Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to pick up the concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that GB Energy will pick up some of what I have described as the low-hanging fruit of projects in the energy sector, which can be serviced by the private sector. I do not think that that will happen very much. The putting up of wind turbines and so on by the private sector is well established. It is done by financiers who are more concerned by the feed-in tariff than they are by anything else. They even succeed, as I mentioned in Committee, in being paid at a time when nobody wants the electricity coming from the wind turbines, which I always think is a rather remarkable financial deal to be able to pull off.

Turning to Amendment 39 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost, I raise with the Minister the question of tiered finance. There will be an awful lot of looking into the activities of GB Energy in investing in things but, in my view, here lies the problem: you will find that there are different layers of finance going into a project that may involve GB Energy. The risk we always run is that, unless the new chairman who has been appointed for GB Energy is incredibly smart, he is going to be left with the worst, highest-risk element of any of these deals being funded by the taxpayer. Of course, this means that, if the thing goes wrong, the private sector will suffer less than the taxpayer, who will lose all their money.

I would like to hear the Minister’s view on tiered finance, including how we will be able to have openness around it. Will it be possible for outsiders to look in on these deals and comment on them? Generally, does the Minister agree with me that the risk to the taxpayer seems extremely high on this? Of course, we will need Treasury authorisation for all these deals—the Treasury may stop them happening in the beginning—but it would be interesting to know how the Minister’s mind is working on this because it strikes me that the taxpayers are standing in the way of the high-risk elements of any of these deals in which GBE gets involved.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for opening the debate on this group of amendments, as well as all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate so far.

My noble friend Lord Frost pointed out in Committee that this Bill is even thinner in its contents than Bills that we would normally term skeleton Bills. I completely agree with this characterisation. As it stands, there is nothing in the Bill that tells us what Great British Energy will actually do. What will it invest in? How will it decide where its money goes? What criteria will it use for its investments? We have had three and a half days of Committee over five days on the Bill. We still do not know the answers to these questions.

On the first day in Committee, the Minister said:

“The key thing in the structure of the Bill is the objectives set in Clause 3. They will be informed by the statement of strategic priorities that Great British Energy will operate in, making sure that it will be aligned with the Government’s priorities”.—[Official Report, 3/12/24; col. 1066.]


We have discussed the different objects and objectives of Great British Energy, but I think that we need to return to this topic. It was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, that, contrary to what the Minister has claimed, Clause 3 does not set out the objectives of Great British Energy.

Clause 3 establishes the objects of Great British Energy. Those objects set out what GBE will do. Those objects will be the means through which it will try to achieve its objectives, but what those objectives are still eludes us. That is why Amendment 1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is so important. It establishes in the Bill the objectives that Great British Energy will have to work towards. Ensuring energy security, increasing long-term energy storage, increasing the levels of clean energy generation and reducing energy costs are all laudable objectives. They are all things that the Government have indicated that they want Great British Energy to work towards, but unless they are put into the legislation, there is no assurance that they will happen.

This point is especially pertinent given the recent refusal to re-commit to reducing energy bills. Noble Lords will be all too aware that during the election campaign the Government pledged to reduce energy bills by £300 per household. We then heard the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, speaking on Sky News this weekend and refusing to say whether that promise still stood. Then the Prime Minister, speaking at the National Nuclear Laboratory last week, confirmed this figure and said:

“We said we’d aim for £300 … That’s what I want to achieve”.


We therefore have what appear to be different commitments from the chair and the Prime Minister. The chair will not commit to reducing household energy bills by £300 per year, but the Prime Minister will. Which one is it? If we already have a difference in opinion, and clearly no joined-up thinking before the Bill has even been passed, how can anyone believe that Great British Energy will follow through on its supposed objectives? It is evident that the only way this will happen is if there is a clear statement of those objectives in the Bill.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. My Amendment 20, and Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, seek to ensure that there are clearer reporting requirements in the Bill. Currently, there are no requirements to submit reports other than the usual ones under the Companies Act 2006. Many noble Lords have argued that this is not acceptable. The reporting requirements in these two amendments are not overly onerous for GBE to comply with, yet the net benefit would be significant.

I have also tabled Amendment 41, which seeks to ensure that Great British Energy is given a specific direction to achieve a 10% minimum return on its investments annually. Like with the rest of the Bill, there has been absolutely no indication of the expectations that will be placed on GBE. Without this, how can anyone be certain that the taxpayer will see value for money from this investment? If £8.3 billion from the public purse is going to be funnelled into a state-operated investment company, I am certain that taxpayers would like some guarantee that it will pay off—or at least some measure of target return.

This brings me to Amendment 49. Given the permissive extent of the borrowing provisions in the Bill, it is pertinent to allow the Secretary of State to implement a restriction on borrowing. The amendment does this via affirmative statutory instrument, allowing the Secretary of State flexibility, while placing greater safeguards on the amount to be spent via Great British Energy.

In the same vein, we also need to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for the financial assistance that the Secretary of State can provide. Amendment 56 does this by preventing Clause 4 coming into force until the Secretary of State has established the conditions under which financial assistance may be provided. Once again, we need clarity around this issue. We need to know when, how and why the Secretary of State would give financial assistance, under what circumstances and with what conditions attached; otherwise, there is a distinct possibility of the Bill becoming a blank cheque to Great British Energy for unlimited sums of public money.

Finally, Amendment 57, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Effingham, requires the publication of a revised financial framework document. I said in Committee that I did not feel it possible to move forward with the creation of Great British Energy until the Government were more forthcoming on this matter. Regrettably, this elusive information is still being withheld. We need sight of the framework document. Once again, I strongly urge the Government to produce this and allow noble Lords to examine its contents.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 85D requires Great British Energy to

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.