Great British Energy Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Can we just return to the Severn barrage? I agree that, 40 years ago, my noble friend was looking at this and that I was looking over his shoulder at the time. The concerns about putting in a barrage on the Severn were mainly about flooding a whole mass of land further upstream. This was in the days when farmers were expected to grow food. It is rather changed now; we expect our farmers to have immense environmental concerns and, in many cases, the whole grant system is skewed towards people having nature reserves on their farms rather than producing food. Surely, if a lot of this land got flooded that would be incredibly encouraging for people who want to encourage wading birds and all the rest of it. I am sure there would be enormous environmental benefits, rather than a downturn in the prosperity of the land which then got flooded by the barrage.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly address Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. I declare my interest in the ownership of salmon fishing rivers.

Proposals that I have seen in the past for energy generated from tidal turbines have tended to be located where currents are strongest. By definition, this is where sea movement is constricted by narrower channels —between islands, between islands and the mainland, in estuaries or on prominent headlands around which currents and tides race. These locations are precisely where the movements of migratory fish species such as salmon and sea trout, as well as saltwater species, will be concentrated. The wild Atlantic salmon is already an IUCN red list species and the greatest of care must be taken with any further risk to the survival of every individual fish, given that the species is so threatened.

For these reasons, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and those of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, which he and my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford have spoken to very convincingly. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously and consider incorporating environmental protections in this Bill.

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

My Lords, this first group of amendments has led to an interesting discussion that went somewhat wider than I expected.

Amendments 111 and 112 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and Amendment 113 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would require the Secretary of State to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of Great British Energy projects. Amendments 111 and 112 relate to offshore wind energy projects and the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas structures, respectively, involving Great British Energy. Amendment 113 relates to Great British Energy’s offshore tidal energy projects. Under each of these amendments, if, following assessments, significant environmental damage or animal welfare issues are identified, Great British Energy must cease these activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, started by referring to the partnership agreed between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. He is right that we see great potential in this for our 2030 ambition for offshore wind at between 43 and 50 gigawatts. We also see potential in tidal stream. I relate that to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the huge increase in future electricity demand and his suggestion that it would likely have an environmental impact, which Great British Energy would be promoting through its investment in various projects and in clearing the way for other projects.

I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the partnership needed between government and the private sector and private finance. I do not know whether that unit in the Cabinet Office still exists, but I am pretty certain that the Cabinet Office is extremely interested in leveraging private finance. This Bill is partly to enable that and to promote expertise in the private sector on behalf of the polices that the Government wish to enact on clean power and net zero.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had some interesting insights on the environmental issues and presented a balanced and helpful report. I make it absolutely clear that the Government’s commitment to the environment is unwavering. We have the Environment Act targets of halting biodiversity decline by 2030 and safeguarding our marine protected areas. We believe that a healthy natural environment is critical to a strong economy and sustainable growth and development. We have a duty to uphold environmental protection and minimise any impact on biodiversity. This must and will extend to any project that Great British Energy is involved in.

I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that projects involving Great British Energy will be subject to rigorous planning and environmental regulations that consider impacts on the environment and habitats. The general theme of my argument is that it is not for GBE to do this; it will ensure that any project it is involved with follows the law and the guidance to protect our environment. It seems to me that the argument noble Lords have is with those environmental protections, which, by implication, they presumably think are not strong enough, rather than with Great British Energy.

Perhaps I can carry on that theme. As an example, projects will be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, under which the impact of these projects on the environment and habitats are considered as part of the development process. Additionally, as part of the nationally significant infrastructure regime, developers are required to provide environmental assessments as part of their application for development consent, which will be subject to detailed scrutiny through an examination held by the Planning Inspectorate. This will include scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment and a habitats regulations assessment, which would consider the likely impacts of a proposed development against a range of environmental receptors.

The planning process, at both national and local level, is underpinned by a number of other pieces of legislation that will apply to projects in which Great British Energy might have a role. They include: the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017; the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004; the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. On offshore wind, I should say that we are working with Defra on the offshore wind environment improvement package to expedite offshore wind consenting while protecting the marine environment.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in England we are committed to meeting our four legally binding targets for diversity: to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030; to reverse declines by at least 10% by 2042; to reduce the risk of national species extinction by 2042; and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, also by 2042. We have launched a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to ensure that it fully supports our mission to recover nature.

