Gas Storage Levels
Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsMonday 13th January 2025
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Jan 2025)
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(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?
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.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ExcerptsTuesday 17th December 2024
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (16 Dec 2024)
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.
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.
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.
Great British Energy Bill
Lord Offord of Garvel ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Dec 2024)
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This would probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund - formerly the UK Infrastructure Bank.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are present for this important debate, which deals with an essential topic for the future of our nation: our energy production, security and ownership. I will also speak to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name.
Amendment 1 seeks to probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund, which was formerly known as the UK Infra- structure Bank. Amendment 3 seeks to probe into the fact that Great British Energy may be designated a company only if it is wholly owned by the Crown. Amendment 5 would specify that Great British Energy would be owned by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to Great British Energy’s relationship with the UK Infrastructure Bank. We have not seen an explanation of how this body is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do the exact same thing that Great British Energy claims it will do. In fact, Great British Energy is almost a duplicate of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was established to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, funded by £22 billion of taxpayers’ money. Great British Energy seeks to do something extremely similar, or so it claims, but the Bill gives far greater powers to the Secretary of State. I must ask why this is and why taxpayers should be burdened twice.
The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill had important accountability and reporting measures which have been removed from this Bill. It had a clear and structured framework for accountability and transparency. It was governed by rules to ensure that taxpayers’ money was used efficiently and was subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its investments and performance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Lord is referring to a power of direction. We are coming on to relevant amendments later in the Bill, but let me make it clear that this power is often contained in legislation, although we believe it will be used very rarely indeed. I certainly would not expect it to be used. I think the noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State will attempt to micromanage Great British Energy through the power of direction. I simply do not believe that this will happen under any Secretary of State.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about duplication. At the beginning, we think it is sensible for GBE to use the National Wealth Fund’s expertise. He suggested that this is duplication; I think it is a pragmatic, sensible approach. We have certain expertise within the National Wealth Fund that can help as we establish GBE, but they are complementary functions. Having listened to the debate, I can assure noble Lords that my department will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other, and set out how this relationship will evolve in time.
I turn to Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron. There was an interesting discussion about whether GBE could or should be allowed to raise equity through the sale of shares while it remained majority-owned by the Crown. Amendment 3 proposes enabling external equity ownership of Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Similarly, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 specify enabling third-party ownership of up to 25% of the shares in Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Amendment 5 seeks to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State, rather than by the Crown.
We do not think that it is necessary for Great British Energy to sell its own shares to bring in external equity funding, or any funding, for its projects. In the case of the example which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave, it would, though, be possible for Great British Energy to encourage private sector investment into the scheme to which he referred, or to co-invest with external partners, each taking an equity stake in a project that Great British Energy wished to support. I understand that the model has been used successfully by similar bodies, such as the former Green Investment Bank.
Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to Great British Energy. This is so it can take action to meet its objectives. To be clear, our intention is for Great British Energy to become financially self-sufficient in the long term. It will invest in projects that expect a return on investments, but it would be prudent to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to provide further financial support, if required.
Just as private sector companies would rely on the financial strength of their corporate group to raise funds, that could be the case for providing GBE with further financial support for specific projects in the future. However, we believe that any such financial assistance should be provided by the Secretary of State and, as such, be subject to the usual governance and control principles applicable to public sector bodies, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money.
It is also unnecessary to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State rather than the Crown. The Bill simply follows normal legislative practice in its drafting. For instance, Section 317 of the Energy Act 2023, which the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, took through, expresses the ownership requirement for Great British Nuclear in the same way. Other legislation, including Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, uses the same formulation. Clause 1(6) of the Bill explains that
“wholly owned by the Crown”
means that each share is held by a Minister of the Crown, which includes the Secretary of State, or a company wholly owned by the Crown, or a nominee of either of those categories.
We also think that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the sole shareholder in Great British Energy. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on this. Introducing minority third party ownership, whether held by one minority shareholder or several, would add unnecessary complexity to its governance. A shareholder agreement or agreements would need to be put in place. They would need to cover elements relating to the control of Great British Energy, setting out which matters required approval of a simple majority of shareholders and which might require unanimous consent. For an organisation such as Great British Energy, playing such a key part in our mission to deploy clean energy—I take note of what noble Lords have said about parliamentary accountability—is it not surely right that Ministers both are accountable for their actions and can exercise full shareholder rights?
This has been an interesting debate. I am aware of noble Lords’ issues around the role of Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund and its ability to draw in private sector investments, but we think—and it was a manifesto commitment—that this is a very important body that should stand alone. We are grateful that the National Wealth Fund is able to provide some support at the moment, but we think that this is the right way forward.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions on the designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of such a company. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron—Amendments 4, 6 and 7. They were designed to probe the benefits of having flexibility to allow minority external equity ownership of Great British Energy. However, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about introducing private equity into what is, in effect, government-underwritten risk, which means that it really should be debt.
The fact we are debating this indicates that there is no clarity about the substance and purpose of the Bill or about the exact ownership of Great British Energy. Given that we are debating £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, and that there is no limitation on how that financial assistance can be given or structured, we have a concern that will continue through Committee.
The experience of the House was brought into the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hamilton, who looked back over previous generations to instances of how overarching powers given to Secretaries of State can be used if not abused, sometimes with the best of intentions. Again, it speaks to how there could be more clarity in the Bill about how those powers will be allocated. We believe that accounting and reporting measures are absent from the Bill and that we need further detail and clarity on the priorities and plans of Great British Energy. I expect that we will return to those matters on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I just wish to make one submission on this amendment, in support of my noble friend Lord Frost. Clause 1(1A)(a), proposed by the amendment, contains the phrase
“reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way”.
The great merit of this is that “sustainable” has two meanings in this context: first, that the low prices are sustained over a long period, which is clearly a good thing; and secondly, that they are sustainable in the sense that they are good for the environment. It is a very well-drafted purpose clause and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I rise to speak to Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost and my own. This amendment brings critical clarity to the purposes of the Great British Energy Bill. It clearly outlines the two primary objectives the Secretary of State must pursue when designating a company as Great British Energy: first, reducing household energy costs in a sustainable manner; and secondly, promoting the UK’s energy security. I should add that I would not in any way quibble with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to both those provisions.
These objectives reflect the values of economic responsibility, national sovereignty and long-term sustainability. In the face of rising energy prices and global uncertainty, ensuring that energy remains affordable for British households and businesses is paramount. Reducing costs while maintaining a focus on sustainability means we can protect consumers without compromising the environment. Moreover, energy security has never been more important. The UK’s reliance on foreign energy sources leaves us vulnerable to geopolitical instability—today we still import 40% of our energy. By emphasising energy security in this amendment, we are prioritising the resilience of our national energy infrastructure. A secure energy supply is not just a matter of economic policy; it is a matter of national security.
This amendment provides the framework for a holistic energy strategy that benefits consumers, supports industry and strengthens our nation. As Conservatives, we on these Benches believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for growth and sustainability. Therefore, Great British Energy must not be a mere title, but an institution, if at all, that advances these vital objectives of lowering energy costs and ensuring energy independence for future generations.
