security. The Secretary of State has said that one of the aims of GB Energy would be to improve our energy security— this, too, is mentioned in Clause 3. However, I am deeply concerned that the Government’s tunnel-visioned focus on green energy alone risks threatening our energy security. I am sure the Minister will want to see the successes, maybe even the failures, of GB Energy in helping to generate renewable energy. If this is true, he will have no problem in offering support to the amendments in my noble friends’ names. Ultimately, these amendments require the most basic and necessary levels of reporting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 131 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lilley, to which I have added my name. It would require GB Energy to publish a report on the projected costs of long-duration energy storage. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, for which I apologise.

This is an ambitious Bill that is part of an ambitious policy. It is a policy that is fundamental to a frighteningly large part of our lives: the availability of energy, the dependability of energy supply and the cost of energy. According to whether Governments succeed or fail in these areas, economies sink or swim, and functions slide into dreary and dangerous dysfunctionality. They bloom like an English country garden in midsummer or wither, shrivel and slumber like any garden anywhere on these islands in coldest, darkest, most forbidding winter.

Energy is a policy area to which the precautionary principle should clearly apply. It is not an area where we should make a habit of leaping about in the dark or buying pig after pig in poke after poke or moving forward, fingers crossed, on a wing and a prayer.

It is the very opposite of such an area. It is a subject on which clear-sighted, far-sighted sceptics, expert sceptics, industry sceptics, and seriously sceptical scientists and engineers with the national interest at heart deserve a hearing. The stakes are just too great—the Bill is well named—for turning a deaf ear or blind eye in their direction, as indeed we were forcibly reminded last week. Last Monday, the Secretary of State for Energy was bragging that wind power was the UK’s biggest source of electricity in 2024. He said that it was

“a huge moment on our journey away from energy insecurity”.

Less than two days later, NESO issued a warning that there was a close to 30% chance of power cuts that very evening.

Although the operator managed to eliminate this risk by sourcing back-up power, this came at vast expense, as my noble friend Lord Fuller pointed out, with prices rising to a staggering £5,500 per megawatt hour, around 80 times the average price in 2024—the highest energy prices in Europe. These are costs that the consumer and business in this country must bear, and part of the reason why our energy costs are as high as they are. Our industrial energy costs are four times those in the United States and 46% above the IEA median. The Government’s policy of net zero at any cost will serve only to make this dire situation worse.

As many of us know, the operator last week came very close to disaster, with only 580 megawatts of headroom. This is equivalent to less than a single power station cutting out and, just three hours after the peak, two power stations with a combined capacity of two gigawatts did indeed trip out, exhibiting how close we came to the lights going out. This near-miss should be a wake-up call to this Government and a signal that we need to change course. It should be, but will it be? I confess that I am not holding my breath. As things stand, the Government’s policy to pursue intermittent wind and solar and to neglect baseload power such as gas and nuclear in all likelihood will cause the country to run into severe problems in the future and, as we have seen, power cuts could happen any week.

The Government believe that long-duration energy storage will be able to balance energy supply and demand over time. This early-stage technology, driven by hydrogen, will potentially allow storage of energy from renewables over extended periods of time up to months and years. Battery storage, on the other hand, at present only has the ability to store energy in a small capacity for a mere two hours.

In a debate on the Science and Technology Committee’s report on long-duration storage, held on Thursday in this Chamber, the newly appointed Minister for Investment, the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, stated that

“we are going to need colossal amounts of hydrogen storage”.—[Official Report, 9/1/25; col. 845.]

What this equates to are colossal subsidies at colossal expense to taxpayers—a cost that the Government are currently showing no sign of wishing to calculate.

In theory, wind plus green hydrogen appears to be a sensible idea that uses the output of wind farms when not required for the grid to generate green hydrogen, which then gets converted into electricity. The document that underpins the Government’s promotion of long-duration energy storage is, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, the Royal Society report produced in 2023. The report estimates that, by 2050, public and private costs required to establish long-duration energy storage in the UK will be £100 billion for actual storage, £100 billion to increase associated grid capacity and £210 billion for the wind and solar capacity required.

Unfortunately, there are multiple issues with the report in terms of its costings and assumptions. The report is based on unfeasibly low costs for hydrogen electrolysers, storage and generation. It assumes no leakage of hydrogen stored underground at high pressure for up to a decade. The return on capital assumption posits that investors will be attracted by a 5% return, but a return of two to three times that would be required in today’s marketplace to invest in a risky, early-stage technology such as this.

