Great British Energy Bill

Lord Petitgas Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have one question, prompted by my noble friend’s proposed amendment, about a major solar-based renewable project that was mentioned in White Papers under the previous Government; I think the former Secretary of State under the Conservative Government called it a project of central significance to the whole transition and net-zero aspiration.

It was in Morocco. They were planning, with financial support—a subsidy—from the Moroccan and British Governments, a colossal solar-based system to transmit electricity under the Bay of Biscay via a special new kind of transmission cord now being developed in Scotland. It would have delivered a final amount of 3.6 gigawatts of electric power into the British system. Going forward, that would remain a considerable contribution to our clean electricity of the future. Is the project still part of the scene under the new Government? If it is, will GB Energy have any role in it, because it is a very important factor in our overall energy needs?

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

“that relies wholly or in part on”

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

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

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

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Petitgas Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am not sure what the opposite of a filibuster is, but I am going to try. I add my support to Amendments 88 and 92. They are both simple, timely, consistent and robust: elements of good housekeeping, quite frankly.

I also add my support to Amendment 89. We need to draw lessons from the experience with the water industry, whose reporting was opaque. It simply was not transparent enough on key areas of its financial structuring. This amendment would tease out the things that people need to know—people who are not forensic accountants going through the balance sheets reported by companies. Therefore, I thoroughly endorse Amendment 89.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I too would like to voice my support for Amendments 88 and 89. I will be brief. The timing and regularity of this reporting seems to be normal, standard housekeeping. It is not onerous, and it is legitimate. On the substance, as I said on the previous day in Committee, this is not an operating company which would report, like Ørsted or others; this is a portfolio of investments. It would be a number of minority investments; this company will not be operating assets. The Member opposite seems to be sceptical, but it will be a collection of small investments. Therefore, it will be more complex to track, and it will be important that it is clearly stated in the accounts. Amendment 89 states that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I cringe, with apologies to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe; I did not realise that it was he who said it. Anyway, whoever said it, I very much supported the view that it might well be possible for the price of liquid hydrogen to come down as the technology developed and got better.

My noble friend Lord Roborough said to me that it was always going to be expensive. I said that it was being manufactured by wind turbines in the North Sea at the moment, but as we have already discussed, the problem with wind is that it is intermittent. The wind gets turned off every now and then, the windmills do not turn, and electricity is not generated. Apparently, it is very expensive to replace all the filters, and so forth, and you need to have a constant supply of electricity to produce hydrogen.

What is felt about this on the Opposition Benches does not really matter; what matters is the attitude that the Government are taking towards liquid hydrogen and whether this is something that Great British Energy will be investing in or not. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us where the Government stand on liquid hydrogen, as it is an important component of having clean energy for this country.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments aimed, like others, at greater accountability and transparency of the delivery of GBE. In particular, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on budgets. It is all very well to check on delivery and ask for more reports, but you only get what you measure. It needs to be set against a budget and objectives. I have found the objectives in the Bill to be a little vague. I am therefore in favour of Amendment 95 to the extent that it will allow us to set reporting and disclosure against a set of objectives, and a certain budget. I would also add additionality in there, as that is the only way to understand whether the delivery has been effective.

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

My Lords, I will begin with Amendments 95 and 96 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

Amendment 95 proposes requiring GBE to publish an annual budget report and send it to Parliament through the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee—or its successor, as he said, since its name seems to keep changing every five minutes. Amendment 96 proposes requiring GBE to publish an annual report on various topics which must also be sent to the Select Committee. GBE will already have a requirement to produce publicly available annual reports and accounts at Companies House, and the Secretary of State will lay copies before Parliament.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also mentioned the requirement that the Secretary of State appear before the Select Committee to speak to those reports. That requirement is already fulfilled. I know that Select Committees cannot subpoena witnesses, so there is no compulsion, but the Secretary of State and other Ministers regularly appear before relevant Select Committees. I emphasise other Ministers with specific interests. Once GBE is up and running, and producing these accounts, that is the time when the Secretary of State will appear before the relevant Select Committees. In theory, the Secretary of State does not have to appear—as I said, there is no compulsion—but it would be pretty odd if they did not do so under those circumstances.

