North Sea Energy

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this Government have done the exact opposite of building the North Sea’s energy future. Instead, their attitude to our North Sea oil and gas industry, and the hundreds of thousands of people it employs, borders on contempt. For clarification, we should remind ourselves that the 2050 net-zero target, set in Glasgow at COP 26, still required 25% of our energy to come from hydrocarbons. In the North Sea, we have the cleanest and most environmentally advanced industry and the toughest regulatory regime in the world. This world-class industry is now under existential threat from this Government.

We should be clear that the energy profits levy is now at its highest level, as a result of the decisions made by this Government. This hike is uneconomic and will see the evaporation of investment in the sector. As my counterpart in the other place said last week, it may well be “Drill, baby, drill” in the US, but it is

“‘Dole, baby, dole’ under Labour in the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/25; col. 460.]

Let us look at where we are now. The investment allowance has almost been dismantled, and a windfall tax will now be in place for much longer, until 2030—directly because of the choices made by Ed Miliband. A leading US investor said to me recently that

“we now consider west Africa to be a more stable investment environment for hydrocarbons than the UK”.

During a period of global instability, it beggars belief that our Government are shutting down our domestic oil and gas industry at a pace that jeopardises both our energy supply and our energy security. We are already seeing the impact of the Government’s punitive tax measures: investment is vanishing, work is slowing up or being stopped entirely, and companies are leaving the UK for countries that do see a future in the oil and gas industry. But, even more worryingly, we are haemorrhaging the backbone of our highly skilled technical staff overseas.

The Government’s race for 100% clean electricity by 2030 is driven solely by ideology. They have placed politics above the North Sea’s industry, workers and community, which will all be devastated by their decisions. Despite the fact that they claim that economic growth is their number one mission, their decisions will lead to a £12 billion loss in tax revenue, in addition to another £12 billion in lost capital investment. Instead of making Aberdeen great again by ramping up production, the Government’s approach is to use GB Energy to dabble in renewable projects that the private sector has already decided are dud—a Potemkin village strategy if ever there was one.

All this damage will only see the UK increase its dependence on expensive imports, which will also offshore emissions abroad. The Government’s approach to our energy future simply does not make sense, particularly as the UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. Let us not be mistaken: this is simply a case of virtue signalling, and the British people will pay the price. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State has consulted those employed in the oil and gas sector and understands how his policies will impact them directly? Will she explain exactly how much will be needed to support the 200,000 workers in the oil and gas industry, given the recent £200 million of Treasury support for the 2,000 workers impacted by the closure of Grangemouth? Finally, will she inform the House whether DESNZ and HM Treasury have factored these calculations into the spending review later this month? There is no one else to blame and nowhere else for this Government to hide. I look forward to a comprehensive reply from the Minister.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome this important step towards developing a framework for future energy in the North Sea and, in particular, the clear intention to engage in a constructive dialogue with North Sea communities, business supply chains, trade unions, workers and environmental groups. We also welcome the clear recognition that the North Sea will remain at the heart of Britain’s energy future, supplying home-generated, clean, renewable energy, supporting jobs and our future energy security long into the future. We urgently need a coherent transition plan for the North Sea to support workers, supply chains, families and communities. We need much more thinking and planning on how we transition away from oil and gas after 50 years of drilling in what is now a rapidly declining basin and how we can all work to ensure a just transition for our oil and gas industry workers.

While we welcome the consultation and the Government’s vision for an internationally leading offshore clean energy industry, we believe that more decisive and accelerated action is required to ensure a truly speedy and just transition for the workers and communities who have powered this country for decades. The consultation period is very short. The closing date is 30 April. Is this really enough time, considering the complexity of the task at hand and the range of consultees? What reassessment of the urgency and support needed for a just transition are the Government making, considering the impact of the Supreme Court decision on new oil and gas fields? The implications of the Supreme Court judgment must mean that these matters are now more pressing and require a rethink and more resources than they did. We are seeing multilateral energy companies such as BP rowing back from their commitments to the energy transition. What impact is this having on planning to transition and what actions are the Government taking to work constructively with these companies?

At its heart, this is about rapidly teaching the skills and creating the job opportunities for the future during a period of exceptional social change. While the consultation outlines improvements in clean energy industries, more concrete commitments and funding mechanisms are needed to ensure a truly just transition for the existing oil and gas workforce. Although research suggests high skills transferability, bridging the gap between potential and actual job creation in the clean energy sector requires significant government intervention. We call for more proactive and adequate funding for retraining and upskilling programmes.