We also intend to establish industry-funded marine recovery funds into which applicants can pay to discharge their compensation obligations, underpinned by libraries of approved strategic compensation measures. We are engaging in discussions with the Scottish Government with a view to reaching an agreement on the establishment of, and the delegation of appropriate functions to operate and manage, a separate marine recovery fund for projects in Scotland. We think that the offshore wind environmental improvement package—the OWEIP —will, on the whole, accelerate and de-risk the consent of offshore wind projects while continuing to protect the marine environment.

Great British Energy will not play a role in the decommissioning of oil and gas structures. However, I should say that the UK’s decommissioning regulatory regime requires a robust assessment of the potential impact on safety, technical constraints and costs, ensuring no harm to human health or the environment. Decommissioning proposals are subject to thorough environmental assessment before a regulatory decision is made.

On the matter of tidal, I was interested in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He referred to the tough challenges involved. I well remember visiting the Pentland Firth when I was last in this job; Rolls-Royce was engaged then, I think. I readily accept that this is a very tough challenge. On the other hand, we are the world leader in tidal stream—half of the world’s operational capacity is situated in UK waters—and we want to go further. My understanding is that six tidal stream contracts, with a capacity of 28 megawatts, were secured in Scotland and Wales in the latest allocation round of the Government’s contracts for difference scheme.

I had responsibility for the River Severn project between 2008 and 2010. I chaired a number of community forums with people in the south-west who were keen to see progress in the Severn but, I have to say, I received the same advice as the noble Lord, Lord Howell: the environmental damage would be so considerable that it was not thought appropriate to go ahead. My understanding—I am not going to guess; I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—is that the position is still the same, but I will find out some more and let him know, because he clearly has a keen interest in this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I begin by noting my interests as set out in the register; I have a new interest as a director of Net Zero Watch.

Amendment 130 would postpone the entry into force of much of this Act until the Secretary of State publishes a comprehensive report setting out the full costs of the renewable energy industry. My noble friend Lord Hamilton has just set out the logic of having such a clause that delays the entry into force of certain provisions. From my point of view, the logic is that certain things need to be made clear before Great British Energy can effectively start its work.

It is in this area—the cost of renewables, the subsidies, the taxpayer support, the higher prices—that this problem of establishing the basis on which GBE is proceeding seems the strongest because it would be going into this without any reliable costings in this area and with a real sense that what is known about the costs of renewables is not being disclosed entirely frankly for full and honest debate. When we try to have a debate on this subject, we are often shot down by a statement that, whatever the costs, the costs of climate change are higher. But again, that is never set out. I was lucky enough yesterday to be able to ask the Secretary of State when the last cost-benefit analysis had been done on this subject, and he said it was in 2021. That was before the Ukraine war, which is used as the justification for the rush to renewables.

The NESO report was produced last autumn. It shows that both the pathways to decarbonisation of the energy grid in 2030 are more expensive than doing nothing. That is even clearer if you eliminate the vastly inflated carbon price included in those costings. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary for Energy Claire Coutinho said last week that internal work within the department on the full system costs of renewables, which she commissioned when she was Energy Secretary, had been stopped. That work would have given us the data that would have enabled the report that my amendment requires.

To conclude on this point, I refer to a blog by Sir Dieter Helm, a well-known expert in this area and not someone with whom I agree on the fundamentals of climate change. He says in this blog, written last week, on the prospect of renewables costs falling:

“It would be wonderful if it was true, but sadly it isn’t anytime soon”.


He goes on to say the UK and the EU are

“telling fairy tales that ‘it’s all going to be cheaper’ here”.

He is one of the biggest experts in this area. We need honesty and GBE needs clarity about the reality on which it is proceeding with its work. That is why I have tabled my amendment, and why we need a proper report and clarity. GBE needs a reliable starting point so that its actions can be tested against reality and we can be sure that it is acting properly in the public interest. I hope the Minister looks at the issue with that in mind, and perhaps gives this amendment sympathetic consideration.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendment 118B, with which I obviously agree, as I do on most things—apart from the widespread competitiveness of green hydrogen. I also draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in solar and wind energy project development.

