Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we were debating my amendment, but we seem to have done the “the Bill do now pass” speeches as well, so if noble Lords allow, I will do both in my response.

I thank noble Lords for their general welcome for my amendment. I think it is a very satisfactory outcome of our debates in Committee and on Report. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the devolution aspect, the noble Earl put his finger on it. It seems perfectly appropriate that the devolved Governments should receive a copy before publication, because that then allows them to have sight of any findings that might be relevant and which they may have to answer on the day of publication. No slight is intended to Parliament in this, it is just the normal business of Government-to-Government relationships and courtesy. That is why we withdrew the original amendment and replaced it with the revised one, in the light of representations made to us by the devolved Governments.

On the timings of the review, noble Lords will know that we had in mind, at first, the UK Investment Bank, which I think has a seven-year review period. The noble Lord proposed three years and in the end we compromised. That is not unreasonable: Great British Energy must be allowed some time to set itself up and get itself into working order and then, at an appropriate point, we will have a review. It is worth making the point that GBE’s work does not come to an end in 2030; that is just a deadline we have given for clean power. We expert GBE to go on for many years to come, and therefore it is going to be a judgment, but we think five years is not an unreasonable time.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that I agree with him about the potential for small modular reactors —we have a programme that Great British Nuclear is running at the moment and I hope it will be able to come to some important decisions over the next few weeks and months—and he is absolutely right to mention them. I also share his view about the potential of hydrogen. We do not disagree at all with the noble Lord on that.

As far as community energy is concerned, this was raised on Report and I do not think there is anything more I can say at the moment. Clearly, we recognise the important role that community groups can play. Our intention is that Great British Energy will build on existing support, by partnering with and providing funding and support to local and combined authorities, as well as community energy groups, to roll out renewable energy projects and develop up to 8 gigawatts of clean power. I am afraid I cannot give any more details at the moment, but I understand and take note of what noble Lords have said about the companies concerned. I take this seriously and will ensure that it is considered, and we will set out further details in due course.

On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about sustainability, let me be clear that the independent review is focused on the effectiveness of GBE in delivering its mission. It will cover all aspects of the work of Great British Energy and will not focus solely on its financing, as the noble Baroness feared. To give an example, one of its important roles will be to clear the way to allow developers to come in. That will be an important part of the review. Furthermore, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, additionality will be an important part. Clearly, the amendment that I brought on Report—about GBE needing to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development—means that that will be part of any review undertaken by the independent reviewer. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.

Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument, laid before the House on 16 December 2024, seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain.

The capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future predicted demand, to maintain the security of electricity supply. It provides all forms of existing and new-build capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility—formerly known as demand-side response—and interconnection capacity.

Through capacity market auctions, held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body—the National Energy System Operator, or NESO.

Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plant as we transition to a net-zero economy. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and continues to be required to maintain security of supply and provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation, based on our day-to-day experiences of operating the scheme.

The draft instrument makes changes to eight regulations, to deliver technical improvements and changes that support the functioning of the capacity market, which have been identified and explored through consultation. This will improve security of supply. It will also accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies, increasing the role that they play in the capacity market, supporting the Government’s 2030 clean power mission.

Stakeholder feedback has identified a need to review the wider timescales associated with the settlement body’s calculation activities. This ensures that timelines for settlement remain appropriate. The “settlement body” refers to the Electricity Settlements Company, a private company owned by the Secretary of State, established to oversee the settlement of payments to and from suppliers and capacity providers. The draft instrument amends the timelines for the settlement body’s determination so that they are in line with those concerning penalty charges.

As part of the requirements under the Capacity Market Rules, some capacity market units must complete an extended performance test. This provides assurance that a capacity market unit from a storage-generating technology class can deliver capacity for the relevant duration. In effect, extended performance tests are a sub-function of the satisfactory performance days requirement, which requires a capacity provider to demonstrate availability during a delivery year. The policy intent is that failure to meet extended performance tests should have the same consequence as failure to meet satisfactory performance days. The draft instrument ensures that the regime is consistent and that the two demonstrations of performance are treated in similar fashion when failed.

To assist industry prequalifying for the capacity market, this draft instrument will further clarify that a capacity market unit can be prequalified only where no contract for difference has been awarded, unless the contract for difference in question has expired or terminated. The instrument also further clarifies that a contract for difference means a contract for difference or an investment contract entered into with a contract for difference counterparty, which has always been the policy intent.

Finally, multiyear agreements provide greater revenue certainty and are likely to incentivise further low-carbon participation in the capacity market, which improves market liquidity and can lead to a greater diversity of technologies. A new nine-year capex threshold introduced by this draft instrument will ensure that new and refurbishing projects, with costs that fall between the existing thresholds, are not prevented from entering the capacity market.

The instrument also enables participants to access a three-year agreement with a capex threshold of nought per kilowatt hour, available to low-carbon new build and unproven demand-side response capacity. It will remove barriers for low-carbon, low-capex technologies to access longer agreements in the capacity market. To ensure that projects meet the definition of low-carbon capacity, a low emissions determination, which is a decision that the delivery body may take, has been introduced by this instrument as a further reviewable decision type.

Two public consultations were conducted on the measures in this instrument. It contains a second phase of capacity market reforms, which was consulted on towards the end of 2023, on strengthening security of supply and accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies. Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals included in this instrument.

We have also made a number of technical amendments to the Capacity Market Rules that support the regulations, which, as I said earlier, were laid before the House on 16 December 2024.

In conclusion, this is another instrument that follows from work that the previous Government did. It is self-evident that these technical changes are helpful and necessary, and I commend the regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations propose amendments to the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014. While presented as essential to streamline the capacity market, we must be careful around one or two of the implications that arise.

As has been outlined by the Minister, the proposed changes stem from two public consultations held in 2023, which received broad support—especially for increasing the role of low-carbon technologies. However, there are some concerns: how will these regulations ensure long-term energy security, and will they genuinely accelerate the shift to a low-carbon system?

First, the Government seek to remove the 10-year reapproval requirement for the capacity market, allowing it to operate indefinitely without regular reviews. While this may offer stability, we ask whether this move risks stagnating the market’s ability to adapt to fast-evolving technologies and changing energy needs. Do we not need to maintain regular scrutiny of such a critical, dynamic sector, especially in the next 10 years when technology is moving rapidly?

Secondly, the regulations aim to establish the capacity market as a permanent fixture and remove any reference to it as temporary. This again raises the question of whether this shift represents a real commitment to security of supply or whether we are entrenching an outdated system that may fail to evolve with the energy sector and the technological advancements to which we have referred.