It is imperative that we recognise the significance of Amendment 2, not only in the context of the Bill but as a cornerstone of sound legislative practice. Providing a clear statement of purpose ensures that any future actions taken under this Bill align with the objectives of affordability and energy security. Without such a guiding clause, we risk leaving the interpretation of the company’s aims open to ambiguity or to shifting priorities over time. Does the Minister not agree that a purpose clause of this nature would greatly improve the clarity of the legislation? If he does not agree to support this clause, could he outline on what grounds that decision has been taken?
This amendment would also serve to reassure the British public and industry stakeholders that Great British Energy will not deviate into activities that may undermine these core objectives. We have seen in the past how well-meaning initiatives can become overly bureaucratic or lose sight of their founding principles. A purpose clause acts as a safeguard, compelling policymakers and administrators to remain true to the Bill’s intent.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes. We cannot let this clause float by with a nod of the head, because it omits vital developments—as our debates have done—in the whole pattern of energy supply and energy-environmental compatibility across the planet. They are developing fast in other countries but get no mention here, confirming that this piece of legislation, while sounding fine and fitting into the jigsaw of the past, is already out of date and being bypassed by major developments in the global politics of energy and the environment.
I will give the Committee two examples. The first is zonality. The thinking in many circles, certainly in America and increasingly here, is that energy security, which we discussed in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, will have to be considered in zonal rather than national terms; in other words, national, centralised organisations, even National Grid, do not fit into the pattern of a future that will deliver security, clean energy and affordability. If one applies a zonal lens to this scene—I listened to senior officials from the National Energy System Operator talking strongly about this the other night—many of the arguments we are having around Clause 1 fall to bits.
Secondly, US corporations, big corporations in other countries and some in this country are beginning to recognise that grid thinking and the centralised patterns of energy delivery compatible with net zero and our other objectives are never going to happen. We will have increased climate violence and it is too late to prevent the growth in carbon emissions which is going on now and continuing faster than ever. Methane, which is 80 times as lethal as carbon dioxide, is also growing very fast, according to the latest figures. Despite all our efforts, climate violence is coming and many feel that it is here already. Big corporations in America and some here are losing faith in the capacity of our system—a transformed, completely renovated grid system of transmission of power and a necessary pattern of generation which is reliable and does not stop when the wind stops—to supply their needs.
Such corporations are investing, or planning to invest, and finding out from National Grid that they have to wait 15 years to get any electricity, to adjust from gas to electricity, or whatever it is, and, in doing so, realising that they are on a futile course unless they can get their own assured, dedicated source of electricity. That is why we are reading in the papers about ideas for converting old coal stations to mini-nuclear power stations, and other technologies. All these things are racing ahead but none is mentioned in Clause 2. It is, in fact, if we are frank with ourselves, a completely unrelated and irrelevant clause.
Therefore, one’s inclination is to shrug one’s shoulders. I hope that when we come back to these things in detail at a later stage, we will have a rather more focused image of what is really happening in the world of energy supply, carbon dioxide and methane growth, climate violence, or anything else of which there is not much of a sign in this clause.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lady Noakes’s stand part notice. This clause deals with the Crown status—or more accurately, the lack of Crown status—of Great British Energy, and it is imperative that we probe the Government’s reasoning and consider the implications of this approach.
Clause 2 states clearly:
“Great British Energy is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown”.
Additionally, it specifies that the property of Great British Energy
“is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown”.
Let us pause and consider what this means. Great British Energy is envisaged as a significant player in the energy sector, with the Government making it central to our net-zero ambitions and national energy security. It may well handle substantial public funds, represent the UK’s interests domestically and internationally, and carry out critical projects on behalf of the Government. Yet the Government have deliberately chosen to sever this body from the legal, financial and symbolic framework provided by Crown status.
I pose the question: why? Why has this decision been taken, and what are the potential consequences? There are three areas of concern I wish to highlight; the first is accountability and oversight. Without Crown status, Great British Energy sits outside the constitutional framework that traditionally governs Crown bodies. Will this weaken Parliament’s ability to scrutinise its actions? Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General have clear access to audit its books? In an age of heightened public interest in corporate governance and transparency, these questions should be considered.
Secondly, on legal implications, by denying Crown status, Great British Energy forfeits the legal immunities and privileges that might ordinarily protect a public body in its dealings. Does this leave it more vulnerable to litigation? Could it become ensnared in disputes that detract from its primary mission?
Thirdly, this is a public body intended to work for the public good. Denying it Crown status might send a message—rightly or wrongly—that it is not fully embedded within the public sector, raising questions about its mission and accountability to the public interest. I do not suggest that Crown status is a necessity in all circumstances. Indeed, there may be good reasons for taking this route, such as granting Great British Energy greater operational flexibility or shielding the Government from certain liabilities—but these reasons have not been clearly articulated by the Government, and they deserve to be.
As we face unprecedented challenges in energy policy, the creation of Great British Energy is a momentous step. Its structure and status must instil public confidence, ensure robust accountability, and align seamlessly with the broader aims of our national strategy. Clause 2, as it stands, leaves too many unanswered questions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we think Clause 2 is very important. It ensures that Great British Energy will serve the public as an independent company and operate in the same way as other UK companies. Before I come on to the main body of the argument, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he had some interesting points to make about the role of advanced nuclear reactors tied into industrial processes and data centres. We are watching very carefully what is happening in the US and we are in discussion with some of the companies themselves. I very much take his point about that.
The clause ensures that Great British Energy will not have any special status, immunity or privilege normally associated with the Crown, nor will its property be seen as the property of the Crown. It will also be subject to the same legal requirements as other companies. This is in line with the vision we have had for Great British Energy from the beginning: that it should be an operationally independent and agile market player, and we want to ensure it remains that way. If we were to leave out the clause, either Great British Energy would be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown and have the immunity or privilege associated with that status; or, at least, there would be ambiguity as to whether it has that status.
I understand that the courts in recent years have been faced with questions about whether certain persons or bodies had Crown immunity, and the issue was not clear in the legislation—for example, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the Commissioners of Prisons. The clause avoids that ambiguity and the possibility of any litigation arising regarding Great British Energy’s status. Examples of how this might arise in the context of Great British Energy, are, first, that Crown bodies are generally not covered by the requirements of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; and, secondly, that parts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 do not bind the Crown. We would not want Great British Energy to be exempt from that legislation or for it to be unclear whether it is bound by such legislation.
As I mentioned earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we expect Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to work well together. It is while Great British Energy is being established that it will utilise the National Wealth Fund’s existing expertise, which I think has been widely acknowledged. This is work in progress, and I cannot say very much more than that at the moment. We are not making it up as we are going along. There are earnest discussions between ourselves, His Majesty’s Treasury and Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy, and we will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other and how their relationship will evolve over time.
I also acknowledge that the partnership with the Crown Estate will be hugely valuable. On the question of the Crown Estate’s own position, I will have to seek further advice and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because I do not have the answer at the moment.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, first to declare my interest and secondly to comment on some of the amendments in this group.
I have sat in the Minister’s chair, so I understand that he will not want to add a long list of exclusions or inclusions to the objects of the Bill. Even with that in mind, I hope that he will have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. They are important and there is a theme to them.