There has been talk of GB Energy cuts. We believe that these are counterproductive. The green economy grew by 10.3% last year and, since the war in Ukraine started, we have spent £40 billion importing foreign energy. Cutting GB Energy will simply lead to higher energy bills and more money for the Russian war economy. Policy certainty is of paramount importance and I call on the Government to maintain clear lines to ensure the investment we need to transition. The Government must provide a clear and unwavering long-term vision and must do more than just simply phasing out oil and gas. This will clearly need business plans and investment to ensure that we can transition. Will the Minister say what comes next after the consultation has closed? How will the results be published? What role will Parliament have in making future recommendations?

Warm Home Discount

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Monday 3rd March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm homes discount: a change that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to help them heat their homes. However, this payment is likely to be inconsequential for many households when compared with the increase in the energy price cap. The change to the warm homes discount is only a temporary fix. Ultimately, energy bills for both the British consumer and British businesses are far too high—something I am sure noble Lords on all Benches will agree on.

The Government must look to prioritise cheap energy if they are to protect the most vulnerable households. Instead, they have chosen an approach driven by ideology and it will be the British people who pay the price. The rush to ramp up renewables to meet their own unilateral target of clean power by 2030 will only push up prices and further increase energy bills. The network costs on people’s bills will be increased as the Government race to build twice as much grid in the next five years as has been built in the past decade.

Additionally, the OBR has said that environmental levies will increase from £12 billion to £14 billion by 2030, driven considerably by the hidden costs of renewables. This too will end up on consumers’ energy bills. Indeed, a close look at consumer energy bills demonstrates that half the bills are now accounted for by subsidies and network charges.

So, despite the general election pledge to cut bills by £300, it is plainly clear that the Government have chosen to put a political dividing line before any approach that will reduce the cost of energy. It is their decision to shut down the North Sea. This is an industry that generates billions in tax revenue, supports 200,000 British workers and produces home-grown energy. But the Government have opted instead for a tunnel-vision approach on renewables that relies on coal-power technology imported from China. This will not decrease energy bills by £300, as was promised.

I remind the House that the Prime Minister said:

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


So can the Minister confirm how much energy bills will rise by before households see the promised £300? Will he confirm whether the Government intend to produce a full-system cost analysis of the impact of the clean power target of 2030 and the impact it will have on consumer energy bills? Finally, will he tell the House how much the Government expect levies to increase by over the next five years?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement—in particular, the clear commitment to provide a one-off payment for next winter. These payments will help with continued rising household energy costs, as the energy price cap has risen again by 6.4%. Until we break our dependence on gas for 30% to 40% of our electricity generation and 85% of our home heating, we will remain at the mercy of the volatile international markets.

Indeed, households are set to pay over £800 more per year for their energy compared with the winter of 2020-21—a 77% increase. The UK has spent £140 billion on the international gas market since the war in Ukraine started, for no long-term energy security or reduction in the energy bills being paid. That is 10 times the total GB Energy budget to date.

We have 6 million households living in fuel poverty today, and most of them have been for some time. We have some of the worst-insulated homes in Europe and some of the highest energy bills. High energy bills are a continued legacy issue and are, in part, a direct result of the last Government’s failure to do more to transition to renewable energy earlier. Progress is being made on the transition and we welcome this.

The Climate Change Committee is absolutely clear and unequivocal. Politicians who oppose action on net zero will make their constituents poorer by driving up their energy bills. Although we welcome these measures, we ask the Minister to go further and introduce this much-needed help now, to provide help for those who need it now, and not to make people wait until next winter.

We also call on the Government to scrap the energy price hike for the nearly 10 million pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment and to provide more help to other vulnerable groups, particularly those with disabilities. The estimated cost is about £130 million. We also call on the Government to ensure that all energy companies sign up to a single social tariff as soon as possible, to provide a long-term, stable mechanism for helping to reduce fuel poverty.

We need to do more to smooth the energy price costs as we drive over the energy transition speed bump in the road ahead. We have constantly called for an emergency 10-year home insulation programme. Domestic home heating is still 77% gas powered. We need a huge and urgent increase in the number of heat pumps installed.

Finally, I want to ask about long-term reforms and for some clarity on the direction of travel on measures to reduce our energy bills, and in particular about electricity market reform, which feels like an idea whose time has come. Does the Minister agree? When can we expect progress?