Thirdly, while the regulations repeal provisions from the EU electricity regulation that are deemed unnecessary, we must ask whether we are simplifying the system too much and whether this could leave gaps that harm flexibility and responsiveness during crises.

Fourthly and finally, the Government are focusing on low-carbon technologies. However, can renewables, such as wind and solar, provide the same reliability as traditional generation during peak demand or system stress? Will prioritising low-carbon technologies risk energy security? How will the Government ensure that the capacity market remains competitive and attracts investment in both low-carbon and reliable generation technologies?

These regulations raise a couple of critical questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the removal of the 10-year reapproval requirement does not result in stagnation, particularly as energy generation technologies evolve rapidly? Secondly, given the emphasis on low-carbon technologies, what measures are being taken to ensure that infrastructure is in place to integrate these technologies into the grid without compromising system reliability?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his general support for what is proposed in these regulations and for his specific questions in relation to the implications for long-term energy security and whether there is a risk of stagnating the market. He also asked whether we are going to keep this under regular review.

I should start by saying that the capacity market has been operating since 2014 and has worked pretty well. I acknowledge that. We see no reason why we cannot continue with it. In a sense, the permanent nature of the system that the noble Lord referred to is a perfectly reasonable response to the fact that the system is tried and tested. I should also say that it has supported investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new-build flexible capacity, including low-carbon technologies, since its introduction. That is solid evidence to suggest that the system can deliver the capacity needed to meet future peak demand and respond to the kind of challenge that he raised about introducing low-carbon technology into the frame as older capacity starts to be replaced.

I take the noble Lord’s point about keeping this under review. We absolutely are going to keep this under regular review. We have to do so. That is so important. We are committed to ensuring that the right policy tools are in place for delivering the secure and affordable energy system we need. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we regularly assess the performance of the capacity market and explore improvements to the scheme. We do not hesitate to bring to your Lordships’ House and the other place further changes in relation to further statutory instruments.

This is all intended to improve security of supply. We believe that accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies can increase the role they play in the capacity market. Our evidence since 2014 suggests that the mechanism that we have put in place is going to work. I am quite confident that we are right to say that this should be a permanent feature. Having said that, I thank the noble Lord for his constructive response to this SI.

Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister for a pretty spectacular explanation of what is quite a complicated and technical exercise. These schemes were introduced, as was said, between October 2022 and March 2024 and, as we know, they gave much-needed assistance to non-domestic customers. We are dealing now with a small yet significant minority of consumers who have not received their finalised bills, due to ongoing delays in the actualisation process. My understanding is that these delays arise mostly from the use of estimated rather than actual meter readings, but they have created significant complexities for both suppliers and consumers, especially when one of the issues around this is the concept that the supplier can become “off-boarded” when they hit the actualisation thresholds, as mentioned by the Minister, of 95% for billed gas and 97% for billed electricity, which means they are no longer required to apply further discounts.

We agree that this is a legacy issue that needs to be dealt with. Our only issue—I am sure that the department is working on this—is the need to deal with unintended consequences, such as where a supplier is off-boarded but still has unbilled energy due to these administrative delays. The amendment allows for discounts to continue only in cases where a billing failure has occurred, but does that provide sufficient protection to the consumer if the errors are on the supplier’s part, for example?

Further issues might be that the amendment extends the rule limiting discounts on variable price contracts. Discounts can only be reduced, not increased, post off-boarding. Does that sufficiently accommodate fluctuations in wholesale energy prices that suppliers may face? Does it risk creating an imbalance in terms of supplier and consumer rights? Then there is the issue of disputes. While the original scheme allowed for disputes to be referred to the Secretary of State—a horrendous concept—the amendment seeks to close that avenue. I am sure that the department is all over this, but we need to ensure that, in the technicalities of actually making this happen, we get a fair balance between supplier and consumer rights. Otherwise, we support the passage of this SI.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for the welcome that they gave to the statutory instruments. I say to the noble Lord that we think the statutory instrument will be sufficient. The carve-outs, which are relevant to the points he raised, are aimed at ensuring that consumers will be well protected from poor operational practice by suppliers.

The noble Lord also asked about disputes. The fact is that, if a supplier cannot resolve an issue with a customer satisfactorily, the customer can either directly refer the matter to the ombudsman, if eligible, or to Ofgem, or get in touch with the department, which will then refer the matter to Ofgem. Ofgem will then review the customer’s complaint and decide whether a formal investigation into the supplier is required. If the customer has exhausted other routes, they are obviously also able to seek civil restitution through the courts, but I hope that that would not normally be necessary.

On the non-domestic alternative fuel payment, it was indeed part of the support programme. Obviously, it served its purpose, and I accept the point the noble Baroness raised.

I have mentioned the carve-outs. I understand the issue about energy bills, and we know the pressure that this causes. We debated some of these matters extensively —I was going to say last night but it was actually this morning. I might leave it there. I am most grateful to noble Lords.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. Of course, we have returned to some of the arguments that we had in Committee. I understand that noble Lords would like to have more information about the activities of Great British Energy, but we have chosen to bring a Bill that, essentially, sets up the basics of establishing a company. Much of the detail that noble Lords have discussed will come through the statement of strategic priorities, which we will debate later.

We do not think it right that we can publish our own statement, or a draft, without the full active participation of Great British Energy, and we are not really going to move from that position. Given that the statement of strategic priorities is to come and that we will hold Great British Energy to account for its performance, as would be expected with any normal public body for which the Government are ultimately responsible, we are resistant to putting what we believe to be unnecessary detail in the Bill, restricting what the company can do in carrying out its activities, especially as these evolve over the longer term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the topic of community energy was raised several times in Committee by noble Lords on all sides of the House, because it is a highly important aspect of energy provision. When in government, we introduced the community energy fund, which provided funding to specifically target the community energy sector. So, I would concur with noble Lords that it is very important that communities are involved, as they are able to raise and solve issues that are unique to their local community.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first say that I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for my Amendment 8. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about the success of campaigning. She might have recognised the Government’s role in this, but she did not quite get that over the line. But there is always hope.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about community benefits, I agree with the principle; we are looking at community benefit schemes. I have told noble Lords before about my visit to Biggleswade wind farm, where the company involved is giving around £40,000 a year to the local community. Certainly, we need to look at schemes like that and see what we can do to extend them.

As regards nuclear and that interesting discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made it very clear that the existing sites contained in the last statement will always be recognised for what they offer. We are not seeking to undermine their potential; we are simply saying that we need a more flexible siting policy in the future.

