Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name. As this is my first contribution on an amendment of my own, I thank the Minister for meeting me, for the fact sheets and the letter, and for the good news that the commission and the review are taking place. We all appreciate that. I support the Bill and welcome the commission review to come.

I turn to the amendment. As touched on by other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in the debates on the second and third groups of amendments, company employees require appropriate remuneration, just as investors need a return. But the financial engineering introduced previously by investors and company directors—for example, debt levels, transfers to parent companies and other practices that were forensically set out earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka —has enabled opaque enrichment, and has subsequently brought some water companies close to bankruptcy. That is not what monopoly water companies are for, and I believe it lies at the very heart of the current problems of the water companies.

The amendment enables the authority to include rules or guidance, as we may decide, with regard to a company’s structuring and its transparent reporting. It is deliberately left as “may” rather than “must” because the authority may want some flexibility here. Nevertheless, the amendment would act as an overt reference to the responsibility of the authority and water company employees to evaluate clearly the company’s financial structures and changes to them, and how those would impact on the distribution of financial benefits across investors, employees, directors and, indeed, consumers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, yet again for introducing this group and raising these matters for consideration when the Government are establishing the regulations surrounding performance, pay and bonuses.

Amendment 17 seeks to clarify the definition of what constitutes performance-related pay. There are many ways in which companies can create performance-based incentive schemes. That can include multiyear programmes containing cash bonuses, share awards, restricted stock units, share options and pension contributions. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, it rarely includes chauffeur-driven cars, private schooling or any other benefits in kind, which tend to be part of the base package.

Is the intention to capture all forms of performance-based rewards within the powers of the Bill? If so, would it not be better to be exhaustive in defining them in the Bill? It is vital that such a definition be as clear as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its intent to punish senior executives who are not fulfilling their obligations to us all in cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches.

In the Bill as drafted, the rules are not clear enough as to what financial components could make up the bonus of a senior water company employee in a given financial year. The amendment is therefore necessary to prevent water companies redesigning performance-based awards to take them outside the scope of the Bill. This is not to suggest any nefarious activity, but anyone currently captured by the Bill would choose not to be if they were able. It would then become impossible for a water company not to offer schemes outside the scope of the Bill if they wanted to attract the best talent.

I understand the intention of Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. It is indeed important that we ensure that water companies have no incentives to continue polluting our rivers. We have looked at this issue in our own amendments. Amendment 27 would ensure that any rules relating to pay and governance will be suitably scrutinised, so I believe the issue could be solved without the inclusion of Amendment 5.

Additionally, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whether he has considered the impact that this amendment would have on the hiring process of water companies. I think it unlikely that many people would respond to a job advert indicating that you may have a salary but that there is a chance that by the end of the year it could be taken away from you. If the total remuneration of senior roles is included in the Bill, it is inevitable that water companies will lose people with relevant skills and experience in the sector. That will worsen the leadership and perhaps lead to more serious issues within the sector.

It is also possible that the water companies would be forced to delegate their own management to third-party consultants outside the scope of the Bill entirely, in order to find the necessary expertise to run the companies. Have the Government given thought to how to cope with the possibility of such third-party consultants not captured by the Bill?

On Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I agree that both legal and illegal dumping of sewage lead to undesirable outcomes. As such, I agree with the sentiment of the amendment. In 2022 we published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, which put in place targets to reduce the release of the overflow of sewage and in fact to stop it, except in situations with unusually heavy rainfall, by 2050. So we recognise that the issue is a pressing one and that action must be taken to ensure our rivers are kept clean. However, in order to stop the legal release of sewage, a substantial investment of money and time is necessary, and the amendment does not allow for such provision of time.

Our sewerage systems are a result of Victorian infrastructure design, and the increasing population and heavier, more frequent storms have led to increased pressure on this system. The suggested penalty will make it even less desirable to hold a senior role in a water company. As such, it will further decrease the number of people with skills and expertise at senior levels. This is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the water system for consumers, which is ultimately the aim we share across these Benches. I fail to see how we can support the noble Baroness’s amendment, despite the case put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would require executives to take personal liability through their performance-related pay for unspecified structuring or restructuring that may put companies at financial risk. This would appear to us to be too vague to have much bite. It also potentially means that executives’ performance-related pay would be contingent on issues over which they might not have responsibility because they could be overridden by shareholders.

As I mentioned earlier, in response to an amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, I encourage noble Lords to support Amendment 92 in my name in a later group, which would be a clear-cut prevention of payments to shareholders where there are potential issues of financial distress.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will tighten up the definition of performance-related pay in line with our amendment.