This amendment appears entirely logical in preventing GB Energy investing in any project whose economics depend wholly or in part on government support. This would prevent any impression that the Government may be self-dealing or that there could be any bias in project support from the Government. Without the amendment, there is a risk of a chilling effect on private sector projects that may wish to compete with projects backed by GB Energy, if there is a perception that the Government will always prefer GB Energy projects. There is also a risk that the Government will face the moral hazard of temptation to prop up failing GB Energy projects and investments. For these reasons, this is a highly desirable amendment.

I am also interested in the Minister’s replies to my noble friend Lord Frost on the whole system cost of renewables—particularly if the Minister were able to give this Committee some insight into the carbon costs that his department are using. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he can do so in writing. If the Minister does not agree with the wisdom of my noble friend’s amendment, what transparency can he offer into the amount of government support that may be falling into the hands of GB Energy’s projects?

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his kind explanation, which certainly clarifies that. As far as my interventions on Monday are concerned— I spoke at length and several times—I take issue with and very much resent being accused of having filibustered. If the noble Lord looks at my contributions, he will find that they were all different.

I suggest that one reason why there have been so many amendments to the Bill is that so little was included in it. It is very thin Bill, but it has £8 billion of public money. Many of us are puzzled that GBE is being established effectively with £8 billion of public money, whereas Great British Nuclear, which has no public money to speak of, continues to operate in a kind of silo. I recognise that the noble Lord attempted to reassure the Committee about how GBN and GBE will work together, but I do not think that they can be described as comparable organisations.

I had intended to support my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on Amendment 88, and I added my name to it. I think that it is necessary because although GBE is intended to be structured as a public company, it will have only one shareholder, the Secretary of State. As my noble friend explained on Monday—she is well known as an expert in these matters—we must be sure that GBE will be managed according to the standards that would be expected by shareholders in public companies. That is why changing the nine-month provision for filing accounts to six months is so necessary.

I have also added my name to Amendment 89, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. It is particularly important that the accounts must comply with the stipulation in proposed subsection (d), to provide

“an assessment of the extent to which”

any investments made or partnerships entered into

“have encouraged additional investment by the private sector”.

It is clear that the very long incubation period for nuclear projects places them outside the criteria for many private sector investors, but some public investment can be effective in unlocking private investment through match funding, as the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has already shown.

I also support Amendment 92, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and that of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which would ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor-General must audit GBE’s accounts.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 88, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, would require more timely publication of GB Energy’s accounts, in line with public rather than private company reporting. I also support Amendment 89, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. On earlier groups I have addressed the limitations of private and public company reporting versus that of listed companies. I made that argument, given that taxpayers’ money, raised at great cost through tax increases impacting pensioners, farmers and all businesses in this country, is being invested. All this appears to have fallen on somewhat deaf ears with the Minister, who seems determined to avoid anything but the lowest level of scrutiny, transparency or accountability as to how GB Energy invests this, at least, £8.3 billion.

I also alluded to my comments in the debate on the King’s Gracious Speech and I remind the Committee of exactly what I said:

“it is private capital that has driven the rollout of renewables and infrastructure in our country, and it appears that Great British Energy will be targeting investments that private capital alone will not finance. That does not fill our Benches with confidence that these investments will necessarily be judicious. Please can the Minister assure the House that GB Energy will report on the performance of its investments regularly and in detail and that the Government will be held accountable in this House for the performance of those investments?”.—[Official Report, 18/7/24; col. 36.]

In response to this question, I received the following reply from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock:

“The cost to the taxpayer of its set-up and investments will be carefully managed and monitored through Parliament, and investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments, similar to established public finance institutions”.—[Official Report, 18/7/24; col. 126.]


That answer may not have been the answer that I was looking for, nor the answer that I may be seeking today, which many amendments tabled to the Bill have also sought, but it does seem to offer at least some scrutiny through Parliament. It does not appear to me that the Minister here today is offering even that level of scrutiny in the Bill. His response in previous groups to amendments seeking this transparency and accountability has been:

“the existing reporting requirements are set out in the Bill, which makes provision for GBE to produce and publish an annual report and accounts”.—[Official Report, 13/1/25; col. 942.]

It is hard to disagree that the reporting requirements as determined by the Government are set out in the Bill. However, the point that these amendments, and many others already debated, make is that this is simply not adequate. One set of accounts published annually up to nine months after the year end, with the potential for minimal levels of detailed reporting, is effectively writing GB Energy a blank cheque, with next to no external oversight.