This is even without the recent sharp increase in gilt bond yields, with the cost of borrowing rising to the highest level for nearly 30 years, which is making every equity investment more expensive. These costings were produced before the surge of inflation a couple of years ago, which means that they are too optimistic. Even if the costs are achievable by 2050, the infrastructure will need to be built using today’s cost base, which will push up the cost base dramatically.

Substantial hydrogen electrolyser capacity will be required, which will need thousands of engineers that the UK does not possess. Perhaps the Minister could tell us where all these engineers will come from, particularly as there is strong international competition for this capacity from the EU and the US, which have significant hydrogen subsidies.

Even after the construction of a long-duration energy storage system, with its vast cost, the overall grid is likely to remain unreliable. The large storage caverns proposed by the Royal Society will take 10 years to fill and could empty in 12 months of extremely low wind. What happens if you have more than one year of very low wind over the 10-year period it takes to restock the storage caverns? Further questions surrounding the viability of this technology include the possible negative reaction of residents to having large caverns of hydrogen situated beneath their homes. The Government’s pronouncements suggest that they will plough ahead with granting subsidies to energy storage developers without having conducted adequate research on this issue.

At the same time that a calamity has narrowly been averted in the energy markets, we are experiencing a developing crisis in the financial markets. It has become apparent to market participants that the Government’s high-tax, high-borrowing Budget has markedly reduced any chance of growth. With the cost of borrowing rising dramatically, the Government’s spending plans are spreading alarm among investors, including the blank cheque written in respect of their uncosted ideological pursuit of net zero.

With expenditure on renewable subsidies now amounting to £11 billion a year, with an additional £2.5 billion for grid balancing and another £1 billion per year for the capacity market, the UK’s industrial and consumer electricity prices have become among the most expensive in the world. This will only get worse with the Government’s commitment of over £110 billion to connect remote wind farms to the grid.

Given the current economic and financial climate, it is more imperative than ever that the Government produce a report and come clean on the costs involved for the taxpayer of their plans for long-duration energy storage. We need an energy policy in which we can have confidence, and that means that, as an absolute minimum, we need more information, clarity and realism.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lilley. It goes without saying that long-duration energy storage is essential if the Government are to achieve the clean energy targets that will ensure that fossil fuels are phased out. To replace fossil fuel-derived energy, the Government are ramping up renewables—an entirely unreliable source. It is therefore critical that we use long-duration energy storage if we are to maintain the electricity supply.

As has been referenced by my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Reay, the Royal Society has estimated that a substantial volume of long-duration energy storage—enough to supply roughly a third of current annual UK generation—could ultimately be needed. It found that a strategic reserve of long-duration storage will be particularly important to address supply shortfalls from renewables in periods of low wind and rain. If the Government are to achieve a fully decarbonised electricity system by 2030, they must make provisions for substantial energy storage to manage the gaps between increased supply and demand. While Britain has just 2.8 gigawatts of long-duration energy storage capacity from four pumped hydro-plants in Scotland and Wales, it is believed that terawatt hours of long-duration electricity storage will be needed to decarbonise the grid in the whole of the UK.

The storage of power increases the flexibility of the grid and minimises likelihood of wasted renewables in cases of excess supply. Therefore, if GB Energy contributes to a large-scale rollout of long-duration energy storage, it would increase the availability of renewable power and may even lower consumer energy bills. The previous Government consulted on policy mechanisms to support low-carbon storage and introduced a target in the British Energy Security Strategy to deploy enough to balance the electricity system. We also moved to reform energy systems, establishing the future system operator, and consulted on a long-duration energy storage business. Finally, the previous Government addressed the challenging economics of long-duration energy storage projects and activity, and they consulted on introducing a cap and floor mechanism to implement additional financial support mechanisms.

Clause 3 states that GB Energy’s objects include facilitating and participating in the storage of clean energy. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm exactly how GB Energy will be involved in the storage of electricity generated from these renewable sources. It is critical as it prioritises the storage of energy to avoid the risk of blackouts, price fluctuations and our reliance on energy imported from foreign states. We cannot afford to compromise our energy security even more by failing to do so.