Our electricity prices are linked to the global fossil fuel market. Natural gas prices thus set the UK market electricity price. Will this Government look at the option for decoupling electricity market structures so that we have one rate for gas and one for electricity? Is it not time to stop the artificial inflation of the price of our home-generated renewable electricity, so that the savings can be passed on to our bill payers?

Will the Government publish reports on these matters? Will they also look at reforming contracts for difference?

I am disappointed that we do not have consensus on climate change, but my hope is that we could have consensus on electricity market reform as a measure to save bill payers money.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. These Benches are pleased to see that continued progress has been made and that this government amendment has been brought forward. There has been a unanimous voice across the House that there needed to be more reviews in the Bill and that it was important to have this amendment, so we are pleased to have it in place.

I echo what was said on the Government’s amendment to the amendment and the addition of proposed new subsection (4)(a), which requires a copy of the review to be sent to the devolved Ministers 14 days before it comes to Parliament. My assumption is that that is there so that the devolved authorities have a chance to comment on the review and that those comments have a chance to come before Parliament, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm why that new subsection has been added and what the Government’s thinking is on it.

We welcome the review, but it is happening over a five-year timeframe, with the first review completed at the important date of 2030. If the Government recognise the need for the review, why not have it on a more regular basis? A three-year or four-year timeframe would be more useful for this proposed new subsection to have the effect that the Government intend it to have.

I turn beyond the amendment to what I want to say at the end of Third Reading. These Benches have been consistently supportive of the Government and their objectives in this Bill. We believe that, done well, GB Energy will help to secure our energy independence and reduce our reliance on volatile international gas markets, which have proved so costly for UK bill payers and our economic prosperity.

The previous Conservative Government spent some £40 billion subsidising bill payers, and that money provided no long-term benefit to our overall energy security. Just this week, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit published a report on the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, stating that £140 billion has been spent by the UK on the international gas markets since 2021—the equivalent of £1,300 per person. Again, this has brought no long-term benefits.

We have the third-best wind resources in the world, so it is great to see that these are finally being properly developed to bring us long-term energy security and to reduce costs for our energy bill payers. The CBI reported this week that the green economy contributed £80 billion in gross value added to the UK economy last year and grew at a rate of 10%—three times faster than the rest of the UK economy.

Having said all that, I always felt that the Bill was a little bit too short and lacked the content that it needed; that has caused us some challenges when scrutinising it. We welcome all the amendments that have been passed; we believe they add value and that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger position than when it arrived. I am particularly grateful to the Minister and his Bill team for including community energy in the Bill. This is a really important amendment, and it will benefit our communities and help with the energy transition. Community energy has been supported by MPs and noble Lords on all sides, so this is a win for everybody. I am grateful to Power for People, which has provided support to all of us on these matters, and we will continue to press the Government, as others have already mentioned, on the future of the community energy fund.

We also welcome the other amendments that were tabled: the amendment on strategic priorities; and the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, negotiated with the Minister on sustainable development.

Finally, if noble Lords will excuse me, I want to say something about the words that we use as parliamentarians and how we talk to each other on the issues of climate change. I deeply regret the end of the political consensus on climate change. My personal feeling as a relatively new Peer in this House is that while bits of our debates on this Bill were excellent, there were too many moments when points were repeated, purely party-political points were made that did not improve or challenge the Bill, filibustering took place, or we had numerous votes that took place very late at night.

The public support action on climate change. Polling consistently shows 70% support. The public also want to see reductions in their energy bills; they do not much care, frankly, how that happens, but it requires all of us to make progress. These matters are challenging enough to address with a sense of consensus, and they are made even more difficult when political hostility is added to the mix. My final point is that we must all work better together so that we can all achieve more.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in concluding for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank noble Lords from across the House for their tenacity in scrutinising the Bill, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for their amendments. On my own Benches, I note the contributions of many noble friends, who have done sterling work to temper what is a misguided piece of legislation which will not deliver cheaper energy for UK households or businesses.

GB Energy is flawed because it exposes the conflict at the heart of this Government between the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth on the one hand and, on the other, the accelerated pursuit of net zero at any cost that the Energy Secretary has made his ideological obsession. While this scrap rages at the centre of Whitehall, there is only one loser: the public, who, it has been confirmed today, will be loaded up with the price of net zero to the tune of another £111 per household this year. That is directly because of this Government’s policies and a far cry from the promise in the Labour manifesto of a reduction in energy bills by £300 per year per household—a manifesto pledge which this Government have refused to include in this legislation.