As other noble Lords have suggested to the Minister, if the Government were willing to table amendments to allow for greater scrutiny in a timely manner of the financial performance of investments, and the progress in achieving the overall objectives of increasing employment, reducing household electricity bills and reducing carbon emissions, I am sure that the Committee could be satisfied, without taking so much time making similar points. On previous groups the Minister has called this filibustering. That is an unfair characterisation, at least of the groups that I have taken part in. The Government have proven deaf to the Committee’s reasonable requests, but that will not make them go away.

I am particularly taken by Amendment 89 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and not in the least surprised to see that it has so many supporters. It avoids amendments to Clause 6, which the Minister has pointed out is the wrong place in the Bill for such amendments, and to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has given authoritative support, but it addresses key reporting requirements around the receipt of subsidies, reporting on individual investments, achievement of objectives and strategic priorities, and impacts on the wider financial ecosystem. For these reasons, I believe it is an excellent amendment. However, it may still be lacking by relying on the relatively lax Companies House requirements for limited companies, so I also support Amendment 88 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes to make reporting in line with that for public companies.

As I have argued in previous groups, in support of my noble friend Lord Petitgas, who is in his place, there is a strong argument that quarterly reporting should also be required, in line with the listing requirements for publicly traded companies. As I have pointed out, if companies worth less than £100 million can comply with this, I do not believe it is a challenge for the £8.3 billion-plus GB Energy. This would also impose more disciplined reporting on GB Energy’s investees.

Why is it that the Government are so resistant to GB Energy showing proper transparency and accountability, even less than the modest commitments that I read in my response to the King’s Speech? What do the Government fear, if they are so convinced that it is worth while taking so much taxpayers’ money and investing it in energy, which in theory will be a good financial deal for the taxpayer? Last year’s business-unfriendly Budget, despite the protestations that it was pro-business and pro-growth, fills us all with concern that this Government do not understand business.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I hope that in writing this note, which I welcome, the Minister will give us an account of how GBE will report on the strategic priorities set by the Government, and that they will include not just climate but environmental and biodiversity targets. They are the twin crises that GBE is helping to solve.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned that the minimum requirement was the nine-month reporting window under the Companies Act. Could he give us an idea now of what he sees as a desirable reporting timeframe? If he would like to reflect, perhaps he could include those thoughts in his letter.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I do not think so. Clearly, there is a statutory requirement. All I was saying is that our experience in my department is that the bodies that have a similar discipline have generally reported well within that figure. I am certainly happy to say that one would always hope that an organisation such as this would report in a timely fashion, but I cannot go any further than that.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including in solar and wind energy development and ownership, as well as as an investor in energy-related equities and as a farmer and lands manager.

I shall speak in particular to Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Petitgas, but also support Amendments 85A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the amendments listed in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. These amendments put detail to the questions I posed to the Government, in my response to His Majesty’s gracious Address, regarding financial reporting and accountability.

Great British Energy is tasked with investing taxpayers’ money to allow taxpayers to benefit from the financial returns from the energy transition, as well as to accelerate and stimulate that transition. It must be right, as with any publicly listed company, that the company is accountable to its owners for its performance. That requires high-quality financial reporting. Listed companies report unaudited financials quarterly and audited annual reports—which also include carbon emissions accountability, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out. The first effect of Amendment 80 would be to bring GB Energy in line with those requirements.

The second effect would be to introduce a more granular analysis of the returns from each investment. This is usual with investment trusts and common in private equity. I see no reason why GB Energy should not report in equally great detail. Fully commercial organisations may choose not to do so to protect commercial confidentiality. However, in GB Energy’s case, it must be desirable to highlight where returns are the greatest in order to direct more private sector capital into those areas and help achieve the primary purposes.

It is also essential that GB Energy is fully accountable to Parliament on an individual investment basis, as well as holistically. This is taxpayers’ money, which could have been used to avoid destroying farmers’ and family businesses’ desire to invest and grow. That places a heavy burden of responsibility for GB Energy to perform well. The Minister may suggest that this is too expensive and cumbersome, but I point out that listed companies measured in the tens of millions of pounds are well able to comply without issue. GB Energy appears unlikely to be an operating company but more of an investment company. That should make these obligations straightforward to comply with, while ensuring that its investee companies and projects also have to keep accurate and timely books to allow GB Energy to comply.