In conclusion, the development of long-term energy storage technology must occur alongside that of the national grid. We cannot increase our energy storage if we have no means to transmit and distribute the electricity. We face an immense but urgent challenge in scaling up our clean energy infrastructure, whether that be storage or distribution. I look to the Minister to clarify what proportion of the allocated £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be invested in long-term energy storage solutions.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in strong support of Amendment 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Of course we want to consult widely with farmers, fishermen and communities; after all, these are the people who are most likely to be greatest affected by the generation of renewable energy in the countryside. However, that energy will be consumed in the cities, and so those people will not necessarily see the benefits. The harms could be damaged landscapes, the consumption of land, and the introduction of noise and general disruption from construction. We are looking at towering turbines and new pylons. In my own area, in Norfolk, Diss faces being surrounded—fenced in—on both sides by two huge lines of pylons as part of our drive to net zero. Acres of land are lost to solar, with the loss of jobs in the countryside and the debilitating hum of battery storage.

What can the Minister say about the extent to which the consultation will be coupled with reassurances and promises of compensation for those in parts that are most affected—possibly a reduction in electricity or energy bills? It should not be just the generality of everyone’s electricity or energy bill but particularly those people who are most affected.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Hamilton, Lord Teverson, Lord Grantchester and Lord Fuller, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Boycott, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, for their thoughtful contributions so far to this debate. This group has dealt with the critical subject of the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, and we must recognise the importance of this issue.

I begin with Amendment 46. As we discussed on the first day in Committee, the drafting of the Bill is concerningly lacking in detail. Unlike other Bills we have scrutinised in this House, the Great British Energy Bill lacks a clearly defined purpose and does not set out the company’s strategic priorities and plans. I am grateful that Amendment 46 looks to define the impacts of Great British Energy’s strategic priorities: the security of energy supply and the diversification of the ownership of energy facilities for the benefit of people and communities.

By explicitly stating that Great British Energy’s strategic priorities will assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency, we would ensure that the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money is used effectively for the Government’s stated purpose. Not only this but it is critical that Great British Energy looks to achieve a secure energy supply, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We saw how that was disrupted with the war in Ukraine. This is not an issue that can go unaddressed when discussing a Bill that the Government claim is so consequential to our country’s energy production, supply and security.

In fact, Clause 3 explicitly states that

“Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in … measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

However, the Bill makes no provision to ensure the security and future of our energy supply. We are concerned that there may be some tunnel vision here on renewable energy to achieve the Government’s unilateral, and perhaps overambitious, target of clean energy by 2030; that would inevitably compromise our energy security. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for addressing this concern in their amendment.

Amendment 47 in my name requires the statement of strategic priorities and plans to include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 by 2030. Throughout the election campaign, the Government repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household bills by an average of £300. A similar claim was made by at least 50 MPs, the Science Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary, and even the Chancellor said:

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


In an interview in June, the Secretary of State himself claimed that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, put it so eloquently, the public are hearing this message and must not be misled.

It is worrying that in the other place the Government voted against a Conservative amendment to make cutting energy bills, quoting the £300, a strategic priority for Great British Energy. By doing that, the Government voted against an amendment that would hold them to their word. They voted against ensuring delivery on their promise to cut energy bills for the British people. Why do this? If it is not £300, what is it? The public genuinely believe that Great British Energy, as a new energy company, will supply them with cheap electricity. Can the Minister give the Committee a cast-iron guarantee that GB Energy will cut energy bills? By how much will they be cut?

The pledge to cut household energy bills by up to £300 was not the only promise the Government made during their election campaign. They also promised that Great British Energy would create 650,000 jobs, yet this too was defeated from becoming a strategic object of Great British Energy and is absent from the Government’s Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the Great British Energy founding statement. Why is this? Amendment 48 in my name would ensure that the Government are held to their word and that the creation of 650,000 new jobs is included in the statement of strategic priorities.

These are not trivial matters: they are promises that are important to people. The Government have already put 200,000 jobs at risk with their plans to prematurely shut down North Sea oil and gas. The public are aware of this transition and they want a just transition, but they are hearing of an acceleration in offshore oil and gas to the detriment of jobs and no commitment given as to the new jobs that will replace them. The Secretary of State has made huge promises that greatly impact people’s energy bills, their businesses and their jobs. It is therefore critical that the Government are held accountable.