There are also additional requirements on government-owned companies to ensure transparency and accountability. These include the obligation to follow the Treasury’s directions on accounts through the powers extended in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, and laid out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual and related “Dear Accounting Officer” letters. 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 a couple of years ago.

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s expectation that Parliament will hold a strong interest in the performance of GBE, which anybody who knows anything about how Parliament works would expect. I fully anticipate that the relevant Select Committees will call representatives from the company and from the department to provide evidence when required.

The point about hydrogen made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is a little wide of the scope of the amendment. However, I remind noble Lords that the exact mix of technologies in which GBE, as an operationally independent company, chooses to invest will be determined by its board in due course. His prediction—he is inviting me to look into the future, and I suppose he is doing the same—is that, as technology advances, hydrogen starts to fall in cost. That is fairly sensible, although I do not ask the noble Lord to hold me to it, because we are looking into the future and we do not know what technologies there will be then.

Amendment 97 proposes that GBE reviews the impact of its activities on sustainable development in the UK. This Government—this has been made very clear and repeatedly so—firmly believe in a healthy natural environment and that is critical to a strong economy and to sustainable growth and development. Our commitment to the environment is unwavering and will be in the future, including through meeting the Environment Act 2021 targets and halting biodiversity decline by 2030. That is a pretty demanding target, but that is what we have set out for five years’ time. I assure the noble Earl that the projects in which GBE is involved will be subject to the usual and rigorous planning and environmental regulations, where the impacts on the environment and habitats are considered. The Bill focuses on establishing the company, and adding more detail at this point may restrict its activities or add layers to its reporting and governance.

Amendment 117, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, seeks to legislate the scrutiny of GBE by relevant Select Committees. My noble friend and I have touched on that to some extent. This amendment goes beyond the precedent and practice of the involvement of Select Committees in public appointments. The chief executive of Great British Energy, once appointed, will also be its chief accounting officer and will be accountable to Parliament for their stewardship of GBE and its funds. As is common practice for public bodies, the management and leadership of GBE will be available to the relevant Select Committees as needed. There is no real need to legislate on this arrangement at this point.

I remind noble Lords that the chief accounting officer would, in all likelihood, be called before the Public Accounts Committee. Over the past few years, the PAC was chaired by Margaret Hodge, as was, who is now the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge; she was followed by the honourable Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. Those who have seen those sessions know what an acute and thorough grilling that committee gives to anybody who appears in front of it. That Select Committee is always chaired by a Member of the Opposition; that is set up in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is now chaired by the honourable Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. Having served with him in the other place for more than 20 years, I assure noble Lords that he will be just as incisive as his predecessors.

The Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny by House of Commons Select Committees provides criteria and processes for such roles. It sets out that decisions on the scrutiny of individual posts should be made between the Secretary of State, the chair of the relevant Select Committee and the Cabinet Office. It is not common practice for this to be set in primary legislation. As per this guidance, no public body currently appears to have its full board subject to that kind of pre-appointment scrutiny. We anticipate recruitment for the substantive board to begin over the course of this year and will ensure that it is undertaken in a manner that aligns with best practice. To reassure the noble Baroness—

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Petitgas Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

I hope that my noble friend will engage with the industry. Maybe he will agree to have a meeting with me and some of the people who have been briefing me. We could meet urgently with the fuel industry to discuss the supply and the benefits and to see how further it can help the Government and GB Energy make this a reality.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to discuss Amendment 80. It proposes that GBE be required to produce both quarterly unaudited and annual audited reports. These should disclose the rate of returns for each investment and the carbon emissions resulting from each investment. This amendment is a matter not only of transparency but of accountability. It will ensure that taxpayers are fully informed about how their money is being spent.