The noble Lord did not mention Wylfa, so I will. Of course, he will know that Wylfa was identified as one of the sites in the last statement. Clearly, it still offers many potential opportunities. There was a great deal of interest earlier this week in the planning inspector’s report, which purportedly came out against the development of Wylfa. I, for one, think that it offers great potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, for returning to a theme he developed in Committee. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that I take the amendments seriously. But, like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not believe that they are appropriate, because I do not think it right to constrain the arrangements we set out in the Bill in this way. Nor do I think it appropriate for Parliament to take to itself the kinds of controls that the noble Lord is suggesting.

Let me make it clear, first, that in terms of the sum, we are committed to capitalising Great British Energy with £8.3 billion over this Parliament, but we have the flexibility in the future for a current or future Secretary of State to provide further financial support if it were required in this or a future Parliament. There must be flexibility here: one cannot set in stone a figure for all time. We must allow GBE to develop and grow, and we have to learn by experience.

However, the idea that the money being spent by GBE will not be subject to thorough tests and reviews is simply not true. As we have already said, any financial assistance to GBE provided by the Secretary of State will have to be subject to the usual governance and control principles applicable to public sector bodies, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money principles. GBE will be allocated funding through the spending review and will draw down on it when required in the normal way, through the supply estimates process, which is scrutinised, of course, by the other place. As is the case with any government spending, the Secretary of State will be able to finance planned activities only if Parliament votes the necessary financial provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a simple yet essential safeguard that ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has long stood against forced labour and exploitation. If we are serious about a just and ethical transition to clean energy, we must ensure that Great British Energy, a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards. There is a clear precedent for this approach. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains, yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in the sourcing of solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt.

This amendment does not create unnecessary bureaucracy or hinder investment; it simply ensures that taxpayers’ money does not fund exploitation. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. It is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risk for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, supporting this amendment strengthens the integrity of Great British Energy. aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations and sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this important debate, and particularly, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He and I have worked together on a number of these issues, particularly in relation to enforced organ donation in Xinjiang province, and I have always been tremendously grateful for the advice and support he has given.

On this debate in general, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that behind it lies more fundamental changes that we need to see, including his point about the development, where we can, of a UK supply chain. He said that he is going to support the noble Lord, Lord Alton; I understand and accept that.

Let me say at once that the Government wholeheartedly agree on the importance of confronting human rights abuses, including modern slavery, in energy supply chains, and we are committed to tackling the issue. I am glad that the meeting with Jürgen Maier was helpful; he is providing some strong leadership in this area. I have had also had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, between Committee and Report, but we have not quite found a way through as yet.

My understanding is that Great British Energy will already have a range of tools in place to support its efforts to identify and tackle human rights abuses in its supply chain. Indeed, as a state-owned company, it will be expected not only to abide by but to be a first-in-class example of adherence to the UK’s existing legislation and guidance. We support voluntary due diligence approaches taken by UK businesses to respect human rights across their operations and supplier relationships, in line with the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, referred to legislation passed by his Government, which I readily acknowledge. Under Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, Great British Energy will be required to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement for the financial year, in relation to its turnover of £36 million or more, outlining the steps it has taken in the financial year to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any of its supply chains nor any part of its business. Once the Procurement Act 2023 comes into force—on which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I shared a common endeavour—it can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers which are known to use forced labour themselves or anywhere in their supply chain.

We will also use the modern slavery assessment tool known as MSAT to assess the supply base for modern slavery risks. With these tools, I am assured and am confident that Great British Energy will not ignore credible evidence of modern slavery and human rights abuses. I believe that its exemplary adherence to this legislation, which the Government rightfully expect, will not only ensure that the company is doing all in its power to combat modern slavery but also pull up the standards expected of the UK’s wider energy industry under the existing legislative landscape. I think the chair of GBE has reinforced that point.

It is our belief that any action that has to be taken must not only be robust but—to take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell—take a whole-of-government and society approach. We expect UK businesses, including GBE, to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chain. Our guidance and international principles encourage business to remediate or mitigate when instances are uncovered, such as industry collaboration or improved internal purchasing practices. Amendments 18 and 19 would not allow GBE the opportunity for mediation; they would only penalise it.

There is a practical question around how these amendments might work in practice and what their impacts on GBE and its operations would be. They do not define what is meant by “credible evidence”, and this could be left open to interpretation. I am not trying to be pedantic here because, clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested in his opening remarks that he wanted to give the Commons the opportunity to debate this matter. I agree that we should not be too pedantic about the wording of the amendment, but I wanted to mention that as one of the practical consequences of enacting the amendments as they are currently drafted.

Combating human rights abuses, such as modern slavery, across the whole energy industry is a much more effective way to make progress than applying measures on a company-by-company basis, as these amendments would do. We recognise that the landscape has changed since the Modern Slavery Act was introduced; that is why we are committed to improving our response to modern slavery and will set out next steps more broadly in due course.

I should inform the House that we are partnering with an expert institution to provide detailed and relevant information on what modern slavery statements should cover, including practical advice for businesses to go beyond compliance with their legal requirements and actively identify and remedy instances of modern slavery in their supply chains. GBE will follow that, of course.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, expressed some scepticism about the Solar Taskforce. Having been relaunched by my department, it will focus on identifying and taking forward the actions needed to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative supply chains that are free from forced labour. The aim is to support the significant increases needed in the deployment of solar panels to meet our ambition of seeing a large increase by 2030.

More widely, the Government are taking action to ensure that our clean energy supply chains are resilient as a key priority in the transition to net zero, in both de-risking the delivery of our carbon budgets and maximising the economic benefits from the transition. This will involve domestic action, such as investment in manufacturing, and international action, such as removing trade barriers and collaborating with our allies.

With respect to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I know that the House wants to see action from the Government. I can assure noble Lords that my department is working collaboratively across Whitehall on this important issue, including with the Department for Business and Trade and the Home Office, to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the UK’s existing measures, alongside the impacts of new policy tools that are emerging to tackle forced labour in global supply chains, including in the energy sector. We are not ignoring the points made by the noble Lord. We take this seriously and, as I said, we are strongly looking at this across Whitehall at the moment.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which she spoke so eloquently. Let me be clear: the UK’s existing sustainability criteria put limits on the greenhouse gas emissions of the supply chain and already include environmental protections. Where biomass is sourced from forests, the land criteria include requirements around sustainable harvesting and maintaining productivity. This ensures that forests are managed well and in a sustainable manner, as carbon dioxide emissions released during combustion are absorbed continuously by new forest growth. The statement that we made on Monday in relation to biomass reflects how the Government are moving. They might not be moving as fast as the noble Baroness wants, but we are, I think, moving in the direction that she wishes to see.