I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Two issues have come out of the debate for me. The case for energy efficiency, insulation and heat pumps was made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is important that GB Energy looks to how it can provide a long-term, consistent environment for the policies that each Government pick up and put down. Industry, which has to be a key partner, finds this so frustrating and retrenches from investing in the skills training and expansion that are needed if we are effectively to retrofit the millions of homes in this country.
As we said in the debate on a Question earlier today, this is important not only for carbon reduction. We saw what happened from 2014: emissions from buildings fell by two-thirds after the change in policy. It is therefore really important that someone is boosting this and making sure that it is there for the long term to provide that stable environment. GBE will be in a position to do that, particularly if it is tied in with what we discussed in the Question earlier about the planning framework, again providing a clear and consistent road map for those who will need to invest in this.
The other thing that came out of the debate was that we have to be innovative, look to our strengths and be open-minded about sources of renewable energy. We have to understand that some of those sums that we had in our heads 20 years ago, about the cost of wave power, tidal power or whatever, have changed. They have changed financially but also in other dimensions, such as energy security and our priorities in energy. It is important that GBE is in there supporting those things.
I absolutely support Amendment 17. It may not be for the Bill but, as part of the innovative thinking we need from GBE, we need to look at such things as financial instruments. When we know that solar panels or heat pumps will pay off over the years but people are not going forward with them simply because they cannot afford the capital expenditure, it is important that we look not only at upping the government grant—helpful though that is in some instances. Houses can have mortgages on them for 10, 20 or 30 years. The costs of that investment can be spread in other and innovative ways, so I hope that the Minister can respond supportively to that amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for introducing his thoughtful and technical amendments, which no doubt would improve the quality of the Bill should they pass. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Each amendment contributes meaningfully to the Bill’s ultimate aim by ensuring that governance reflects accountability, fairness and long-term sustainability.
I will limit my remarks to Amendments 8, 9, 12 and 13. Amendment 8 proposes the addition of “investing in” alongside “encouraging”. This is quite important, because it seeks a balance between fostering enterprise and ensuring strategic government investment to safeguard our national energy. We want a partnership between government and the private sector. By explicitly including “investing in”, the amendment aligns with our commitment to a dynamic and sustainable energy sector.
Amendment 9, by adding “one or more of”, would bring clarity and flexibility to the Government’s strategic objectives in advancing energy policies. It would ensure that the Government could prioritise specific energy initiatives based on strategic needs without being overburdened by one limiting obligation. It reflects the core principles of pragmatism and efficiency, ensuring that resources can be allocated where they can deliver the greatest impact.
We know that energy security and innovation in this area—referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell as bigger perhaps than the Industrial Revolution—require adaptability. Whether we are investing in offshore wind, nuclear power or emerging technologies, the amendment would allow for a tailored approach that maximised value for taxpayers’ money and strengthened our energy independence. I urge colleagues to support it to make sure that we have smart, effective and flexible governance in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 12 is again quite technical. It seeks to insert the phrase “directly or indirectly” into Clause 3, which would again enhance the Bill by acknowledging the interconnected nature of emissions reductions and energy initiatives. This addition would ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing climate goals. Emissions reductions often involve complex supply chains and secondary impacts. Recognising these indirect contributions reflects our understanding of the broader economic and technological dynamics that drive innovation and decarbonisation. For example, investments in nuclear power or advanced grid infrastructure may not lower emissions immediately but they create the conditions for sustainable reductions in the long term, towards 2050 net zero. The amendment therefore provides the flexibility needed to pursue bold initiatives while holding true to the principle of cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. By adopting it, we would make the Bill more robust, practical and reflective of real-world energy systems. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 13 proposes the substitution of the word “produced” with “derived” in Clause 3. Again, this is a technical and seemingly small change, but it holds significant importance for our energy policy. “Derived” more accurately captures the diverse and evolving sources of energy in our transition to a low-carbon future. Energy comes increasingly from various integrated systems, including renewable sources, nuclear, tidal—as we have heard in great detail—and hydrogen. The term “produced” can be limiting, whereas “derived” acknowledges the broader, more dynamic approach needed to secure our energy future. The amendment provides the flexibility to encompass a wide range of energy sources and technologies, ensuring that our energy policies remain adaptable and forward thinking. It should reflect our commitment not only to reduce emissions but to foster innovation and maintain energy security in the face of global challenges.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this was a very interesting group. It clearly refers to a range of technologies in which Great British Energy could invest. I should start by saying that we intend GBE to be operationally independent and it is not for us to rigidly define what it should do or in which technologies it should invest.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of course anticipated my list argument because she has used it herself a number of times, but I take her point about ensuring long-term certainty and a stable environment for some of these crucial sectors. I recognise that GBE has great potential so to do, particularly in sectors where investment from the private sector may initially be difficult. I also take her point about how this has to be aligned with planning reform, enhanced grid connections and infrastructure.
Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 23, 31 and 32, in essence, relate to technologies specific to GBE’s objects in Clause 3. Amendment 23 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent Great British Energy being involved in CCUS projects, whereas the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would ensure that both carbon capture and storage and hydrogen fell within the scope of the Bill. The Government view both hydrogen and CCUS as vital to our drive towards net zero and to ensuring a just transition for industries based in the North Sea.
Great British Energy Bill
Lord Offord of Garvel ExcerptsTuesday 3rd December 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Dec 2024)
Lord Offord of Garvel
“(e) the production of nuclear energy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would amend Great British Energy’s objects to include the production of nuclear energy.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 21 is in my name. The UK led the world, becoming the first country to split the atom. This was followed in 1956 by the world’s first nuclear programme and a nuclear power station at Calder Hall—Windscale. At its peak in the 1990s, the UK generated approximately 13 gigawatts of power from nuclear energy, but this has slipped to around six gigawatts today. This story of decline stands in stark contrast to our modern understanding of nuclear power as the only current form of reliable, secure, low-carbon electricity which can be deployed at scale in the UK and therefore has to be considered a key component in the drive for net zero.
In January this year the previous Government published their policy paper, Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, and this was considered vital so that nuclear could offer the reliable, resilient and low-carbon power we need to reach net zero by 2050 and ensure our energy security so that we are never again dependent on the likes of Putin. Many other nations, including the USA and France, have endorsed a net-zero nuclear declaration which calls for a global tripling of nuclear energy by 2050.
Global energy is increasingly based around electricity. That means that the key to making energy systems clean is to turn the electricity sector from being the largest producer of CO2 emissions into a low-carbon source that reduces fossil fuel emissions in areas such as transport, heating and industry. While renewables are expected to continue to lead, nuclear power can also play an important part, along with fossil fuels, using carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and indeed the removal of flaring, turning our hydrocarbon fields into the greenest in the world. Countries envisaging a future role for nuclear account for the bulk of global energy demand and CO2 emissions, but to achieve a trajectory consistent with sustainability targets, including international climate goals, the expansion of clean electricity would need to be three times faster than at present. It would require 85% of global energy to come from clean sources by 2040, compared with just 36% today. Along with massive investments in efficiency and renewables, the trajectory would need an 80% increase in global nuclear power production by 2040.