The Minister may suggest that UK company registration requirements to lodge accounts are enough, as has been said in previous groups. Anyone familiar with those accounts will know that they tend to be published around nine months after the close of the financial year, are annual only and contain the least possible information to comply with registration requirements. There is little here that can be helpful in assessing performance.

Amendment 80 creates financial and climate reporting discipline that will then have to be extended throughout the organisation, to all of the investee companies, to everyone’s advantage. Examples of successful government investment in the private sector are hard to find. If this Government are confident that this will be the unicorn, surely the Minister will welcome the amendment, which will create many opportunities to showcase that success.

I also add my voice to Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, and I have many of the same concerns as my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. While this may almost seem like stating the obvious, there are a number of issues around grid connection, and I would be most grateful if the Minister could update us with progress. The first is the issue of nameplate grid capacity. Does the National Grid’s £35 billion investment plan from 2026 to 2031 fully address this need? And, given the increase in the UK Government’s borrowing costs and likely impact on UK companies, does the Minister anticipate any refinancing requirements to build out this transition?

The second is the human capacity of distribution network operators to work through projects with developers, to plan and deliver the grid connection. I understand there is a lack of capacity in this area and it is possible that DNOs could be prioritising their own projects at the expense of third parties. They do not appear to be meeting obligations, which is costing developers millions in delays and cost increases. I understand the bottleneck is largely human capital, which exists in Europe but of which there is not enough in the UK. The Minister has discussed training in previous groups, but would it not be also wise to fast-track visa applications for skilled operatives? Is the Minister confident that his Government have a plan that can deliver beyond 2030, as anecdotally the grid queue analysis and action that has been taken appear to have sacrificed confidence in developments beyond that timeframe in order to meet 2030 commitments?

Under the national electricity system consultation, I understand developers have been given only three weeks to consult on up to 16 documents per project. These developers need to see more resources and more evidence of planning beyond that timeframe in order to keep a strong project pipeline alive. Can the Minister update the House on the impact these actions have had on the developer community? Is he satisfied that the capital and talent are still available in that sector to meet his Government’s objectives?

I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s comments on the sustainability of biofuels. Displacement of food production in favour of growing energy crops risks causing higher prices for everyone. I draw the Minister’s attention to the US blending mandate, which has been in place for several decades and has led to around a quarter of the US corn production going into bioethanol for blending with gasoline. This has had a structural impact on food prices around the world and simply displaces one problem into another.

I disagree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton on green hydrogen, unfortunately, as its cost simply seems to be too high for most applications. Around one-third of the energy is lost in electrolysing water into green hydrogen, and another third is lost in turning it back into electricity, giving it a structural disadvantage versus other forms of energy.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to offer a slightly different perspective on this group of amendments. All the amendments in this group, and indeed some later groups, involve a series of rather worthy things—for which there are to be reports or other consequences—to be achieved by giving a direction to Great British Energy. While I support the amendments on the basis that they are probing amendments, I find it difficult to support the structure of the amendments themselves.

It seems to me that, by using the power of direction in Clause 6, the amendments would undermine the nature of that power and subvert the effectiveness of the power of direction, which is a long-standing feature of the control framework for public corporations. Powers of direction for nationalised industries were commonplace when nationalisation took hold from the 1940s onward. I do not know whether they existed before that, but they certainly have a pedigree of nearly 80 years. The first one of which I am aware is in relation to the Bank of England Act 1946, which nationalised the Bank of England. They have been a feature of public body legislation ever since, except in relation to bodies which are created as regulatory bodies.

The power of direction was never conceived as a mechanism for giving routine instructions to public bodies, which is what all the amendments in this group and the subsequent groups are trying to do. In fact, throughout the history of nationalised industries, the power of direction has almost certainly not been used. In relation to the Bank of England, I asked the previous Government fairly recently whether they would like to give up the power of direction over the Bank of England and whether they had used it since 1946; the answer was that they had never used it since 1946, but they definitely wanted to keep it. The fact that a power has not been used does not necessarily have any meaning, because it is designed as a backstop power for use in extreme circumstances. The mere fact of its existence can be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Government of the day.

It should be an uncontested fact that the Government ultimately call the shots in relation to public corporations, however much operational independence they claim to be handing over to them when they set the bodies up. The board of a public body should be very wary of not following the wishes of the Government of the day, unless those wishes conflict with their legal and statutory objectives.