I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that, as a public body, Great British Energy already has a duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to remind me of my own Amendment 38, which we will come on to at some point this evening. I do not want to repeat what I am going to say later, but it is a very important amendment and I hope it will provide considerable reassurance to the House.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes amendments to the UK emissions trading scheme, including expanding its scope to cover CO2 venting for upstream oil and gas operations, lowering the emissions cap and introducing new penalties alongside a flexible reserve mechanism. It is crucial that industries and communities affected by these changes receive the necessary support during the transition period.

The amendments introduced by this order significantly expand the UK ETS. Notably, it will now cover CO2 venting from upstream oil and gas operations, requiring companies in this sector to purchase allowances for their emissions. The adjustment of the emissions cap ensures that the allowances for companies to buy in 2025 will be reduced by 12.4%. By 2027, the number of allowances will fall by 45%, ultimately reaching a 70% reduction by 2030.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the introduction of new penalties and a deficit notice in this instrument—fines for non-compliance linked to the carbon price, obviously designed to incentivise businesses to meet their obligations. How will these penalties be enforced in practice and are they really proportionate, particularly for industries already facing complex and burdensome regulatory frameworks? Additionally, the establishment of a flexible reserve to buffer against market volatility can be seen as a step towards ensuring stability in the carbon market, but can the Minister explain what assurances the Government can give that this mechanism will not inadvertently lead to market manipulation or instability, rather than solving it?

Requiring oil and gas companies to purchase allowances for CO2 venting could significantly increase their operational costs, placing UK producers at a disadvantage compared to international competitors in regions without similar emissions trading schemes. This could lead to carbon leakage. The Government must address how they plan to mitigate such risks.

Another concern is the regulatory burden. The introduction of additional regulations and financial costs tied to purchasing allowances may create a substantial compliance burden, particularly for smaller operators. It is essential that the Government provide clear guidance and support to ensure that businesses can adapt without undue strain.

On investment and mitigation technologies, while the scheme encourages decarbonisation, can the Minister outline how it plans to incentivise and facilitate the scale-up of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies? All these are said to be necessary to keep to the Government’s timetable. Further clarity is needed.

Market price volatility presents an additional challenge. Fluctuating carbon prices expose companies to financial uncertainty. While the flexible reserves aim to stabilise the market, further clarity is needed on how effective this mechanism will be in managing price volatility and ensuring long-term stability.

The introduction of penalties and enforcement provisions raises important questions about fairness and proportionality. Will penalties be applied equally to all operators, or will they be adjusted based on companies’ size or ability to comply? Can the Minister clarify how this will be structured?

It is essential that the Government spell out how they intend to carry through this order without unintended negative consequences for the industry.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on international co-operation on carbon pricing. I certainly accept that, as we transition to net zero, it is important that we work across international borders to drive climate ambition. Under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK Government and the EU agreed to consider linking our respective carbon pricing schemes and to co-operate on carbon pricing. The noble Lord will know that we are working to reset our relationship with the EU and strengthen ties and improve trade and investment relationships with it, including promoting climate, energy and economic security, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market or customs union.

The Prime Minister visited Brussels on 12 December 2024, and the joint statement with President von der Leyen illustrated that the UK and the EU would take forward this agenda of strengthening co-operation at pace over the coming months. As set out in the TCA, carbon pricing remains an area where we will continue to co-operate, and it is right that we will continue to develop the UK ETS to support our climate goals and support sectors in the transition to net zero.

The carbon price within the EU emissions trading scheme is determined by the market, and it is designed this way because competitive markets are likely to deliver the most efficient transition to net zero across the economy. This will give emitters the flexibility as to how they abate their emissions, thereby allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheaper for them to do so.

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that, as I said earlier, we are here simply building on the work of his Government in just making a sensible adjustment to make sure that there is no free ride in removing the excess allocation of free allocations, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested. When the production has been ended as part of a decarbonisation programme, allowing them those free allocations recognises that. We do not think that these rules will lead to disproportionate regulation or that there will be potential manipulation of the market.

On oil and gas, I will write to the noble Lord with further details on his specific question.

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

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 27th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will concentrate on a major area where I feel the Government must provide some clarity: regulatory burden. In doing so, I am of course mindful that it was the previous Government who introduced the initial consultation to expand and update carbon capture readiness requirements, now rebranded as decarbonisation readiness requirements. The immediate effect of these regulations will be felt across electricity generating stations in England, particularly those now required to meet the expanded decarbonisation readiness criteria. Operators will be required to submit a decarbonisation readiness report as part of their environmental permit applications, which must include technical details on the feasibility of carbon capture or hydrogen conversion during electricity generation.

A significant provision in this statutory instrument is the removal of the 300 megawatt minimum capacity threshold, which currently dictates when carbon capture readiness requirements apply. In this amendment, the requirements will apply to both new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants, as well as voluntary applications for existing plants. Additionally, the SI introduces assessments for hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture, usage and storage.

It is incumbent on the Government to outline comprehensively what specific support will be available to businesses as they are required to adjust to these new requirements. Can the Minister assure me that his officials in the department recognise that the onus must be on helping operators achieve compliance rather than face an undue burden? Will he outline whether exemptions have been considered—for example, for smaller or older power plants that may face specific challenges in meeting the requirements on day 1? There is a fine line to be walked between regulation and innovation, and, to use a familiar proverb, there is a real need here to make sure that we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face.

This instrument hands the Environment Agency direct assessment powers over compliance. Again, can the Minister provide the necessary detail on the actions that the agency will take to facilitate a smooth transition before the implementation date of February 2026? Additionally, will there be any further consultations, or will any additional guidance be issued, before the regulations come into effect?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Teverson, for their comments. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I am grateful for his support and for noting the clarity with which we have presented the proposals. In terms of the popularity of debates on energy SIs, we have had more colleagues here in previous debates, but we are presently on a rota of two SIs every Monday, and at some point I hope we might come to a conclusion in relation to that.