We recognise the importance of renewables in achieving net-zero goals. However, going for a 100% renewable energy scenario represents a considerable gamble, especially given that grid balancing and storage technologies are still relatively nascent. One of the most pressing concerns is that solutions to renewables’ inherent variability fail to materialise quickly enough, and Britain either has to live with constraints and interruptions to its energy supply—an economic no-no—or pivot back towards an energy mix of yesteryear, reliant on fossil-fuelled power plants to provide a dependable baseload of electricity, albeit at a great environmental cost. If this were to transpire, the UK would seriously risk reneging on its 2050 net-zero target.
A lack of investment in existing and new nuclear plants in advanced economies would have implications for emissions, costs and energy security. In the case where no further investments are made in advanced economies to extend the operating lifetime of existing nuclear power plants or to develop new projects, nuclear power capacity will decline.
Nuclear power blends the best attribute of renewables, zero-carbon generation, with the best of fossil fuel power stations, dependability. According to the International Energy Agency, over the past 50 years, the use of nuclear power has reduced CO2 emissions by over 60 gigatonnes —nearly two years-worth of global energy-related emissions.
The Prime Minister has made a vital promise to lower energy bills for households across the country—a commitment that resonates deeply with families facing financial pressures—but to ensure that this promise is more than just words, the Government must take decisive action to secure a diverse, competitive and sustainable energy supply. One critical way to achieve that is by expanding the production of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy has the potential to significantly increase the UK’s energy supply. By introducing more nuclear power into the grid, we create a stable and abundant source of electricity. This additional capacity can ease pressure on prices by reducing reliance on imported fuels, particularly during global energy crises. With a greater supply of energy comes the opportunity for competition. Competition in the energy market pushes prices down for consumers, ensuring that families and businesses benefit from fairer, and lower, energy costs. Nuclear energy, as a reliable and low-cost source of power in the long term, plays a key role in fostering this competitive environment.
In respect of this amendment, nuclear energy is not just a technological option but a strategic necessity for the UK’s future. As the Government themselves have stated, nuclear energy
“will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power”.
To fulfil this vision, surely the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero must place nuclear energy at the core of its policies and strategies.
With 40% of the UK’s energy currently imported, this leaves us vulnerable to global market volatility and geopolitical tensions. Nuclear energy, with its long operational lifespan and domestic production potential, reduces our reliance on foreign energy sources. As electrification expands across sectors, from transport to heating, the demand for clean and reliable electricity will surge. Nuclear energy can meet this demand, ensuring a secure and steady energy supply for the long term. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 21 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 24 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I really cannot disagree with anything noble Lords have said in this debate, although I do not believe we need an amendment. I utterly agree that nuclear power is essential to the future; it provides the essential baseload; it is safe, secure and reliable. We have great opportunities in the UK to develop nuclear energy and the supply chain, even more than we have now. Obviously, Rolls-Royce, from a UK company point of view, has great potential.
We are keeping a very close eye on Hinkley Point C; the operational date that has been given for the first unit between 2029 and 2031 is very crucial. We are working very hard to get Sizewell C to final investment decision in the next few months. We have the SMR programme, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, about the importance and value of the work of Great British Nuclear. We are regularly engaged with GBN, and I pay tribute to the great work that its chair and chief executive are doing.
I have met a number of companies who are very interested in developing AMRs. We have all seen the experience of companies such as Amazon, in the US, linking small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors with data centres; clearly, we wish the UK to be very much part of that. In terms of the UK’s growth agenda, if we combine military and civil nuclear defence requirements, we know that the nuclear skills task force has now estimated that we need about 40,000 extra people in the industry by 2030, and moving on with even more people by the 2040s. This is at once a challenge and a huge opportunity, because the careers that are offered in the nuclear industry are secure and well paid, and it is a very exciting industry to go into.
The noble Lord, Lord Offord, quoted figures from the IEA. Although we have seen a global downturn in nuclear energy, it is right to now talk about a renaissance. At international gatherings, it is pretty clear that there are countries coming back to nuclear, as we are, and other countries that wish to develop nuclear energy for the first time. This is very encouraging; we know that, in terms of popular opinion, there is a much more positive attitude among the public towards nuclear energy.
In saying I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, I do very much embrace the comments of the noble Lords and I can assure them that, in the department, we see nuclear energy as having an essential role for the future.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the Minister for his clarity and unequivocal support of nuclear, and, indeed, for his reply to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, who asked a specific question in relation to the GB Energy Bill. GB Energy can, if required, participate in nuclear, but the clear understanding is that discussions are ongoing with GB Nuclear. So I would encourage the Government to continue to clarify what that will look like and how it will be funded going forward.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
If I may come back on that, the noble Lord may have seen that the energy Select Committee had a hearing at which the chair of Great British Energy and then the chair of Great British Nuclear gave evidence. It is clear from what they said that we will have no difficulty at all in establishing a co-operative relationship.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
That is noted. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Can I ask my noble friend why the new power station in Somerset is costing four times as much as an identical one in South Korea? Surely this will add to energy costs, not detract from them.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 22 in my name is about energy security. Energy security is a matter of utmost importance—a foundation on which our homes, businesses and industries depend. We must ensure that our nation can provide reliable power to keep the lights on and our economy running.
I was not in this country during the 1970s but lived in the Republic of Ireland. We suffered power cuts that caused significant disruption. I recall a farming friend who lost his entire pig herd due to a lack of ventilation—a stark reminder of the devastating consequences when power systems fail. We cannot afford to let such a situation arise here.
While I wholeheartedly support the goal of achieving net zero by 2050, we must temper ambition with pragmatism. The United Kingdom accounts for 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions, compared with 33% from China and 12.5% from the United States. While we strive for cleaner energy, we must be realistic about the scale of transformation required. Getting electricity production to net zero by 2030 is a noble aspiration, but it remains a significant challenge.
Progress has been made. According to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions decreased by almost 50% between 1990 and 2023, including a 6.6% drop in the year ending 2023. Electricity generation contributes 11% of our greenhouse emissions. Efforts to reduce this share are ongoing. However, our energy mix relies on a delicate balance. Nuclear power—which we have just discussed—and biomass provide baseload capacity most of the time, while solar and wind offer renewable contributions that are inherently variable. Interconnectors, though helpful, depend on surplus supply from neighbouring countries.
The swing producer in our energy system remains gas, which under certain circumstances—when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining—supplies upwards of 60% of our energy needs. As the Government push for greater electrification, whether in transport, heating or industry, the strain on our grid will only increase. Targets for offshore and floating wind are ambitious, as are those for solar power, which raises concerns about land use and its impact on food production—an amendment for later discussion, I am sure.
Onshore wind also faces resistance, and these challenges make clear that gas generation will remain a critical component of our energy mix for years to come. Let us not forget that electricity accounts for only 20% to 25% of the energy consumed in this country, and that 87% of UK homes rely on gas for heating and hot water, yet domestic gas production declined by 10% between 2022 and 2023 and nearly 14% to August this year, according to Offshore Energies UK.
This leaves us increasingly reliant on imports, as our current production is about 40% of requirements. Imported gas comes via pipelines from Europe or as LNG shipments. Global instability, such as sanctions on Russia, has tightened supply, while demand in Europe has risen. Norway, a trusted ally, provides the majority of gas imported by pipeline, some 35%, placing many of our eggs in one basket. The additional 25% required comes as LNG, sourced from countries such as the United States and Qatar, both of which have indicated that their supplies will increase. This has a significantly higher carbon footprint—on average four times more than our domestic production—due to transport and production methods.