I will always defend the ability of the Government to give directions to a public body, because public bodies should not be above the Government of the day. I think there are far too many public bodies, but if we have to have them, we must have an effective power of telling them what to do when necessary. I would definitely not want that core power to be diluted by being cluttered up with a lot of more day-to-day matters, which is partly what the amendments in this group and subsequent amendments do.

The concerns of my noble friend on the Front Bench and indeed other noble Lords who have drafted these amendments would be better met by placing specific requirements in the Bill, rather than by cluttering up the power of direction which has a very special place in the control framework for public bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it must be maddening for the Minister that a Bill specifically designed to exclude investment in the nuclear sector keeps on dragging back to the nuclear sector. This is for the obvious reason that these issues are completely and utterly inseparable. Investment in the energy sector generally has got to take account of all the different aspects, and nuclear is obviously one of them.

The Minister raised the question yet again of Sizewell C being a replica, and obviously he thinks I am being very boring on this, but can I plead with him to go back to his department and point out the obvious fallacies in the whole replica concept? If Sizewell C were to go ahead, it would be being constructed in the late 2020s and the early 2030s, probably for completion and producing kilowatts in the late 2030s or later. That will be approximately 25 years beyond the original design of Hinkley C, which was originally conceived under the Blair/Brown Government in the late 2010s.

Everyone in the civil nuclear sector knows that this is a highly fluid situation in which technology is rapidly developing and is going to create, along with the arrival of new things such as AI, a completely new set of designs, which will mean that by the late 2020s the Hinkley design will be frankly out of date. The idea that something that is 20 years old should be replicated is absurd in any advanced technology, and particularly absurd when it comes to electricity generation and civil nuclear power. If one just thinks about it for a moment, one will realise the replica argument carries absolutely no weight at all. I very much hope that any new nuclear installations—whether 300, 500 or gigawatt size—are definitely not going to be a replica of what has occurred at Hinkley C.

This is a view that is held very widely in France, where they say this design is unbuildable and should never be repeated, and it is the view of many other technicians involved in new nuclear development, which I strongly welcome in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but the idea that we should build a replica 20 years after the last one is frankly absurd. Please would the Minister go back to his department and point this out?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. It is clear from this and other groups that the mood of the Committee is in favour of fuller accountability to this House of the activities of GB Energy. This is not micromanaging; it is simply accountability and transparency. How the actions that are taken by GB Energy are directed, as is addressed by Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and addressed more fully in Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is an essential part of that.

Financial markets have periods of irrational exuberance where greed triumphs over caution and experience. Most recently, we have seen the ill-fated wave of SPACs: special purpose acquisition companies. They are generally launched with great excitement and fanfare and with very loose objectives and end in disappointment. GB Energy is clearly a serious undertaking and its chances of success will be greatly aided by rigorous discipline and concentration of force. Applying strong parliamentary oversight of its directions can only aid that.

Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Amendment 86A in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, will help in the rigour of those directions. The clause as drafted is simply too vague, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords. There is great and relevant knowledge in the five bodies nominated between these two amendments. It would seem essential for all directions that the Secretary of State should access this knowledge to ensure that these directions are as beneficial as possible.

I ask the Minister: how specific do his Government intend those directions to be? Will they prioritise jobs, bills, net zero or the commerciality of GB Energy itself? Having such directions is vital to ensure that GB Energy does not drift off course and stays aligned with the Government’s will. But the risk of conflicting objectives is confusion and muddle.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I do not support Amendments 66 and 87 in this group, for similar reasons to those that I gave on the first group that we debated today, in that they would weaken the role of the power of direction. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the fourth report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I am not sure that that report stands up to close scrutiny. It is a very brief report with relatively little argumentation, and it is difficult to understand what the underlying logic really was. I suspect that the committee did not fully take account of the historical role of powers of direction in relation to public corporations, and it may well have reached a conclusion on the basis of a partial understanding of the role of public corporation powers of direction as they are designed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments on land use put down by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He wishes to ensure that in this very densely populated country of England we use our limited available land wisely. England—not the UK—is, I think, the fifth or sixth most densely populated country in the world. That includes countries such as Singapore, which are, in essence, city states. So, it is right that we use our land wisely: per head of population, we do not have much of it. Furthermore, as I have said on several occasions, it is the primary duty of any Government to ensure that they can feed their subjects. I believe that the food agenda comes as high as—if not higher—than the defence agenda, although they are clearly very closely interlinked.