Internet Activity: Energy Use

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is in a better position to explain, since that was the position we inherited from his Government. It is our view, as well as that of the Committee on Climate Change, NESO and many other bodies, that the best way to get stability and then reductions in prices is to move fast to clean power.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the stark reality is that the green policies of successive UK Governments, however well-intentioned, have come at a prohibitive cost to the UK economy. The average UK industrial energy price is now five times that of the USA and seven times that of China. The sad reality is that the UK is locked out of the digital revolution in crypto and AI. Does the Minister think there are lessons that can be learned from the new US Administration’s approach to energy supply? Does he agree with me that this is now the time for common sense to prevail? Will he please go to the Department for Energy and persuade his boss to drill, Mili, drill?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the experience in the US will rather depend on the price of oil and gas than on any other intervention. Let me quote the figures. In the AI market, we have 3,000 companies, with £10 billion in revenues, and 60,000 people working in the industry. In data centres, 17,000 people are directly employed, with a total revenue of £4.6 billion a year. These are two very successful industries. Developments are taking place at the moment which will continue in the future. This Government will support them in so doing.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank and express my support for my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose amendments address the matter of subsidised renewable energy technology. Considering that GB Energy is already supported by £8.3 billion, I see no viable reason why it should invest in renewable energy projects that are already substantially supported by government subsidies and funded by the British consumer, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas highlighted. Surely it is essential that the renewable energy industry in the UK is not reliant on government handouts for ever. We must look to create an environment that promotes competition and innovation and mitigates the likelihood of inefficiency.

At present, the Government subsidise low-carbon electricity initiatives through contracts for difference, where they guarantee developers a fixed price for the electricity that they generate. This is funded via a levy on consumer bills and, at the end of last year, the Government were considering holding the largest auction yet in 2025 despite recent scrutiny over consumer energy bills. The British consumer is already burdened by the cost of turning off wind turbines to avoid overloading the power grid; this costs the UK £1 billion a year, with that predicted to rise to more than £3.5 billion in the next decade. Why should the taxpayer be burdened numerous times?

According to the OBR, environmental levies are around £12 billion. This amounts to £400 per household in the UK. Yet the cost of offshore wind is less than current market prices and those agreed in auction rounds. If renewables are supposedly cheaper, I query why we are paying these subsidies in the first place. The truth is that the Government’s clean energy by 2030 agenda will require substantial levels of borrowing, which will be spent on subsidising renewable energy technologies. This rushed target will only cost the consumer more. It will not cover energy bills by the £300 a year promised during the election campaign.

Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost would prevent the Bill being passed until the Secretary of State publishes a report calculating the costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. The amendment raises the issue of transparency. If we are to pass a Bill that is so financially consequential, we must have sight of the Government’s current spending on renewable technologies.

Amendment 118B from my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom would prevent GB Energy investing in a project

“that relies wholly or in part on”

government subsidies. Amendment 129 would prevent the Act being passed until

“the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further Government subsidy for offshore wind developments”.

These three amendments neatly touch on the concerns that I have raised. I ask the Minister to thoroughly consider the worries expressed by my noble friends.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which reflects previous debates in Committee. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, being worried that GBE will invest badly, not make money and invest in speculative projects, which he thought the Treasury might encourage it to do. My experience of the Treasury is that that is not how it works out in practice. Our challenge is encouraging the Treasury to make investment decisions, and the scrutiny with which it approaches this matter can be described as vigorous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving his amendment and all noble Lords who made contributions or comments. Perhaps I may take them thematically, starting with the importance of oversight. As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we on these Benches are in favour of the sentiment of Amendments 122 to 124.

As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the strategic priorities for GB Energy are not included in the Bill. Indeed, we have not had sight of those most important principles; we simply do not have any concrete examples of what GB Energy as a company will be trying to achieve. I must therefore ask the Minister: how can we support the Government if we do not even know what the proposed investment vehicle will put taxpayers’ money into? This House and the other place must have sight of the strategic priorities of GB Energy so that we can assess its goals, what it intends to achieve, how these goals will be achieved, in what order they will be prioritised, and how much money will be spent on those goals and priorities.

I turn to Amendment 125 in my name, which ensures that the Bill cannot come into force until a financial framework document has been laid before Parliament. Much like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am deeply concerned that we have not yet had sight of this most important information. I do not feel it is possible to move forward with the Bill, or GB Energy itself, until we have understood its financial structure. I therefore strongly urge the Government to produce a financial framework for GB Energy and let us examine it.

Amendment 126, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard, requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. The Government are already putting at risk 200,000 jobs in the North Sea oil and gas sector in the UK but, of course, this will hit the city of Aberdeen particularly hard, as it is the centre of the UK domestic oil and gas industry. None of us would object to the Government looking to bring a more diverse range of sovereign energy sources online, but we should not be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs or people’s livelihoods in the process.

The transition to green energy, if it is managed correctly and done in an orderly fashion—not on an artificially accelerated basis—has the opportunity to provide a swathe of new well-paid jobs. We must therefore hold the Government to their word that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs, which is a big number and target. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. That will show noble Lords whether the Government are keeping their word, whether these jobs are created and will be of benefit to Aberdeen, and whether we have indeed seen the transition talked about.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 127 in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard. That amendment will ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We should transition away from the use of fossil fuels and reduce the volume of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, but it must be done in an economical and sustainable manner. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to these concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do listen carefully to what noble Lords have said. Our final debate in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggests, takes us back to some of the early debates and concerns that noble Lords have. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The point he made is that the cost of doing nothing will, in the end, be much more expensive than the cost of net zero. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that sticking to oil and gas is certainly not a free lunch, either. The noble Earl also pointed to the declining reserves in the UK continental shelf. This is a fact of life and why there were losses of jobs in Aberdeen under the previous Government. I will come back to the issue of Aberdeen in a moment.

Clearly, the effect of the amendments will be to defer the commencement of most provisions in the Bill until several requirements have been met. They include the laying before and approval by Parliament of a framework document and statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an outline statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an assessment on the expected impact of the Act on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and the publication of a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already discussed many of these matters in Committee and the Committee will be aware of the Government’s views and intents on this.

Our aim is to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as we can. It is also our clear intention that the statement of strategic priorities cannot be produced without the full involvement of Great British Energy in order to get its expertise, including that of the newly appointed non-executive directors, to inform the statement. This is why we do not believe that we can publish the statement of strategic priorities either during the passage of the Bill or before Royal Assent. Once parliamentary approval is given, we will ensure that we move as quickly as we possibly can to produce the statement.

On accountability, in the end, Ministers will agree with the statement that we are accountable to Parliament. I do not think your Lordships’ House is backward in holding Ministers to account for what they do. We have the Select Committee process, there are numerous opportunities for scrutiny of what we decide in relation to the statement and, of course, the statement is also subject to revision from time to time.