The North Sea Transition Authority’s 2024 Emissions Monitoring Report indicates that UK gas production is a top-quartile performer according to kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per barrel of oil equivalent—kgCO2e/boe. The NSTA report also shows a good methane emissions performance—arguably a greater concern than carbon dioxide emissions—with the UK having an intensity of 1 kgCO2e/boe versus the global average of 16 kgCO2e/boe. I apologise for all the figures.
New UK developments are being delivered far more cleanly than the average of current existing UK developments. New UK developments are significantly cleaner than imports, producing emissions roughly 10 times cleaner than LNG imports. We are fortunate to have an abundance of hydrocarbons in our offshore waters. Despite the decline, there is still potential for two or three decades of production, as I mentioned at Second Reading. Exploiting this resource responsibly would protect some 200,000 direct and indirect jobs, sustain some critical industries and provide a bridge to the renewable future. Moreover, recommencing the issuance of oil and gas licences would help reduce global emissions by avoiding the higher carbon intensity of imports, stabilise our energy and bolster our economy.
However, I must caution that the current tax regime risks an 80% slump in investment in the UK oil and gas industry over the next five years, according to OEUK. This would undermine both energy security and our ability to transition effectively. Lifting the ban on new exploration and production licences, while ensuring robust environmental standards, offers a pragmatic path forward. It will protect jobs, reduce emissions and, most importantly, help secure the energy future of the United Kingdom. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, whose amendment I support, for his insightful contributions on the important issue of energy security. This issue cannot go unaddressed when discussing the Bill because of the consequences to our country’s energy production, supply and security. Indeed, Clause 3 explicitly states that GBE’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, and I express my deepest concern that the tunnel-vision focus on renewable energy to achieve the Government’s overly ambitious target of clean energy by 2030 will inevitably compromise our energy security.
The UK’s energy security should indeed be at the forefront of the debate on the Bill. The Government have said that Great British Energy is part of their plans to ramp up renewables, which they say will result in cheaper energy and greater energy security. However, this is simply not true. Instead, the Government’s renewable plans will cost the British people and our national energy security.
We on these Benches of course recognise the need to cut household energy bills for families, to accelerate private investment in energy infrastructure, and to protect and create jobs in the energy industry across the UK, but the Bill gives no indication as to how this will be achieved. It does not include any measures to ensure the effective delivery of a reduction in household energy bills, nor an increase in British jobs, nor the long-term security of our energy supply. We understand that the purpose of Great British Energy will be to assist the Government in ramping up renewables to achieve their self-imposed target of 100% clean energy by 2030. This is a target that I believe to be driven by political ideology and which industry experts have described as aggressive, unrealistic and expensive, requiring far more than the allocated £8.3 billion of funding.
It is an undeniable truth that renewable energy will always be naturally unreliable. As my noble friend Lady Bloomfield brought to our attention at Second Reading, over the last couple of months, as was the case this time last year and in March, we have seen another dunkelflaute. Indeed, in March, the measure of how often turbines generate their maximum power failed to reach 20%, and we have recently seen levels drop to nearly zero. Relying on new interconnectors to Belgium and Holland will not offer energy security if their wind farms suffer the same weather conditions as ours or if their countries’ needs are greater than ours.
All this being said, it is therefore vital that we acknowledge the UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry when we discuss the future of our energy production and security. This industry has suffered under the Government, as they increase their taxes on North Sea oil to punitive levels. Energy firms have described increasing the windfall tax by 3%—with the headline rate of tax now a staggering 78%—and extending this to 2030 as a devastating blow. This hike will cut investment in UK natural resources and oil and gas production, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, which will make the UK increasingly dependent on imported supply. This will compromise our energy security, but consumers will also be exposed to price fluctuations. The country will become increasingly dependent on imported electricity and will therefore be forced to pay the market price for power as fossil fuel powered generators are closed at a quicker pace than we are ramping up the necessary capacity to replace them.
Not only this, but if investment in UK oil and gas decreases then the revenue generated from the energy profit levy, which the Government are relying on to help fund GBE, will decrease. By pressing ahead with ending oil and gas licences—a move no other major economy has taken—£12 billion in tax receipts have been lost from the North Sea. This, combined with the £8 billion which will be spent on GBE, is a staggering £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.
Analysts have spoken out and warned about relying on North Sea oil taxes to fund the Government’s green energy plans while the Government tax the operators to the point that revenues fall by 80%, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe. We must address the fact that the revenue generated from the energy profit levy, or windfall tax, may fall if investment in UK oil and gas decreases. Alongside private sector investment, the Government are relying on windfall tax revenues to fund GBE and support the transition to clean power by 2030. Furthermore, the £8 billion allocated to GBE does not compensate for the amount of investment in energy projects that will be doomed by the Government’s plans to prematurely shut down the UK oil and gas sector.
The North Sea oil and gas industry is not only critical to the UK energy supply but a bedrock for many economies and communities. Economic ecosystems have developed around this industry. It is therefore critical that we manage the energy transition properly. The Government’s plan for GBE, combined with the energy profits levy, puts the industry at risk at this vital time. The proposed increases and the removal of the investment allowances could be detrimental to investment. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the tax increase could see investment in the UK cut from £14 billion to £2 billion between now and 2029. That is not scaremongering; it is what the industry is telling us.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This would probe into the types of financial assistance which can be provided to Great British Energy by the Secretary of State.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendments tabled to Clause 4 of the Great British Energy Bill, particularly those in my name and the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. These amendments are crucial as they aim to provide clarity, ensure accountability and protect the taxpayer in what is undoubtedly an ambitious and complex policy area.
Let me first address the central issue that these amendments seek to probe: the nature and scope of the financial assistance the Secretary of State can provide to Great British Energy. We all agree that our energy future is crucial, both for achieving net zero and for ensuring security of supply in an increasingly uncertain world. However, noble intentions must be underpinned by rigorous safeguards, and the current wording of Clause 4 leaves far too much ambiguity.
Amendments 35, 37 and 38 in my name are designed to question the breadth of the financial powers the Bill affords the Secretary of State. It is entirely appropriate to scrutinise these provisions. The taxpayers of this country, who have faced significant financial pressures in recent years, deserve reassurance that the Government are deploying their public funds prudently. The inclusion of vague terms such as the ability to provide assistance by way of guarantees, indemnities and other financial assistance could allow for open-ended commitments.
These are not theoretical concerns. History is replete with examples of well-meaning initiatives that spiralled into financial mismanagement. By narrowing or better defining these provisions, we can ensure that GBE operates within a framework that prioritises efficiency, accountability and value for money.
I turn to Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. This amendment questions the inclusion of specific provisions under subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d). These allow for financial support in connection with acquisitions, liabilities or the provision of assets. While there may well be situations in which such support is necessary, we must ask what checks and balances will be in place and what mechanisms will ensure that public money is not used to underwrite reckless decision-making or speculative ventures.