Let me address first the rationale behind requiring disclosure of carbon emissions. This is standard practice. Indeed, the Secretary of State has compared GBE to Ørsted in Denmark; Octopus in the UK is another possible comparison. Both companies measure scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, following certain protocols. These align with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and EU taxonomy. Will the Minister confirm whether GBE will follow the same practice and taxonomy?

The principle behind the amendment in my name on financial returns is abundantly clear: if the Government are going to use public funds to invest in energy projects, they must be duty-bound to report the results of those investments. This proposal is an essential part of providing insight and knowledge of the operation of GBE. It is a principle of good governance to avoid taxpayers writing blank checks; it aligns with the notion that taxpayers should know not only how their money is being spent but how it is being invested and managed to ensure it delivers adequate returns.

I remind the Committee that GBE will be not an operating company but an investing company owning minority stakes in a large number of projects of different sizes. This will be complex, and the only way to track and measure performance will be to look at individual investment returns. I also remind the Committee that there is no investment committee yet set up and no reference—it looks as if the Secretary of State, ultimately, is in charge of making decisions on these investments. I have never seen this in an investment company. No private equity firm would be run like this.

Operating companies produce classic annual reports and accounts, but GBE will be more akin to a permanent capital venture fund. Therefore, its annual report and accounts really should be supplemented by disclosure of the rates of return on its investments.

I will address a comment made by the Secretary of State during the Bill’s Second Reading in the other place. He made an interesting argument about the potential of state-owned companies. In his own words:

“State ownership is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain”,


as GBE’s investments

“will help generate return for the taxpayer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 456.]

GBE, he argued, would not only contribute to energy security but create jobs and foster economic growth. While I am encouraged by the potential for GBE to generate wealth and drive the economic growth that we need badly, I will ask the Minister to clarify a few points in relation to this statement.

First, if GBE is indeed intended to generate returns for the taxpayer, can the Minister confirm the expected rate of return on investment for these projects? In particular, will these returns be sufficient to justify the use of £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money? To be clear, the £8.3 billion of capital for GBE will be borrowed by the Government. I do not need to tell your Lordships this as it is everywhere, but the long-term gilt yield stands now sadly at 5.5%—up more than 50 bps in the last three weeks. Infrastructure returns typically are above 10% and venture capital is above 15%. Therefore, the benchmark that GBE should be aiming at must be in the range of 10% to 15%.

We all know that we get what we measure. I worried when I read the evidence given by GBE’s chairman-elect, Jürgen Maier, in the Public Bill Committee debate in the other House on 8 October, when he said that GBE’s success will ultimately be measured by the number of projects it is able to finance and the quantum of energy it is able to deliver to the grid. So are we measuring returns or the number of projects? Therefore, it is critical that we understand the financial viability of these investments and ensure that they will not end up being a burden on the public purse.

Secondly, there is significant concern about the risk of GBE becoming a dumping ground for less profitable or riskier energy projects, especially those that private sector companies are unwilling to back. I should add that there was no shortage of capital for net zero when I was in No. 10, so I have to assume that GBE will back transactions that are perhaps less profitable. This concern was raised in Committee and by my right honourable friend Claire Coutinho, who questioned whether the Government’s aim to derisk projects could result in throwing taxpayers’ money into unprofitable ventures.

Representatives of energy trade associations such as RenewableUK and Energy UK have also raised questions. In particular, Adam Berman from Energy UK identified what he described as two competing priorities for GBE: making profitable investment and addressing problems in the energy system arising from market failures. He said that the company might struggle to resolve this potential conflict if it was not addressed in the Bill. Can the Minister provide assurances that GBE will not be disproportionately directed towards these high-risk, low-return projects, which could undermine the Government’s goal of creating wealth for Britain?