However—I am sure noble Lords could all sense a “but” coming down the line, though I shall try to be gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, as he requested—I am not certain that this is the right way to approach this issue. Land use must be planned in the round. We all need to step back and examine our needs from land as a whole, which include food, biodiversity, flood relief, forestry, access for leisure and health, much-needed housing and of course energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including me, have been banging on about this for several years now. We need a land use framework in the round. I am afraid that a uni-purpose focus such as found in the noble Lord’s amendments, however sensible it may seem in today’s circumstances and business, can only limit our ability to sensibly plan a wider, step-back, more holistic strategy.

For a start, circumstances may change. I see our land use framework as a constant work in progress as the world changes around us. Such changes may include the way our food is produced, the latest imminent threats from foreign countries or the importance of energy to our economy—thus, in this context, the ever-changing balance between food security and energy security.

While today the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is clearly food security over energy, it may be that in the future grade 3 land, for instance, is superfluous to our food security and better off focused on biodiversity or energy. I am afraid that I am not able to support these amendments, however much as a retired farmer I sympathise with their very good intentions.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.

Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:

“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,


so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.

At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said

“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.

At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said

“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.

In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.

It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.

At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.

It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.

I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.

To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.

King’s Speech

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on his appointment as Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. We have the utmost respect for his abilities and integrity, and I wish him well in his duties. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Her depth of knowledge and commitment to this area of government are clear. Indeed, I wish the whole of His Majesty’s Government great success for the benefit of our country.

Before I begin, I would like to declare my relevant interests. I have a dairy farm, a solar farm and forestry, and I am a residential and agricultural landlord. I own land targeting development for new forestry planting, carbon sequestration, wind energy and residential housing. I am a director of a wind energy development company. I am an investor in companies developing technology for natural capital and carbon sequestration as well as global companies providing oilfield services and growing agricultural products.

Government investment decision-making does not have a good track record. Indeed, it is private capital that has driven the rollout of renewables and infrastructure in our country, and it appears that Great British Energy will be targeting investments that private capital alone will not finance. That does not fill our Benches with confidence that these investments will necessarily be judicious. Please can the Minister assure the House that GB Energy will report on the performance of its investments regularly and in detail and that the Government will be held accountable in this House for the performance of those investments?

The Government have committed to substantially increase the rate of renewables development. This would build on our track record of increasing renewable energy from 7% of our electricity supply in 2010 to around 50% today, versus 14% globally. However, these objectives clash with others in the Government’s manifesto. How do we increase our food security while tripling solar capacity, which is often placed on some of our most fertile land in southern England? How do we restore and protect our natural environment if we are installing gigawatts of wind turbines in the fragile and beautiful environments where the wind blows most consistently? How will these conflicting objectives be reconciled within the planning system while also protecting the interests of those who live and work in these areas?

There are two further challenges for renewables development. First, grid capacity and the ability of distribution network operators to process applications from developers remain significant constraints. I would like to understand how and when the Government plan to free these up. Secondly, cost inflation has significantly increased the levelised cost of electricity from new renewable developments, making it harder to compete with the marginal cost of electricity from gas turbines. How will the Government ensure that the incentives are effective for developers without penalising the consumer?

The Government have summarily ceased issuing new licences for exploration and production of oil and gas in the North Sea. This weakens our energy independence and threatens the 90,000 people employed directly by the oil and gas sector, often in local economies that rely on those jobs. At least another 100,000 jobs are reliant on this industry. Under our previous Government, with continued development, we expected oil and gas production to fall by 7% per annum, faster than the average global decline needed to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. Without new licensing, this will fall at an accelerating rate, increasing our reliance on imported oil and gas. The UK still depends on fossil fuels for meeting around 75% of our total energy demand, and that cannot be changed overnight. A Robert Gordon University study found that a faster decline in our oil and gas could halve this workforce by 2030 and would be a

“significant loss of skills for the future energy sector”.

I would like the Minister to reassure this House and the 200,000 men and women dependent on this industry that they will find equally highly skilled and well-paid jobs and that we will not be held to ransom by foreign powers in future.