These amendments are not designed to obstruct the creation of Great British Energy or its objectives; rather, they are about ensuring that its financial underpinnings are solid, transparent and accountable. British principles dictate that the Government must always act as a careful steward of public funds, balancing ambition with fiscal prudence. It is also worth noting that robust safeguards will strengthen the Bill. Clear financial rules do not hamper innovation; they foster confidence for investors, for industry and for the British people.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to take seriously the concerns raised by these amendments. By supporting them, we send a clear message that while we are committed to achieving our energy goals, we will not do so at the expense of fiscal responsibility. The energy transition must be sustainable, in not only environmental terms but economic ones. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, in this group I have Amendment 36, which partially overlaps Amendment 37 from my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. My noble friend asked some general questions about the financial assistance clause. My Amendment 36 is somewhat narrower: it is trying to find out exactly how paragraphs (b) to (d) actually work.
I understand how paragraph (a) works: the Secretary of State gives money to Great British Energy, or possibly lends it money, or guarantees or indemnifies something that Great British Energy does. However, when we get to paragraph (b), somehow the financial assistance is provided by the Secretary of State acquiring shares or securities, but Great British Energy does not appear to be involved at all in that transaction.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
I have answered the noble Baroness’s question to the best of my ability; I will write to her.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his response to these amendments. I reiterate that the core aim of these amendments is to protect the taxpayer, ensure proper scrutiny and secure the financial integrity of Great British Energy, so I am sure we will come back to that on Report. I am very taken with the advice given by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, that nationalised industries do not have a great track record of producing profits and returns for the taxpayer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 100 seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 7 that would require Great British Energy to verify its supply chain in respect of unethical practices and to attempt to engage in ethical supply chain practices only. I will also speak in favour of the principles contained in Amendments 43 and 109 in this group, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and supported by others.
To be clear, I believe in people and planet, and we should not have to choose one or the other. The two are intertwined and co-dependent. Our goal of reaching net zero must not come at the expense of supporting repressive regimes which do not support the human rights of their own citizens, or on the back of slave labour.
The truth is that it is certain that a proportion of the supplies and materials used in this country as part of our efforts to decarbonise have unknown ethical origins or, if we look more closely, are probably produced in regimes with modern slavery practices.
Polysilicon manufacturers in China account for some 45% of the world’s supply, and some 80% of the world’s solar panel manufacturing. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, alluded to, Sheffield Hallam University has linked forced labour in China’s labour transfer programme directly to the global supply chain of solar panels. Some 11 companies were identified as engaging in forced labour transfer, including all four of China’s largest polysilicon producers. Some 2.7 million Uighurs are subject to state detention and coerced work programmes.
The combination of unethical practices, cheap labour and deliberate foreign policies means that China controls much of the world’s rare earth materials and manufacturing that is necessary to produce solar panels. China built more renewable technology than the rest of the world combined last year. But China is still opening and highly dependent on coal mines. It is time for China itself to choose which side of the green revolution it is on.
It is not in our national interest to continue with such foreign power dependence in order to secure our net-zero goals. What actions are the Government considering or planning to undertake, along with our allies and partners, to verify supply chains and build our own manufacturing capacity, particularly for solar panels, so that we are not dependent on foreign countries for the materials we need to decarbonise, and so that we can be certain that the products we use are not the result of human suffering? I hope the Prime Minister raised these important issues in his recent meeting with the Chinese President.
My amendment would place a duty on GB Energy to verify and engage in ethical supply chain practices. This is not the end of the journey, but it is a start. Of course, these problems extend way beyond GB Energy and these measures should be implemented nationally.
Amendment 43 says that no financial assistance must be provided
“if there exists credible evidence of modern slavery in the energy supply chain”.
Amendment 109 calls for a warning to be placed on any products sourced from China that are used by GB Energy. Although I support the spirit and intention of both these amendments, my worry is that the Government will not be able to support them and that they will fail.
My fear is that if Amendment 43 passed it would put GB Energy at an unfair disadvantage in relation to other competitors in the industry operating in the UK. For this reason, the Government will most likely reject it. On Amendment 109, I expect that the implication of labelling these products might simply be to prevent their purchase by GB Energy, while other competitors in place in the UK marketplace without this labelling requirement would be able to continue their supply. Again, my worry is that this would do more to put GB Energy at a disadvantage versus its competitors operating in this country. The Government will probably reject the amendment on those grounds.
My hope is that my amendment or a newly tabled one on Report might help us to find a way forward together on this important issue, which we all need to make progress on. To be clear, this issue goes well beyond GB Energy, and the real long-term solutions to it sit with the verification of supply chains, strong and determined diplomacy, the creation of and investment in solar panel manufacturing on our own or along with our allies, or the research and development of new forms of manufacturing processes for these technologies. These are essential issues, but I suspect we will need to engage constructively together to find a way forward prior to Report, and that the solution, ultimately, goes beyond the scope of the Bill and GB Energy.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments. We all agree that modern slavery is one of the great scourges of our time. It is estimated that tens of millions of people are trapped in forced labour worldwide, many of them in sectors tied to energy production and manufacturing. Indeed, as the noble Lord and the noble Earl pointed out very eloquently, renewable energy technologies such as solar panels rely on materials such as polysilicon, much of which is sourced from regions where reports of forced labour and human rights abuses are widespread.
These amendments seek to ensure that GBE operates with integrity and accountability in its supply chain practices. Each amendment addresses a crucial aspect of ethical responsibility, and together they would bind the Government to ensure clean energy does not come at the expense of human rights, ethical labour practices or transparency. I encourage the Government to look at this matter carefully. Can the Minister explain what measures will be put in place to ensure that there is oversight of Great British Energy’s supply chains? If Great British Energy is to represent the values of this nation, there is a strong case for tougher measures to prevent public funds being spent in a way that supports or sustains supply chains that exploit human beings.
On Amendment 109, while I recognise the sensitivity and complexity of this issue, it is crucial that we approach it with transparency and courage. Consumers and stakeholders have a right to know the origins of the products they use and the conditions under which they are made. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments made on this matter; we on these Benches will be very interested to hear his reply.
As a publicly backed entity, Great British Energy has an opportunity to set an example and be a model to other countries. I am sure the Government agree there are opportunities here and we look forward to hearing their response.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his expert introduction to the amendment. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his wise comments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that we are, of course listening very carefully to this important debate, and I have no doubt whatever about the gravity of the issue. The amendments seek to highlight the importance of ensuring that our supply chains are protected from forced labour, and I wholeheartedly support this.
Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors
Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a very important agreement. We have a very good relationship with the US on all things civil nuclear, and this will enable us to enhance that. I should also say that at COP, six new countries joined existing countries in declaration of an aim to triple nuclear power globally by 2050. There are now 31 signatures, which is very important. It is an indication that globally we are seeing a renaissance in nuclear, in which this Government wish our own nuclear industry to be a part.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Last week, in answer to a question on COP 29 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referencing GB Energy, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested that the Government would look at nuclear energy, specifically small nuclear reactors. Can the Minister clarify whether that is indeed the case?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am not sure I understand the question, but if it is whether we recognise the importance of SMRs in this country and generally, the answer is yes. On the benefits of the use of small modular reactors, having a modular approach in which much can be assembled off-site brings huge advantages. Going forward, we see that SMRs have great potential, and of course UK companies themselves have great potential.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024
Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, in the main, I support the changes that this statutory instrument enables to the previous scheme. It resets the UK ETS cap to be in line with the top of the net-zero consistent range. The cap is the limit on how many allowances can be created over the trading period, which runs from 2021 to 2030, and in each year. The cap is set to reduce over time to drive down total emissions. When the scheme was established in 2020, the cap was set at 5% of the UK’s expected notional share of the EU ETS cap. The statutory instrument now brings the overall ETS cap in line with our net-zero target and carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act.