The Secretary of State and the honourable Member for Rutherglen, Michael Shanks, have cited Ørsted as a model and precedent for GBE. Ørsted is not only an operating company—it is the main energy entity in Denmark—but is 49% owned by the stock market. Its equity is researched by 20 investment banks, creating public and financial scrutiny each quarter. That is certainly a very different picture from GBE. GBE will invest in illiquid, minority positions, yet will be a large operation, at £8.3 billion of capital. Incidentally, this is about half the market value of Ørsted. This compels us to scrutinise it seriously and to ensure disciplined governance and oversight.

In summary, it is crucial for the Minister to provide further clarification on the financial viability of the investments to be made by GBE, the risks involved, and how the Government will ensure that taxpayers’ money is used wisely. Transparency and accountability, as we have discussed through Amendment 80, will be key to answering these questions and demonstrating that GBE is indeed acting in the best interests of the British taxpayer.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and Amendments 60 and 61, which they spoke to, particularly what the noble Lord said about reducing our dependency on foreign states. I will not repeat the remarks I made on day one in Committee, or indeed during our debate on China on 20 December, but I will add two or three germane points to what has been said to the Committee this afternoon.

Since we had our debate in Committee, I have sent the Minister a report by Ignites Asia that identifies funds run by global managers who had at least £1.4 billion linked to 14 solar and EV companies using slave labour in Xinjiang—a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. These amendments are primarily about accountability; Parliament has a right to understand on a regular annual basis, as the noble Lord said, precisely how what will become the Great British Energy Act is working out in practice. It has a right to know what we are doing about supply chains and around the objective to create, as Amendment 60 mentions, some 650,000 jobs. How are we getting on with those things and how are we doing on the other side of the coin?

Already we are seeing the loss of jobs—in companies such as Vauxhall, for instance—not because of fair competition or trade, which most of us in this House support, but because of unfair trade that is based on massive subsidies for companies operating in China that use slave labour. We will never be able to compete on fair terms with companies that do that, but we aid and abet those practices by simply turning a blind eye to what is happening. As well as looking at the jobs we might gain, let us look at the jobs we are likely to lose.

We should think seriously about the supply chain question. The amendment I tabled for day one did not come out of thin air. I am glad to say it had been promoted as an idea in earlier debates in another place by Sarah Champion, chair of the House of Commons International Development Select Committee. That shows that it is a bipartisan and bicameral concern. People from all parties and none have anxieties about the kind of things that can go on in our supply chains and the lack of resilience and increase in dependency implicit in this. I remind your Lordships of the excellent report produced in 2023 by the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, chaired by Sir Julian Lewis MP, which reminded us of the massive security dangers we have to address as a result of the threat that the People’s Republic of China undoubtedly poses to us.

We should learn the lessons of the pandemic. We bought billions of PPE items with millions and millions of pounds of public money—taxpayers’ money—when many of those products could have been made in this country by British workers. We have to be a lot more careful than we have been so far. The noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, is right to point us in his amendment towards justifying the case made by the Government in favour of the Bill.

I tabled a Written Question to the Minister that I hope he will be able to answer, if not today during our oral exchanges then at least in writing before Report, about how many solar panels we intend to buy to fulfil the ambitions of the Bill: how many, and at what cost? What are the alternatives? Can they be made elsewhere? Only this morning I heard from a company that operates out of South Africa that says it can produce solar panels without any of the risks involved in using slave labour from Xinjiang. There must be others—we should be doing more to look for those alternatives.

We have to take the issue of genocide more seriously than we have, not least because of what we would be placing on the shoulders of those companies that will be encouraged through this legislation to buy these products. They can be prosecuted under the 2015 legislation that was promoted in an incredibly enlightened way by the then Home Secretary, the noble Baroness, Lady May, who we referred to in our Question Time exchanges earlier today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is about to embark on a new inquiry looking at supply chain transparency and the effects on modern day slavery. I hope that the noble Baroness might be one of those who comes to give evidence.

