Great British Energy Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, in moving Amendment 21, I acknowledge and thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for putting his name to it. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a statement of strategic priorities within a period of six months from the day on which the Act comes into force.

As noble Lords will know, we had extensive discussion about the statement of strategic priorities in Committee, and I am glad to say that we have had a lot of constructive discussion between Committee and Report. In recognition of the concerns raised on the length of time that Great British Energy could be operating without a set of strategic priorities, I am glad to bring forward this amendment, which clarifies the length of time in which the first statement of strategic priorities should be prepared.

In addition to this amendment, I make a commitment at the Dispatch Box that the Government will publish a Written Ministerial Statement when the first statement of strategic priorities is published, so that this House and the other place will be informed. I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendment 21. It is identical to an amendment I tabled in Committee, and introduces a time limit of six months for the publication of the statement of strategic priorities. Given the importance of that statement, as we have had many discussions around, and that it is the only place where the aims for GBE will be set out, it is clearly essential that the publication should not be delayed. I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle.

I was going to ask the Minister whether the statement will be accompanied by an impact statement or assessment, or whether the business cases and spending reviews will be published. He pre-empted that on the first group, and I am grateful for his positive answers to those questions.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for listening and constructively engaging with the many discussions that we have had on the issue of Great British Energy’s statement of strategic priorities and for bringing forward this helpful amendment.

I will be brief, as we have had a lot of discussion on this, particularly in Committee. Our position is that we support the intentions of the Bill and recognise that the Government are acting at speed to establish Great British Energy. However, we have always said that the Bill is too short for its own good. We recognise the difficult position that the Minister finds himself in. It is for Great British Energy, as an independent organisation, to write its own strategic priorities, as long as they are consistent with the objects set out in Clause 3. Great British Energy obviously needs to be established in order to write the strategic priorities, and discussions are required with the devolved Administrations.

Against these needs, we as parliamentarians were being asked to approve the Bill with no sight of the strategic priorities prior to the Bill being passed, or even after it is passed and the strategic priorities have been finalised. This was an issue that the Constitution Committee rightly highlighted as an area of concern. To us, it felt a little like we were being asked to sign a blank check, and your Lordships were rightly nervous about the implicit ask in the Bill as it was drafted.

From these Benches, we have consistently argued for progress on these matters and for the reaching of constructive compromise. Compromise needs to rightly balance the actions and operational independence of Great British Energy and, at the same time, the justified right of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the strategic priorities. Is this amendment absolutely perfect? No. Does it do a good and worthwhile job of balancing these competing needs and moving the issue forward? Yes, it very much does. I welcome the words the Minister has spoken from the Dispatch Box about a Written Ministerial Statement. This is an essential compromise, and I thank the Minister for this good progress.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

45: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness and impact(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of—(a) the effectiveness of Great British Energy in delivering its strategic priorities, and(b) the extent to which its investments in particular projects or types of project have encouraged additional investment in those projects or types of project by the private sector.(2) After each review, the independent person must—(a) prepare a report of the review, and(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.(3) On receiving a report, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the report, and(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(4) The first report must be submitted to the Secretary of State within the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.(5) Subsequent reports must be submitted to the Secretary of State at intervals of not more than 3 years.(6) In this section, references to an “independent person” are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of—(a) the Department of Energy and Net Zero, and(b) Great British Energy.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require an independent review of the effectiveness of Great British Energy in achieving its objectives and the extent to which it has encouraged private investment every 3 years.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I am really puzzled as to why I am not allowed to speak to my amendment.

I will speak to two amendments in this group—I hope on a more constructive basis than we have seen on some of the other discussions just recently. I apologise that there are two very similar amendments in the group, Amendments 43 and 45. This was caused by a quirk in our system that meant that when I made some changes to Amendment 43, so that it became Amendment 45, I was not allowed to withdraw Amendment 43. Please ignore Amendment 43 as Amendment 45 is the one I will speak to. I apologise for the confusion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for their support on this.

Amendment 45 introduces a requirement for an independent review of the effectiveness and impact of Great British Energy. This, effectively, mirrors the review process set out in the UK Infrastructure Bank Act which applies to the National Wealth Fund. As we have discussed in depth, much of this Bill was copied directly from the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, and with good reason. The two entities are very similar in what they will do and, indeed, the wealth fund will be investing on behalf of GBE in the initial stages of its development.

The independent review clause in the UKIB Act, however, was left out when the Bill was drafted, which is a glaring omission. The main difference between Amendment 45 and what is in the UKIB Act is the timeline. The National Wealth Fund must commission a report after no more than seven years and then every five years. Because the Government have stated that they hope the GBE will have achieved decarbonisation by 2030, it must be appropriate that the review for GBE should take place before then, so Amendment 45 requires a shorter timeframe, with a first review after three years and every three years thereafter. It is better that we have a review when we are still able to take remedial action rather than just something that sets out after the event why we succeeded or failed. On the other hand, the annual independent review, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, in Amendment 42, is unnecessarily onerous. I hope we can find a balance here that works.

In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am prepared to consider the principle of a review between Committee and Report”.—[Official Report, 15/1/25; col. GC 225.]


Since then we have had a number of very constructive discussions, for which I am very grateful. I am therefore optimistic that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that the Government will introduce a suitable independent review process. Again, I stress the additionality principle that I explained in an earlier group. If the noble Lord is able to satisfy me on the independent review and confirm that any review would be expected to cover the extent to which GBE is creating additionality, I would be delighted not to move Amendment 45.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, for clarity, we are debating Amendment 45.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, particularly for his patience because I think this was originally in the first group, so he has done great service. We have had a very constructive discussion with the noble Lord. I am happy to confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment on an independent review of effectiveness at Third Reading.

I am also aware, as the noble Lord said, that his amendment includes an additionality element. I am happy to confirm that additionality will be an important principle of Great British Energy—I said that earlier this evening, or this afternoon or many hours ago—particularly in respect of its investment activity. As such, we expect that it will be covered for the requirement for the independent review to consider the effectiveness of Great British Energy and to have regard to the stated strategic priorities in doing so. I look forward to bringing an amendment to the House at Third Reading.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those confirmations and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.