On the framework document, I suppose I can only repeat what I said before. We are committed to producing a framework document. It will, as framework documents do, cover the governance structure, the requirements for reporting and information sharing, and the financial responsibilities and controls. I have given this assurance from the Dispatch Box, so that is a government statement of what is going to happen. The framework document will be extensive and will follow the normal course of action. I hope that assures noble Lords that everything is being done in a proper way and with proper accountability, ensuring that Great British Energy is subject to the appropriate controls—as is only right for a body that is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State for its activities.

We think that it is a very good thing that GBE will be based in Aberdeen; a significant proportion of GBE’s staff will certainly be based there. We think that Aberdeen will benefit from new jobs in the economy created because of GBE’s investment in renewable energy projects. I understand and very much accept the need to ensure, as we have talked about, a just transition for the people involved in the oil and gas sector. We want to do everything we can to enable offshore workers to lead the world in the industries of the future, which is why we are working very hard with businesses, employees and workers to manage our existing fields for the entirety of their lifetime and are putting in place programmes to support a transition. It is interesting that research from Robert Gordon University shows that 90% of oil and gas workers have medium to high transferable skills for offshore renewable jobs; knowing the skills that people who work in the North Sea bring to the jobs they do, that does not surprise me.

This is all I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in relation to President Trump’s decisions: it is interesting that, in his first term, the US actually saw quite a drive into renewable energy. It may be that we will still see the same direction under the new Administration in the end; that is for the US Government to decide. We as a Government are sticking to the Paris Agreement and to the need to get to net zero and clean power as soon as we possibly can.

Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the clean heat market mechanism represents a clumsy attempt by the Government to impose unrealistic and burdensome targets on the heating industry. While the overarching goal of reducing carbon emissions and decarbonising heating in the UK is commendable, the regulatory approach taken here is flawed.

The mechanism requires that major boiler manufacturers—those selling more than 20,000 gas boilers or 1,000 oil boilers annually—must ensure that at least 6% of their sales consist of heat pumps by 2025-26. Although heat pumps, which run on electricity rather than gas, are often hailed as a cleaner alternative, these regulations fail to consider the practical challenges faced by both manufacturers and consumers.

This mechanism promises market certainty, investment in low-carbon technologies and a reduction in heat pump costs through increased competition. However, these lofty claims are undermined by overly ambitious targets, coupled with the Government’s failure to address the considerable barriers faced by consumers. Far from facilitating a smooth transition, these regulations risk causing significant disruption to the industry.

Set to run from April 2025 to March 2029, the scheme faces growing doubts about its ability to meet its long-term target of 600,000 heat pumps sold annually by 2028. This concern is further exacerbated by the fact that heat pump sales remain alarmingly low, with both the National Audit Office and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee warning that current sales levels are far too low to meet the proposed targets.

Returning to the effects of this SI, this initiative imposes stringent sales targets on large boiler manufacturers, forcing them to meet heat pump quotas. If these quotas are not met, manufacturers will face damaging fines, in some cases of £3,000 for every heat pump missed. Although manufacturers can carry forward up to 35% of their annual target to the following year, this strain on the industry cannot be overstated. When the original plans for the CHMM were first announced in 2024, some manufacturers pre-emptively raised their prices to account for the anticipated fines, only to lower them after the previous Conservative Government pragmatically delayed the scheme in March to allow the industry more time to prepare. Will this Government consider doing the same?

Furthermore, it is not only the industry that will face a financial burden from these regulations; the most pressing concern is the significant impact on consumers. Although environmentally beneficial, heat pumps remain expensive for many households, with installation costs ranging from £6,500 to £11,500. This is not just a challenge; it is a significant obstacle. Many families are already struggling with the cost of living, and these regulations threaten to impose yet another financial burden. The Government cannot continue to ignore the stark reality that these high costs will place heat pumps well beyond the reach of many ordinary households unless substantial and sustained financial support is provided.

The burden of financing such an expensive transition should not fall squarely and only on consumers. Despite the grants available through the energy company obligation and the boiler upgrade scheme, which offer up to £7,500 in England and Wales, the high upfront cost of heat pumps remains a significant barrier. This policy risks making a greener future inaccessible to those who need it the most.

Moreover, it is essential to question whether the Government have adequately considered the industry’s capacity to meet these targets. The regulation requires major manufacturers to ensure that a specific proportion of their boiler sales, 6%, consist of heat pumps. However, given that the heat pump market is still in its early stages, with many manufacturers struggling to scale up production, where is the recognition of this challenge?

Lastly, the proposed scheme risks undermining the very people it aims to help. The Government’s approach, imposing fines on manufacturers that fail to meet the sales targets, could lead to price hikes for consumers. There is already evidence that some manufacturers have raised prices, as has been said before, and if that trend continues it will not be the manufacturers that bear the cost; it will simply be passed on to the consumer.

In conclusion, although the Government may be well meaning, the clean heat market mechanism, as it stands, is flawed and could have serious unintended consequences for consumers, manufacturers and the wider heating industry. It is vital that the Government reconsider this approach, provide proper financial support for consumers and work with the industry to ensure that the transition to low-carbon heating is both achievable and affordable.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, says that although he understands the intent behind the regulations, we are clumsy and have overambitious targets. He asks us to repeat his Government’s actions in delaying or not going ahead with implementation. We are not going to do that. We are confident that we have a scheme that is practical. As a new Government, we have engaged in extensive discussions with industry.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was critical of us for reducing the level of the fine. The fact that we have done so shows that we are concerned about ensuring that we introduce this in an evolutionary way, which is why we have started with the fines at the level we have set. We are confident that industry can rise to the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, said that sales of heat pumps were disappointing. I thought he might have said that in the last year, 2024, sales had an encouraging increase. We want to build on that with the incentivisation for householders plus the introduction of potential fines for manufacturers, although overall we think that manufacturers will be able to rise to that challenge.

On the issue of cost, which a number of noble Lords raised, of course heat pumps cost more money than gas boilers, but as when one introduces most new technologies, or extends them, the price will come down. We think it will fall significantly, making pumps a more attractive and affordable options for UK households. As noble Lords have referred to, at the moment we are funding installations to kick-start the market, for example through schemes such as the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes local grant.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked whether non-UK manufacturers of heat pumps could earn and sell credits under the scheme. The intention here is that any manufacturer of heat pumps sold on the UK market acquires credits and can make them available to other parties in the scheme. Of course, there is no obligation on manufacturers to acquire those credits; this is one of the various options available to them. In parallel, the Government are supporting the expansion of UK heat pump manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition. The noble Lord is absolutely right that further legislation would be required to revise targets for future years of the scheme.