I was a little confused on one point. Why has the previous scheme come to be so out of line with the UK net-zero trajectory for the traded sector? Was it really a question of our leaving the EU and its schemes and setting our own national standards, or is there something else going on? An explanation on that would be appreciated.
The SI reduces the industry cap, which is the total number of allowances that can be made available to existing installations for free. The SI reduces the absolute level of the industry cap while increasing its proportion of the overall cap. The share of allowances set aside for the purpose increases from 37% to 40% but the reduction in the overall UK ETS cap means that the industry cap will fall. It is argued that this will help to mitigate the risk of carbon leakage across participating sectors, while maintaining an effective incentive to decarbonise.
We welcome that this SI expands the scope of the ETS to the venting of CO2 in the upstream oil and gas sector for installations already covered by the scheme. This means that such emissions will also be subject to a carbon price. The SI removes what is described as a perverse incentive whereby operators could routinely vent gases that contain carbon dioxide without being subject to a carbon price, even though they would, if flared, constitute reportable emissions for the purposes of the scheme. It also extends the scope to cover flights departing from aerodromes in Northern Ireland to arrive at one in Switzerland. My understanding is that this change reflects the return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its ability to consider legislation.
The SI makes a number of amendments to the levels of the scheme penalties to ensure consistency and proportionality in enforcement for all operators and introduces a new deficit notice. It makes several corrections and clarifications to existing legislation following consultations in August 2022 and July 2023, mainly on small penalty amendments. It also reflects a reduction in the cap on allowances and strengthens enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, including by introducing a deficit notice. It accounts for a reverse price for stability during excessive market volatility.
What actions are the Government taking to improve the monitoring of venting and flaring? Do they hope to bring forward plans to move that forward or are they sticking with the date previously announced? What estimates do they have of the associated costs of upstream venting and flaring that this SI might impose? While we welcome that the proposed changes will bring in a cap consistent with net zero, we call on the Government to do more to support a just transition, particularly for the North Sea oil and gas sector, to ensure that companies have adequate resources and help, particularly training, for their staff to transition to other industries.
What other industries and sectors are the Government considering bringing under the ETS and what are their plans to do so? Are there any plans for further convergence with the EU ETS on carbon leakage? Do the Government feel this could help stop further carbon leakage? Finally, I note that there was no impact assessment for this SI, though I understand that the Government conducted a number of consultations. Can the Minister say why?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I support this instrument. This order will expand the scope of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to include carbon dioxide venting in the upstream oil and gas sector. It will introduce deficit notices to allow regulators to penalise operators for failing to surrender allowances by a set date and makes technical changes to penalties. There is no doubt that climate change is an issue that any Government need to take steps to tackle. That is why the Conservative Government introduced the UK ETS, to ensure that businesses monitored, reported on and surrendered allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. We are glad that the Government recognise the benefits of the scheme and are taking steps to continue to use it.
However, this Government have prioritised their climate policy above financial and economic concerns. While we understand that there must be trade-offs to reach our net-zero targets, I caution them on raising taxes consistently on the North Sea oil industry—they are now running at 78%. This could put significant costs on companies already navigating a complicated regulatory environment. We must remember that net zero by 2050 does not mean zero hydrocarbons. We will still have about 25%. However, as this ETS will provide support by removing venting and flaring, we can have clean hydrocarbons. We must also consider the impact of the hydrocarbon companies in investing in renewables and the people required in the transition to net zero.
With that being said, I will ask the Minister one question that was left largely unanswered in the other place, to do with the impact of the carbon price rise to £147, as highlighted by NESO. What will the impact be on employment, industry and households, and will there be an impact assessment on those key areas?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their general support for the order, which is much appreciated. I will seek to respond to the points raised but will follow up if I am unable to answer everything.
Clearly, the emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of our climate and net-zero policy regime. It sets a cap on emissions in the sectors covered—currently around a quarter of the UK’s emissions. In doing so, it guarantees that the sectors will reduce their emissions in line with our net-zero target. We see maintaining a strong UK ETS playing a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering our mission of secure and clean electricity by 2030, and having a positive impact on bills.
I very much take the point about the impact on industry. In relation to the North Sea, in particular, I understand that noble Lords are concerned to make sure that the transition is as effective as possible—something that we are very much committed to doing.
On the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, regarding ETS expansion, we see the scheme continuing to remain a key driver of decarbonisation. Our intention is to expand it further. We have recently consulted on proposals to expand the scheme to energy from waste incineration. We are also currently consulting on expansion to maritime operators and on a regulatory framework for integrating non-pipeline transport for carbon capture, usage and storage. We are exploring options to build the UK ETS into the world’s first integrated market for carbon emissions and carbon removal; subject to consultation, our intention is to include engineered greenhouse gas removals. We see that as supporting the new technologies we will need to meet net zero while providing a sustainable path for industry to decarbonise and to encourage that process.
To refer to the impact assessment and the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I think I can reassure her on fracking. We have no intention to permit fracking. As for the impact assessment, it was published alongside the decisions in the response to the report on developing the UK ETS authority. We stand by that assessment as the best assessment of the implications of our policy changes, and therefore we do not think it necessary to do any further work in that area.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right that, in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it was not possible to make changes to the UK ETS order that extended to Northern Ireland using an affirmative procedure. It is a very good thing that we have made progress in Northern Ireland and are now able to make that provision.
I should say too that the UK ETS authority agreed that the UK Government should amend the UK ETS auctioning regulations to give partial effect to the agreed policy of reducing the cap, and that the authority would pursue a legislative programme in line with the decisions and intentions made in the main UK ETS authority response, including for the cap, set out in the response for 2026 and beyond. As stated there, the authority is now taking the necessary steps to finalise that legislation, and the IA is being relayed alongside that legislation to support parliamentary scrutiny.
Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024
Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to this one. We are happy to support the amendment.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that consumers continue to get value for money from these contracts? Secondly, is the Minister certain that the repowering process is treading the right path between getting value for money for the Government with these contracts, while not impeding further development of onshore wind energy?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support His Majesty’s Government’s draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024. These regulations will enable further construction of wind sites and will increase investment in the wind sector by increasing the options for using contracts for difference. The regulations will extend the option to phase projects under the contracts for difference to floating offshore wind and for repowering onshore wind farms, as well as allowing onshore wind projects to apply for contracts for difference.
We on these Benches recognise the importance of using CfDs in the renewable sector to allow for increased investment in projects that have high upfront costs but long lifetimes and low running costs. Investment must be at the core of our green energy plans to ensure their financial viability. As it stands, CfDs are the main scheme for supporting new low carbon electricity generation projects across the UK, and these measures will derisk the construction process for offshore wind and to repower onshore wind.