We have to take this issue more seriously. There was a good example of pre-legislative scrutiny when both Houses looked at this, amendments were made and there was a coming together; that should happen again this time. The House of Commons declared that a genocide is under way in Xinjiang. This is the crime above all crimes. I do not need to convince the Minister of this—I know that—but it seems that I have to convince the Government. Whenever Mr Miliband is questioned on this, he simply says, “We care about human rights”. We all care about human rights, but this is the crime above all crimes. The 1948 convention on the crime of genocide requires us to prevent, to protect and to punish. We do not do any of those things very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises matters of great geopolitical importance and importance to the UK’s economy. He will have seen that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has been in China in the last few days, seeking to engage that country in relation to economic co-operation and development, within appropriate security safeguards. We want to see jobs in the energy sector developed as much as possible in the United Kingdom, but equally, we are operating in a global economy. For very good reasons, we are concerned about the introduction of tariffs which may inhibit international trade, and we must also be mindful of the economic value-for-money issues that clearly have to come into play in this area.

Let me return to the Bill and what is appropriate for us to include in it. We believe that this issue is a matter for GBE, working within the constraints set through the statement of priorities and through Clause 3, and also in relation to the further work we are going to do. We have mentioned solar, and noble Lords are right that much of the raw material for solar panels comes from China, although it is British companies working in the United Kingdom that benefit more from the value of the work on solar installations.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, as a publicly owned company, GBE will be held accountable through regular reporting to my department. It will be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines, its investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments, and it will invest in the private sector to share risk and reward.

On green taxonomy, a decision about how a potential UK green taxonomy could be used or applied has not yet been finalised. The Government have launched a consultation to gather views on the value of the case for a UK green taxonomy, and it will close on 6 February.

We need to come back to what Clause 6 is for as a whole. It is a backstop which one hopes would never have to be used; it is not a way to encourage the Secretary of State to micromanage a company that we very much want to be operationally independent.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

I want to go back to the point about the company acting independently. There is little bit of confusion about this company being an energy company, as opposed to an investment company. There will be myriad small investments. If it acts independently, which is fine, it needs an investment committee, and I have not read anywhere that there will be one. The chairman-elect is Jürgen Maier. He may know the sector but he is not an investor. So, effectively, taxpayers will be limited partners in an investment company without an investment committee and with a chair who is not an investor, so it is not unreasonable to ask for information about rates of return and to understand exactly how it will be done. If the answer is, “Don’t worry, it’s an independent company but value for money will be done by the Treasury with DESNZ”, that is a different governance process, but the governance of investment and selection to me remains relatively obscure.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Bloomfield, Lord Trenchard and Lord Effingham. They aim to ensure that the proposed entity, Great British Energy, operates in a manner that aligns with fiscal responsibility, transparency, accountability and the overarching national interest.

Amendment 78, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, mandates the reinvestment of all profits back into the company. The reinvestment question is a good test of what GBE is about and its future performance. As I said, GBE is de facto a permanent capital investment vehicle that will be deploying capital in illiquid minority stakes. It is very unlikely that it will ever be able to dispose of those and realise a lot of liquidity, so at best it will deliver some dividends. If it did, it would be best for it to be reinvested, ensuring that the £8.3 billion is the maximum commitment for taxpayers.

My Amendment 79 in my name stipulates that Great British Energy must not invest in projects that are reliant on government subsidies. GBE is already structured as a crowding-in investment, which means that it is likely to take more risk and accept lower returns than the private sector. This is what the mandate of “facilitate, encourage and participate” means to me. There is nothing wrong with that, but the private sector and foreign funds should be attracted to the GB partnership for that reason. Therefore, I see no reason to pile in and give the private capital two bites of the cherry by allowing it to work with GBE with government subsidies.