The instrument today sets a target for the first year. This would roll over to year 2 if there were no amendment by further legislation. Here, the Government have committed to consult further this year, before setting targets for future years, and then returning to the House if we wanted to change the target. I hope this reassures noble Lords that we are fully engaged with industry. We will obviously discuss the implications carefully before we come back with any further proposals.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 88, 89 and 92, which stand in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard and other distinguished colleagues, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Cameron of Dillington. These amendments, although technical in nature, are vital to ensure that Great British Energy operates with the highest standards of transparency, accountability and good governance. This is not simply a matter of administrative precision; it is the fundamental issue of public trust.

Amendment 88 ensures that GBE files its reporting accounts within the same timeframe required of public companies under Section 442 of the Companies Act 2006. This alignment with established statutory requirements is essential. It demonstrates that GBE, although a public body, will not be afforded preferential treatment or lesser obligations than private enterprises. The public expect and deserve this parity, especially given GBE’s role as a steward of taxpayers’ funds.

Amendment 89 introduces additional requirements for GBE’s annual reporting accounts. Crucially, it provides the Treasury with the flexibility to define additional reporting requirements over time. This ensures that GBE can adapt to evolving priorities and maintain accountability as it grows. It is worth emphasising that comprehensive and transparent reporting is not an administrative burden; it is a cornerstone of effective governance. This amendment guarantees that GBE will meet not only the letter of the law but the spirit of public accountability. By ensuring this level of scrutiny, we are demonstrating a commitment to good governance that transcends political or ideological divides but sends a clear message that public funds and the public interest will always be protected.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this debate, both today and in our deliberations on Monday. It seems quite a long time ago since then, and I am looking forward to a very constructive engagement today and welcome the contributions that all noble Lords are going to make.

Let me say at once that I very much understand the importance of information being provided in order to judge the performance of GBE and of it being held to effective account. There is no disagreement at all between me and other noble Lords on this. Noble Lords will know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained very clearly in her remarks on Monday, that her Amendment 88 requires GBE to file its annual reports and accounts within six months from the end of its accounting reference period. As she said then, and as noble Lords have repeated, this aligns with the Companies Act 2006 for public companies whose shares are publicly traded. Of course I agree that a six-month filing period is appropriate for public companies. Financial markets need up-to-date and timely information on the performance of a company, as do its range of stakeholders and shareholders, to help them make informed decisions when companies are seeking to raise capital.

I also understand why noble Lords wish this discipline to be applied to GBE, but it is a private limited company owned wholly by the Crown. It is not unreasonable for the Government to say that, on that basis, we should be in line with the Companies Acts requirements, which set a nine-month filing period for private limited companies. I should also say that this is an arrangement applied to most government-owned companies: for example, the National Wealth Fund, the National Energy System Operator and the Low Carbon Contracts Company. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about the filing deadline, but it is also the case that the vast majority of these organisations, government-owned companies, file their accounts well in advance of the statutory requirement.

I understand the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made about public interest in Great British Energy, and I welcome that. Indeed, I want GBE to be well-known and seen as spearheading the drive we wish to see in relation to Clause 3 and the statement of priorities in Clause 5. We wish GBE to be as successful as possible.

My point is that, in a sense, what is in statute in relation to the Companies Act is a minimum requirement because, as GBE is owned by the Secretary of State, it will be subject to the usual mechanisms that apply in the public sector. They are put in place to ensure that the public interest is discharged and proper public accountabilities are in place.

On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made an interesting point: one of the concerns some people have is that, because of GBE’s structure and because it is publicly accountable, it will be subject to a considerable number of the controls put in place for bodies that fall within public accountability. The key question is: can we ensure that GBE has sufficient operational independence to perform effectively in its work? There are a number of issues here around the way it will work in future.

I should also say that the annual report and accounts are not the only means of scrutinising the funding allocated to GBE. All funding to GBE must be voted on by Parliament; because of that, it will be scrutinised through the supply and appropriations debates in the other place.

Amendment 89 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes specific topics to be included in the annual reports and accounts of Great British Energy, as well as the granting of an additional power to His Majesty’s Treasury to require further information. I can confirm that much of the proposed content will already be included and publicly available in the annual report and accounts, as required by Clause 7, and will be laid before Parliament. As an example, the financial assistance details under new paragraph (a), proposed by this amendment, will be included in the accounts of GBE. Details are likely to include issued share capital and items on the balance sheet of the company, such as borrowing from government if that method has been utilised.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone were concerned that Great British Energy would need only to follow the provisions of the Companies Act in preparing its annual report and accounts. However, I can assure them that that is not the case. GBE will adhere to the additional reporting requirements for government-owned companies over and above the reporting requirements under the Companies Act. These include the obligation to follow the Treasury’s directions on accounts through the powers extended in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, laid out in the government financial reporting manual and related “Dear Accounting Officer” letters. The most recent of these account direction letters requires bodies to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs, including net resource outturn, the application of resources, changes in taxpayers’ equity and cash flows for the financial year.

Furthermore, GBE will be required to report on its governance around exposure to and risk of climate-related scenarios in its operations, as set out by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Finally, any future funding of GBE will be subject to agreement through a government spending review, or another mechanism, as the Government see fit.

Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes to require the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor of Great British Energy; I think she said on Monday that it is a probing amendment. I am very happy to reassure noble Lords in this case. It is already the case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be the external auditor of Great British Energy. The company will also need to comply with the provisions set out in the Treasury’s Managing Public Money document, which requires the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor for non-departmental public bodies such as Great British Energy. The requirement will also be set out in the framework document for Great British Energy, which we will debate shortly.

Amendment 90A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, seeks to require additional reporting from Great British Energy. Again, I assure her that much of the information that she seeks will be provided in GBE’s annual report and accounts, as a matter of course. The annual report and accounts will include key achievements and milestones, general business information relating to its strategic direction, a review of the company’s performance, challenges and future outlook, as well as financial statements and resourcing levels. It will also include reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

GBE may also make more information available through reporting, such as when projects or investments are announced. We want to set this company up to be transparent and accountable, with a reporting regime appropriate to its company basis and status. The accountability of Ministers to Parliament for its performance will also be in place.

We very much take the point about the need for this organisation to be transparent and accountable. In the light of this debate, I will set out how this all comes together in detail and send a note to noble Lords. I hope that provides some greater reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who spoke in her absence. As the noble Baroness raised earlier on in our debates, her amendment inserts an additional clause requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a framework document setting out the principles underpinning the relationship between the Secretary of State, my department and other relevant public bodies and also requires financial and operating principles to be included in that document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I will start with Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. As he said, the amendment focuses on Great British Energy’s relationships with its key stakeholders and would require the company to publish a report every two years detailing its relationship with a number of named public bodies.