As the Bill has progressed through your Lordships’ House and the other place, the chasm between rhetoric and reality has indeed been exposed. I believe that in a decade we will look back and ask why we invented this cardboard cut-out company. But despite our deep scepticism, it would be churlish not to wish GB Energy a positive start, so I offer some start-up advice. With its £8 billion of borrowed money, the first order of business should be a feasibility study of all the energy sources available to us in the UK. If it does so, it will discover the following. The dash for renewables at any price is a folly. In doing so, we are loading excessive costs on to our energy bills, to the point now where our industrial energy in the UK is five times more expensive than in the US and seven times more expensive than in China. All the while, we are offshoring jobs from the UK to China, turning UK revenue into Chinese profits. This is impoverishing our nation.

The Government are denying the facts. We are an energy-rich country, and our hydrocarbon industry is the envy of the world in terms of compliance and sustainability. Surely it is irresponsible to refuse to even explore the opportunities that onshore gas could bring, while of course undertaking an assessment of risk. The fact that this Government’s policy continues to tilt towards shutting down offshore oil and gas is surely an affront to the hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. They surely deserve better than this.

Meanwhile, both parties agree that nuclear is efficient and clean, but it should be accelerated. We should cut the red tape by unleashing our homegrown engineers while being unafraid to learn from those, such as the Koreans, who have been able to roll out nuclear energy more quickly and at a lower cost.

If GB Energy does this feasibility study, it will realise the facts and then it should pivot net zero accordingly to ensure that our transition to a cleaner energy system is both fair and affordable to UK households and industry. For the sake of the country, we can only hope that it does so.

Finally, I believe it is important to state unequivocally that my own party must reflect on the last 14 years of government energy policy. The verdict of the electorate in July was clear and resounding. As many noble Lords are aware, an error does not become a mistake until one refuses to correct it, and I would encourage the current Government to heed these wise words.

Biomass Generation

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming a more limited role for Drax in our energy power system. However, we must acknowledge that because of the Government’s ideological energy policy—which prioritises naturally unreliable renewable technologies —more biomass subsidies are required. This would not be the case if the Government focused their attention on flexible and reliable baseload power. We must look for a more pragmatic approach: one which prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy. It goes without saying that Drax’s biomass plant is not clean nor is it cheap. In fact, according to non-profit think tank Ember, burning wood at Drax produces a staggering four times the emissions of our last coal power plant. It is the UK’s biggest polluter, producing double the emissions of our largest gas station, operated by RWE at Pembroke.

As a result, the Government have to make difficult decisions which result in high levels of subsidy, burdening the taxpayer further. Will the Minister confirm what estimates have been made as to how much CO₂ will be released by burning trees at Drax for another four years, and how that compares to using gas to generate the same power?

Ultimately, we must consider the cost of the new agreement. At £160 per megawatt hour in today’s money, the new deal for Drax is 15% higher than its existing agreement of £138 per megawatt hour. Indeed, Baringa’s analysis has shown that bill payers will continue to pay over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to carry out an independent analysis of how much the increased strike price will cost the British taxpayer? Will he give his word that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during its generation? Finally, while we welcome the new sustainability criteria, will he explain what steps will be taken to make this enforceable in practice?

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Government for their Statement on short-term support for large-scale biomass generation as part of the UK’s energy generation mix. The Government inherited from the Conservatives a system where large-scale state subsidies are provided for the burning of biomass. This form of energy generation currently plays an important role in our energy system, providing some 5% of our national energy needs. These subsidies are worth some £2 million a day. Over time, Drax has received billions of pounds in government subsidies and from bill payers because wood pellets are classed as a source of renewable energy. Lucrative government subsidies are due to come to an end in 2027, hence the Statement before us today. The new agreement reached with Drax will run from 2027 to 2031 and will see the power station used only as a back-up to cheaper renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.

We can have lots of arguments about the sustainability calculations used to justify Drax. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, speaking on the Great British Energy Bill on Report last night, and I am not a scientist and do not have the exact answers. What I will say is that shipping wood across the Atlantic has a carbon footprint. Repeated incidence of old-growth forest being felled and burned undermines credibility and must stop.

Finally, the very fact that the Government are looking at carbon capture and storage to prolong the life of Drax is telling. Labour’s new plan will allow for four more years of unabated wood burning, which produces 18% more CO₂ than burning coal, according to the IPCC data. It takes nearly 100 years for this carbon to be pulled back from the atmosphere. Climate change driven by CO₂ emissions is clearly the greatest threat to humanity’s survival. Even a 100-year, long-term carbon-neutral Drax is hardly beneficial to anything we need to achieve to effect any real change in the race for humanity’s survival.