Amendment 49 in my name would introduce a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to develop UK energy supply chains and require that an annual report is produced on the progress of meeting this strategic priority. It is essential that our transition to net zero does not increase our reliance on foreign states, as has been mentioned many times, and particularly not on hostile foreign states. I think we all want to see a “Made in Britain” transition, where our offshore wind turbines are constructed by British manufacturing companies and erected by British high-skilled workers, and deliver clean, cheap energy for British homes and businesses. With that in mind, my Amendment 49 would make domestic supply chains a strategic priority for Great British Energy. In this transition to net zero, we are presented with great opportunities for investment and for new jobs. As with employment, we must ensure that British people and domestic companies benefit from the increase in investment we hope to see in the coming years. Therefore, we must not simply outsource this transition; the transition will not be just if it benefits only Chinese companies.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling Amendment 55. It is critical that the Secretary of State must consult with various groups and local communities, including farmers and fishermen, when implementing a statement of priorities that will almost certainly have significant implications for them. I remind noble Lords of Amendments 26 and 110, to which I spoke on the first day in Committee. I raised the importance of local community consultation when the activities of Great British Energy might result in the erection of pylons.

I also draw the attention of noble Lords to Amendments 106 and 107, which will no doubt be addressed in future debate. I too have expressed my concern on the impact of Great British Energy’s functions on coastal communities and commercial fishing. I seek to ensure that an annual report is prepared and published to assess those potential impacts.

I turn to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not intend to be repetitive, but this too is a fundamental issue with the Bill—it lacks strategy. How can the Minister expect the Committee to have thorough debate when the details of the Bill are so vague? The Bill lacks substance and we need to clarify the strategic priorities. However, by addressing amendments such as Amendments 50, and Amendment 73 which will come later in the debate, we can begin to address some of these glaring omissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if I am brutally honest, I do not really like this Bill at all. It is a vehicle for a nationalised industry that should not even be set up by a Labour Government who want to gamble with other people’s money with no parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, and on that basis, I really should support the amendment, because if they have to consult all these quangos and unelected bodies, which have made life such a nightmare for people for so long, they will never get anything done anyway, but that is just too cynical even for me. I have found that the Climate Change Committee represents a dwindling number of people in this country and basically keeps the Reform party in business.

As for the environmental committee, that is the one that, of course, the Government are going to ignore when they introduce their housing target of 1.5 million, because that has basically been blocking the number of planning permissions. Once again, I have a vested interest here: my family has land in Surrey that they are hoping to develop, so we are very keen on the recent Statement from the Deputy Prime Minister.

These quangos have not done anybody any good at all. The Government would be absolutely right if they resisted this amendment, because we have been run by these people for much too long and it is time that the country was run for the interests of the people.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, once again, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Howell, Lord Hamilton and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.

Amendment 56 would require the Secretary of State to consult the relevant stakeholders before strategic priorities for GBE were published. Under this requirement, the stakeholders to be consulted would include, but not be limited to, the Climate Change Committee, the National Energy System Operator—also known as NESO—Natural England and the Environment Agency. Amendment 116 would introduce a new clause on the duty of GBE to contribute to climate-change and nature targets. This would require GBE to “take all reasonable steps” when

“exercising its functions and delivering on the objects in clauses 3 and 5”,

and

“all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of the targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and Environment Act 2021”.

These objects reflect the values of climate and environmental responsibilities and sustainability which, within this House, are championed on all Benches. Great British Energy, and therefore the Secretary of State, have a unique opportunity to be involved in helping to achieve the targets of the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. They are in a privileged position, undertaking meaningful actions to be involved in nature and biodiversity recovery. They can tailor their strategic priorities with the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act in mind. In fact, as a publicly owned company, GBE has a clear duty to protect and nurture the environment by consulting key stake- holders such as Natural England, the Climate Change Committee and the Environment Agency. The Secretary of State will ensure that the activities undertaken by GBE will be those which best help to tackle climate change, promote nature recovery and protect the UK’s environment.

At present, however, I do not believe that this Bill creates sufficient provisions to consult the relevant environmental agencies on GBE’s skeletal strategic priorities and plans; nor does it ensure adequate reporting measures, which we have discussed. In Committee and on Report on the Crown Estate Bill, we on these Benches scrutinised the unprecedented relationship between the Crown Estate and GBE. It appeared that this Government introduced this legislation with one major objective: to enable the Crown Estate to build more offshore windfarms in partnership with GBE. My noble friends acknowledged that it was important, when legislating, to increase commercial activity on the seabed around our shores, but a restriction must be placed on the development of salmon farms in England and Wales, especially given the damaging effects on nature and the environment resulting from salmon farms operated in coastal waters and sea lochs in Scotland.

As a result of the rigorous and critical debate on the protection of the environment and the preservation of animal welfare standards at Report on the Crown Estate Bill, this House successfully voted on an amendment requiring the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. It is evident that this House cares about environmental protections. Concerning this, I hope we might receive an encouraging response from the Minister on amendments discussed today.