There is universal acceptance that the water industry can and must do better. The challenges are unchanged: the water and wastewater infrastructure was designed and built by our Victorian ancestors 150 years ago. The standards and capacity it was built to are obsolete. How will increasing the powers of the regulator change those facts? I remind the House that the previous Government had a fully funded plan to address the issues. In a few weeks, the Thames Tideway tunnel will be put to use after investment of more than £4 billion, despite much opposition in this House, significantly improving the quality of water in the Thames.

The Government’s intention to develop a land use framework, which was not mentioned today but was stated in previous commitments, is in line with our plan, which was recently confirmed by my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller at the Dispatch Box. It can and should allow for streamlining management and planning decisions. However, I would like the Minister to reassure the House that this will enable, rather than force, private landowners to pursue developments that the Government find desirable.

Families dependent on farming were disappointed with the lack of clarity or ambition around this Government’s intentions towards farming, without any mention of it in His Majesty’s gracious Speech. We had promised £1 billion of extra funding to farmers to support increased productivity while improving animal welfare and environmental standards. The year 2024 has been stressful for farmers due to extreme rainfall. What concrete reassurance can the Minister give that helping them remains a priority?

I sincerely hope that the Government can use the world-leading environment, agriculture and fisheries Acts to continue to drive the country to fulfil its legal commitment to reverse the declines in nature by 2030. Ministers in the last Government pushed Defra to act as enablers rather than regulators. Success requires land managers and farmers to be weaponised, in the words of my noble friend Lord Benyon. They are the ones who will sequester carbon, increase biodiversity and produce food more sustainably, not the Government.

This is about leveraging Defra resources to stimulate private sector green finance. I urge the Minister to continue to partner with the British Standards Institution on standards and excellent organisations such as the Green Finance Institute to see the UK as developing high-integrity accessible markets for land managers and investors. It is also important that our Woodland Carbon Code and Peatland Code should be certified with the excellent Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s core carbon principles while also being admitted to the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.

We should not overlook the massive international role that we have played in managing the environment under the previous Government. Defra’s international biodiversity responsibilities were key to fulfilling what was agreed at COP 26 in Glasgow and at CBD COP 15 in Montreal—for example, our £500 million Blue Planet Fund, helping smaller countries to manage their coastal areas and oceans. Please could the Minister confirm that she will continue to work closely with colleagues at DESNZ and the FCDO to continue this leadership?

The Government described the badger cull as ineffective in their manifesto, but the reality is quite different, with a reduction of 51% in bovine TB in three regions of Cheshire between 2016 and 2023. My own dairy farm has gone from TB infections at least once every other year to three years TB-free since the badger cull. I am pleased that His Majesty’s Government plan to continue working with farmers and scientists to eradicate bovine TB. A candidate vaccine, CattleBCG, has been identified, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency has developed a companion candidate test. Significant progress is being made, but I urge the Government not to abandon a proven strategy until there is complete confidence that a better solution is available.

I hope I have given sufficient evidence that the last Government were the greenest ever, leading the world in so many areas. We applaud the new Government’s ambition to build and expand on that work while bolstering our food and energy security. We will support His Majesty’s Government when they do good things, perhaps chiding them to do better and holding them to account when they fail.

I am very much looking forward to my noble friend Lord Fuller’s maiden speech, no doubt the first of many meaningful contributions to this House.

Cleaner Energy Technologies

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Roborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what form of carbon reduction costing or pricing they use to assess the relative merits of different cleaner energy technologies in reducing the United Kingdom’s carbon emissions.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as set out in the register.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, published carbon values are used across government for valuing the impacts on emissions resulting from policy interventions, including options for different clean energy technologies. Those values are consistent with the UK’s domestic and international climate change targets.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his Answer. In light of third-party research suggesting that atmospheric carbon units would need to be at an unaffordable price of several hundred pounds per tonne, even many years into the future, for electrolytic hydrogen to make economic sense, can he reassure the House that the Government are confident in the economic case for its support and that the economics will remain under review?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I understand the point my noble friend is making, but the potential of hydrogen to support the global transition to net zero is widely recognised, with international partners, such as the US and the EU, also having set out significant support for hydrogen. The Government are supporting multiple hydrogen production technologies, including both CCUS-enabled and electrolytic hydrogen, to get the scale and cost reductions we need.