The Liberal Democrats see biomass as a fundamentally inefficient method of producing electricity, and we strongly believe that it should not qualify as a form of renewable energy. The Government’s plan to continue to subsidise the Drax power plant causes environmental harm and is not beneficial compared to investment in renewable energy. It does not provide good value for money for our bill payers. We are concerned that, although this plan would cut the amount of wood Drax is burning by 50%, the price is still lucrative—indeed, I see in the news that Drax’s share price has risen by 11% this week.

We are deeply concerned about the destruction of primary forests. The new agreement states that the wood must be 100% sustainably sourced. How will the Government verify that this is the case, when it has not been in the past? Further, I ask the Minister to publish the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s record on claiming subsidies on a false basis. Are the Government prepared to publish that report?

The new proposals will see a halving in the use of Drax and a saving on subsidies of £147 million. Will those savings be redirected into other renewable projects? Under this proposal, Drax can step in to increase energy generation and provide flexibility where it is needed. Is this not just an energy marriage of convenience? Will the Government consider reclassifying Drax as being not a renewable source? It is time to stop calling it such; if the Government need that power generation for flexibility, clearer labels should be given.

The Liberal Democrats are clear that we would ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030—and that would not include biomass. When will the statutory instrument be published? I am pleased that the Government have halved the subsidies for Drax, but I hope that further progress is possible.

Finally, I wish to challenge the Minister. This Government should agree to ask NESO to write an independent report, to be produced relatively quickly, examining: the impacts of ending all subsidies to Drax; how those funds could be replaced and used for alternative renewables technologies; and what the resulting impact would be on our energy security and journey to net zero.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise from these Benches to speak against Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas. His amendment seeks to add a limit on the maximum amount of money that the Secretary of State can provide to GBE—anything above and beyond the £8.3 billion that the Government have committed to. We strongly oppose this amendment. The noble Lord talked about resolve, strength and all these things, but I do not agree with any of that. It is not for the Opposition to use an amendment to legislation to determine what funds a Government can spend on something in the future, when we do not know what is going to happen.

Just this week we have talked about the Drax situation; the Government have halved the subsidies to Drax. The money that the Government are saving from having to subsidise Drax is money that could well go to GB Energy—for example, to fund the long-duration energy storage that we desperately need, so that we can do the transition and keep the lights on. The money should be used for other renewables projects.

It is for the Government to make day-to-day spending decisions and they are accountable for the decisions they make, as GB Energy is accountable to the Treasury and the public for how it spends its money. Ultimately, the Government themselves are responsible to the public, but I do not think it is for the Opposition to put a cap on what Governments can spend. Core spending is a decision for the Government, so this would be a highly unusual amendment and, if it is put to a vote, we will oppose it.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Petitgas. In tabling his amendments, my noble friend looks to protect the taxpayer while securing the financial integrity of GB Energy, establishing that GB Energy’s attempt to ramp up renewables must not come at the cost of fiscal responsibility and £8.3 billion. The drafting of Clause 4 is far too ambiguous. We must introduce sufficient safeguards by limiting the scope that the financial powers in the Bill afford the Secretary of State. The taxpayer is coughing up a significant £8.3 billion into an investment vehicle that, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas said, has the potential to completely de-risk the profits of multi-million pound energy companies. Meanwhile, the Government have cancelled winter fuel payments, introduced an NI jobs tax and launched a raid on British farmers, all to save money.

The reality is that £8.3 billion is actually a very tricky number. On the one hand, it is a lot of money, a big, significant investment into energy. On the other hand, in the scheme of energy investment required, it is a relatively inconsequential figure, especially when we talk about wind farms being built out to the potential tune of £100 billion. Either way, whether we consider that to be a big or a small number, the taxpayer deserves to know that the Government are deploying public funds appropriately. The Bill contains no limitation on how much financial assistance GB Energy will receive, there is no cap on the money that can be pumped into GB Energy and nor does the funding have to undergo any approval. What is to stop GB Energy becoming a bottomless pit?

Clause 4 states:

“The Secretary of State may provide financial assistance to Great British Energy”.


But, again, we are lacking in detail on ways to hold the Secretary of State and GB Energy accountable. We have seen no method to restrict the amount of financial assistance the Secretary of State may provide, nor do we understand how the success of each investment will be measured, or indeed reported on. I trust that the Minister will take these amendments seriously. Our transition to net zero must be done with an eye to fiscal responsibility, ensuring that the energy transition is both sustainable and affordable.

Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Earl Russell

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[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?