I spoke enough about Amendment 80 earlier. Amendment 81 builds on it with a firm measure of accountability. By requiring independent third-party evaluations of GBE’s investments, we introduce an essential safeguard against conflict of interest and political interference. Transparency and objectivity in evaluating investments are paramount, especially when the risk of poor decision-making with public funds looms large. As your Lordships know, I am particularly concerned by the lack of detail and definition of investment process and framework within GBE, at least at this stage. I believe that the Minister has taken good note of my concern about the lack of precision on an investment committee.

Finally, Amendment 82 limits Great British Energy’s investment to UK-registered companies. The purpose of this entity, as set out by the Government, is to bolster Britain’s energy security and our national economy. Investing in foreign-registered companies undermines that goal. We must ensure that any investment of public money supports British jobs, British innovation and British interests. This amendment ensures that GBE prioritises domestic enterprises, strengthening the UK’s energy sector and reducing dependency on foreign entities.

I will remind the House of the holy grails that I think we want to achieve with GBE. Number one is energy security; number two is energy sovereignty; number three is economic growth; and number four is low costs for bills and more employment. Indeed, we do not want GBE to outsource, be it our energy security, sovereignty or supply chains. We know it is an incredibly difficult topic because, as a country, we are ahead on decarbonisation, but we are behind in terms of ownership of our own infrastructure. We are also behind in terms of supply chains and we are behind on production of cable, wind turbines and other technology. Therefore, we have a lot of work to do in this area and I think it will be an extremely difficult topic because of supply chains, China dominance and the fact that we are behind on infrastructure and technology.

All these amendments share a common theme: safeguarding taxpayer money, ensuring operational transparency and prioritising the interests of the British people. Conservatives believe in the power of the private sector and market-led solutions and, where state intervention occurs, as in this case, oversight is extremely important. We urge the Government to accept these amendments and commit to ensuring that GBE operates as a responsible, efficient and transparent entity.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments I have tabled to Clause 6 of this Bill, along with the contributions from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. These amendments reflect three core principles of fiscal restraint, operational transparency and the safeguarding of national interests.

Amendment 83 seeks to limit the number of Great British Energy representatives attending conferences of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to no more than five. I greatly understand the importance of international collaboration on biodiversity, but we absolutely must be realistic about the need for cost control and proportional representation. These international summits are indeed vital, but we have to recognise also that very significant amounts of taxpayers’ money are spent on travel and accommodation. It is simply not appropriate for Great British Energy, funded by the public purse, to send unnecessarily large delegations. By limiting attendance, this amendment ensures that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, without detracting from the company’s core mission, which can be accomplished with a lean and laser-focused task force.

Amendment 84 would require Great British Energy to publish its principles, policies and criteria for evaluating prospective investments. One of the most persistent criticisms of government-led initiatives is the opacity with which decisions are often made. Entrepreneurs, innovators, universities and companies across the country deserve clarity when applying for backing from Great British Energy. For example, what metrics will Great British Energy use and what constitutes a worthwhile investment? By requiring the publication of this information, we will not only promote transparency, which should be encouraged, but foster a more competitive and accessible process for any prospective partners. This is good governance in action.

Finally, Amendment 85, tabled jointly with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, addresses the critical issue of national security and economic prudence. It would require that Great British Energy does not co-invest with Chinese state-owned companies without prior notice to the International Trade Committee of the other place. The risks associated with Chinese state-owned companies are well documented. Co-investment with such entities could compromise the integrity of Great British Energy and pose long-term risks to our national security. Furthermore, it would expose the UK to significant economic and political vulnerabilities. To be clear, this amendment does not propose an outright prohibition, but it does mandate a right and proper process of scrutiny. Requiring advanced notice to the International Trade Committee will introduce a layer of accountability which will ensure that such decisions are not made in haste or without proper oversight.

Together, these amendments reflect a responsible approach to managing Great British Energy. They ensure that the company operates in a manner that is transparent, cost-effective and aligned with the UK’s strategic interests. I urge all noble Lords to support these amendments and help guide Great British Energy to be an entity that truly serves the British people both efficiently and prudently.