The Government introduced the CfD scheme in 2014 to support the UK’s journey to net zero and, by 2022, projects managed under contracts for difference generated the energy to power 7 million homes and mitigated over 5 million CO2 emissions. Therefore, we welcome this Government’s continued use of these important and helpful schemes. We support the increased use of contracts for difference and, as such, support these regulations to increase the use of wind power to reach net zero targets while maintaining the importance of investment in the sector.
Great British Energy Bill
Lord Offord of Garvel ExcerptsMonday 18th November 2024
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 October 2024 - (29 Oct 2024)
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, to this House and congratulate them on two magnificent maiden speeches.
We are debating a Bill that grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to establish Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, with an £8.3 billion allocation of taxpayers’ money. With the Government unilaterally accelerating the target for zero-carbon electricity to 2030, it is obvious that the Bill is ideologically fuelled, with energy analysts such as LCP Delta stating that there is “zero chance” that the Government will meet that 2030 goal.
The substance of the Bill is equally concerning. Despite its far-reaching aims, the Bill is notably lacking in detail, as my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out. There is no clear business plan, no accountability framework and no specific road map for how the Government intend to deliver on these unrealistic promises. In short, the Bill seems more about political grandstanding at COP 29 than about practical solutions.
During the last election, the Government made countless promises to working people that this Bill would reduce their energy costs. Yet, what we see today is a Bill that is short on details and long on empty promises. When the Government had the chance to enshrine this pledge in law, they voted in the other place against a Conservative amendment that would have made the £300 reduction a legal priority for GBE. Why, then, have the Government refused to commit to the very promise they made to the British public? I join my noble friend Lady Bloomfield in asking the Minister to give guidance on how much energy bills are expected to fall by 2030: maybe not by £300, but can we please have at least an indication of how that will be fulfilled?
Labour’s plan to create 650,000 green jobs across the country by 2030 as part of the green prosperity plan also need to be substantiated. Again, there is no mention of this in the Explanatory Notes or the founding statement. While they made this bold claim again in their manifesto, they have failed to provide any concrete details on how this would be achieved, leaving many workers concerned about their future. There is a genuine fear that without proper planning and support, individuals could find themselves jobless or unable to transition their skills to new industries.
While this Government claim to be the party for working people, they have failed to anticipate where the jobs for these working people will come from in the Great British Energy Bill. As mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, 200,000 jobs already exist in the North Sea oil and gas sector. We know that 40,000 of those are at risk under the current plans, so again, my question to the Minister is quite simple: what is the plan to deliver on these pledges on jobs, when jobs are already being lost in the existing oil and gas sector?
The Government’s 2030 target to decarbonise the UK electricity grid sounds bold but in reality, the National Energy System Operator has called it immensely challenging. Is not this clean energy target really about infrastructure? NESO’s latest report lays bare the scale of the hurdles we face. To come even close to hitting this target, we need to invest £40 billion a year, every year, to fund grid upgrades, renewable generation and storage capacity. When you start looking at the facts, you see that this should not be reduced to a political slogan. It is a monumental challenge that requires far more than the details outlined in the Great British Energy Bill.
We are told by energy players that, in order to meet this 2030 target, we need to overhaul the national grid. Again, I ask the Minister: where is the national grid even mentioned in this Bill? If the Government are truly serious about addressing the energy crisis, why is the grid, the very backbone of our energy system, not even part of the conversation? Where are the clear policies on expanding grid infrastructure? Where is the commitment to solving the grid bottleneck that hampers renewable energy connection at the moment? Why are we talking about targets without addressing the structural issues that will make or break any decarbonisation effort?
I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who said last week in our energy debate that:
“The UK is world class in setting targets”,—[Official Report, 14/11/24; col. 1954.]
but less so at delivering actions. How can we decarbonise when the grid cannot even handle today’s demand, let alone the future of renewable energy? If we are serious about the 2030 target, then surely the grid must be at the heart of this Bill, not an afterthought.
Let us consider the Bill’s relationship with the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was highlighted by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The bank was launched with a £22 billion fund and comes and with a clear and structured accountability and transparency framework. It is governed by rules that ensure that taxpayers’ money is used efficiently, and it is subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its performance and investments. If we are to create another institution with overlapping responsibilities, it is fair to ask: where is the real added value here?
In fact, Great British Energy hands over far greater powers to the Secretary of State. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Noakes, £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be handed over with too much discretion and without the proper frameworks to hold this body to account. How can we trust that the British taxpayer will get value for money if we are not putting in place on day one the necessary safeguards and reporting structures to ensure transparency and proper governance?
We have had the benefit of two such debates before today’s Second Reading, and in this time a number of themes have been discussed in your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, there is a consensus that at the moment, our energy system is run approximately 75% hydrocarbon and 25% non-hydrocarbon. We need to flip that on its head and make it 75% non-hydrocarbon, 25% hydrocarbon, but that does not mean zero hydrocarbon, and it does mean that we need more room for nuclear power.
In fact, in the debate last week, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, said that we have a real good chance in the UK to meet these targets because of our pre-eminent position in science and technology. Therefore, when we hear the warnings of the industry that we are going too fast and the sudden acceleration is simply unachievable, I think there is a red warning flag that must be heeded.
We understand that, if it is £300 per household and there are almost 28 million households, that comes to £8 billion and we know that renewables cannot deliver at a return of £8 billion on top of £8 billion in five years, because renewables returns come over 20 years and not five years. So why are unreasonable numbers being put out into the public domain? Is it actually a good use of taxpayers’ money to put £8 billion into renewables? For example, there is a target of 100 offshore wind farms, with £35 billion committed and another £60 billion in the pipeline. Rather than being crowded in, the private sector has already decided this is a good area to invest in. Would the money not be better targeted, as was said, at the plumbing and the national grid? As we said last week, it was designed to send energy from Scunthorpe to Stornoway and is now sending energy from Stornoway to Scunthorpe.
These questions have been raised by a number of noble Lords across the House. We also have the issue of the North Sea oil and gas being shut down too quickly. There will be a real knock-on effect on our net zero by 2050 target. At the moment, more than half the renewable investment comes from hydrocarbon companies reinvesting their profits, and the skills of the people required to do the transition exist in the oil and gas sector.
Having had these two debates and the Second Reading, we have given this Bill a really good airing, and there are some warnings for the Government in accelerating this. We cannot be in a situation where the Government put forward bold targets and empty promises: we must have details. It is not reasonable to take on trust that £8 billion of taxpayers’ money will be well spent; we need some transparency and accountability in the Bill to ensure the funds are used effectively.
In conclusion, we have heard grand pledges on lower energy bills, but I think it is only fair that the Government back them up with some concrete actions, or at least some commitments. Again, with the promise of green jobs, we have yet to see any plans as to how those jobs are going to be protected. There are already workers facing job insecurity in the transition towards a low-carbon economy. As we have discussed, despite all the talk of decarbonisation, we still have not addressed the major issue of infrastructure.
So I ask, in conclusion, how can we trust the Government’s ambitions when the foundations for success are not set out more clearly in the Bill? Where is the plan for infrastructure? Where is the commitment to accountability? Where are the protections for the British taxpayer? And, most important of all, how will Great British Energy result in cheaper energy for UK consumers?