Great British Energy Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the amendment.

I support the words from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and ask the Minister what the current position is on the future of the community energy fund: the Government seem to support it, but we need to know how it will proceed and when it will come into effect. How comprehensive will the review, to which the amendment refers, be? It appears to be limited to finances, but can the Minister confirm that it will also cover sustainable development?

We heard for the first time, I think, on Report about the framework document, of which the noble Lord said at col. 1204 of Hansard that it will become available only after the Bill has received Royal Assent, yet it would seem to go to the very heart of sustainability and environmental protection, which are so key to this Bill. Can the Minister explain, if the framework document will indeed cover these points, because he linked it to the sustainable definition that he was using, as recognised by the UN, why it is not part of the Bill, why we have not had the opportunity to debate it, and what the relationship will be between the framework document and the contents of the amendment that he has just put forward?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I briefly add my remarks to those of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, about the community energy fund. I thank the Minister for responding so positively to my noble friend Lord Vaux by bringing forward this amendment on more general accountability. It is a good step forward, but will he respond on those companies—I gather there are around 150—that would have been eligible for the community energy fund but will not be able to receive funding if the money indeed runs out in May, as is forecast? On that specific point, when the £100 million runs out in May, what will be put in its place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I find the amendment extremely interesting. Perhaps I may just make a general point about the nature of such amendments and provisions outside this Bill. We see here a grey area between what is strictly on the Government’s credit and bill under the PSBR and what is in the private sector. Previous Governments have been caught on this barbed wire for many years as to what lies in the public sector and influences the Government’s credit and what does not. I think we are going to see the model contained in the Minister’s amendment in many other areas as well. Right around the world, Governments have all the demands on them to make utilities work, vast changes to infrastructure and so on, and the private sector has the money. Somehow, the two must be brought together, as we tried to do in the late 1990s with PFI—the private finance initiative—which ran into great difficulties, but there were some lessons to be learned from it.

We have to learn more lessons now, otherwise the finance for these things simply will not be found. This applies particularly in the energy sector, where very large investments are required over many years. The Government cannot do it because they cannot raise the money and the private sector does not want to take such risks. This is very interesting, and I see that the Minister has done his best in plunging into this still very grey area, because we do not really know how to define accountability or what it is we are calling to account.

As to the amendment itself, I had to smile. We have had similar arrangements in the distant past for bodies that are neither public nor private, and this is an attempt to overcome the problems of that in the past.

It is, frankly, not very easy to evaluate the amendment to appoint this independent person to review effectiveness if we are not quite sure what “effectiveness” means. It says, “turn to Section 5(1) on the obligations on the Secretary of State to lay down certain criteria”, which, apparently, he has not done yet, so we do not know what the criteria will be. They will appear in six months’ time. Of course, it is easy to think of various criteria to allow one to say, “An organisation has, unfortunately, lost a lot of money but has still done terribly well, because I have these criteria here which show that it has achieved certain other objectives”. There are criteria that we can think about: externalities, opportunities for broader contributions, geopolitical objectives. All these things not only rest on highly subjective judgments but will be very far in the future. The analogy comes to mind of goalposts on wheels: the goalposts have been moved from time to time and from year to year as to whether effectiveness has been achieved, even though a lot of money may have been lost.

I have to put in a reservation that all these issues are matters of intense debate. All round the planet some of the best minds are wrestling with the effectiveness measurements of certain huge investments of a green nature, which look terrific but, unfortunately, either do not make money or go wrong, but nevertheless contribute to some part of the battle against climate violence and to some limitation on the ever-rising carbon dioxide and methane emissions.