As I have already said, we of course expect and want Great British Energy to enter into a number of partnerships or relationships with other public bodies. This will include public bodies beyond those highlighted by the noble Earl, including, for example, those operating in the devolved Administrations—although I agree with him very much about the importance of the relationship with the Crown Estate.

I think it was implied in what I said earlier that we are absolutely certain, as part of the rigorous reporting requirements that the organisation will need to take part in through its annual reports and accounts, that it will report on activities undertaken as part of these partnerships. That seems to me a perfectly sensible request, which I can affirm readily. In view of that, I am not sure that you need a separate report, but we can make it very clear to GBE that we expect it to report on this regularly. We have already publicly committed to setting out how Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund will collaborate and complement each other. I can assure noble Lords that we have made the same commitment on Great British Energy’s relationship with Great British Nuclear.

In terms of Great British Energy’s relationship with Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, again, we would expect GBE to be subject to the same legal and regulatory frameworks as other entities. Clearly, when it comes to the Crown Estate, I readily say that, of course, GBE will report on its relationship, just as the noble Earl said. The Crown Estate will be doing similar, and we hope that there will be a consistency of approach in their reports. I am sure that there will be.

Turning to Amendments 94 and 103, which would require independent reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for putting their names to them. We all agree that Great British Energy needs to be accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering against its objectives and the statement of strategic priorities. The Bill already ensures that GBE will provide regular updates through its annual reports and accounts. These documents will be laid before Parliament, ensuring public accountability. Clause 5 provides that GBE must “act in accordance” with the priorities set out by the Secretary of State. To ensure this, Great British Energy must publish a strategic plan on how it will deliver those priorities, and it will update this plan regularly.

On the question, generally, of a review, I certainly understand the point that noble Lords have made and agree that reviews are important. I am prepared to consider the principle of a review between Committee and Report. I would not want to get into a debate about how regular those reviews should be. It is important that GBE has a good run before it is subject to such a review. Equally, I do not think you want a review happening on a regular annual basis because that would detract from its ability to perform effectively, but I understand the principle of a review. I will take this away without commitment at this stage, but I am happy to talk to noble Lords between now and Report about it.

Coming back to additionality, we obviously agree that it is an important principle, and we would expect Great British Energy to learn from the UKIB/National Wealth Fund approach. Of course, GBE has rather a wider role than the National Wealth Fund, particularly in that it is not just an investor but a developer, and it has an important future role to play in trying to get rid of some of the barriers to investment that we have seen in the energy sector.

Having said that, I think additionality will be covered. Equally, we accept that undertaking reviews from time to time is important. But they should not be done so frequently that they lose impact in what they are there to do. I hope noble Lords will accept that I have tried to be constructive in my response to these amendments.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group, and I thank the Minister for listening to these concerns, which, as always, are to do just with the review and governance of GB Energy for it to be held to rigorous and proper account. I thank the Minister for considering how he deals with this. In the meantime, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to have to take advice on that as I do not have the information. However, if there are regulations which apply to companies, GBE will be expected to comply, and to act consistently with general government policy towards biodiversity. I will write to him about that in some detail.

On community benefits, I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that communities which live near new clean energy infrastructure projects can directly benefit from them. We are considering at the moment how to effectively deliver community benefits for those who live near new energy infrastructure, which includes new energy generation and transmission technology. We are developing guidance on community benefits for electricity transmission network infrastructure and onshore wind, which we will be publishing in due course. We are also reviewing our overall approach to community benefits, both to ensure consistency and quality and to ensure that communities are properly recognised and are able to come with us on our net zero and clean power journey. This includes looking to existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked elsewhere. I look forward to updating the House on our approach to community benefits shortly.

The role of Great British Energy has been set out in its founding statement, and our commitment to putting local communities at the heart of the energy transition is a very strong component of what we are doing. The local power plan will support local communities to take a stake in the shift to net zero, as owners and partners in clean energy projects. They are important in themselves, as there is a huge appetite in many localities for community power, engagement and involvement. I agree that seeing a tangible benefit for local communities is important in itself, but it is also growing general support for the move to clean power and net zero, which is very important indeed.

We take the noble Lord’s point. It is clearly important, we are working on the details and will be publishing further information in due course. In my first week as a Minister in the department, I visited Biggleswade onshore windfarm, a small windfarm with 12 turbines. The company there is voluntary and there is a good practice trade guideline of paying £40,000 a year to the local community for such things as the local parish church, the community hall and other things. It was really good to see and is an example of what can happen.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I rise to close this group and indeed this sitting of the Committee today. It is worth saying that the chairman of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, has acknowledged the importance of communities. He used the words that GBE should be considered “a three-party partnership”, involving the private sector, the public sector and the community. If we also take account of the Labour assurances that have been given to communities along the way, I see no reason why we cannot consider these amendments further at the next stage, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very interesting and wise contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that of course I have heard the expression that Governments are not very good at picking winners. That is why we have set up GBE. We will have a company with people with expertise to enable investments to take place within the context we set under Clause 3 and Clause 5 as strategic priorities. None the less, it will have operational independence.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right; noble Lords in their various amendments are seeking to pin down GBE through excessive reporting requirements. The risk is that GBE, far from being allowed to flourish and develop, will be inhibited and micromanaged. That is why these amendments are wholly inappropriate in relation to Clause 6. The power of direction is not to be used in the way that noble Lords are suggesting; it is a backstop power. What is the point of setting up GBE if we are to undermine its independence in the way these amendments suggest?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, as in the previous group, these amendments are not designed in any way to micromanage. There is very little in the Bill that gives us any indication of how this company will operate. As indicated by my noble friend Lord Petitgas, it is an investment company without an investment committee or any investment directors. All that is being sought by these amendments is some level of accountability and scrutiny.

Once again, I say that when promises are made to the public that the Bill will address their concerns, it is not unreasonable that we ask for amendments to be made accordingly. For example, looking at employment in Amendment 68, we are simply asking for a report—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said—on the impact these investments make on employment and bills. Why is that an unreasonable thing to say? We have 200,000 people in highly skilled jobs in the North Sea. They are worried that they are about to be phased out unilaterally and prematurely. Why is it unreasonable to have somewhere in the Bill a requirement that GBE comes to Parliament and explains what it is doing in relation to employment in this key sector?

As we have said before, the Bill has failed to substantiate the promises made. The job of the Opposition is to highlight that and to make it clear that this needs to be debated and scrutinised. That is what we will continue to do. In light of that, for now I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 2nd December 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Great British Nuclear: Modular Reactors

Debate between Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.