Great British Energy Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 42.

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

I have already called it. We have finished that group.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

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

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I remind the noble Lord that I called that group but we have now moved on to the next amendment in the list.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.