Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

These amendments, if refined with these principles in mind, could help ensure that GBE operates as a nimble, effective organisation that serves the long-term interests of our nation.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, speak in support of these amendments. It is definitely important that accountability is brought to bear here. Of course, one has the constant worry that the private sector is going to pick up all the low-hanging fruit, which is quite profitable, while GB Energy is going to be left with all of the much more speculative stuff, which will probably lose money for the taxpayer.

I want to refer in particular to subsection (2)(d) in the new clause to be inserted by Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which refers to

“a just transition to green energy”.

I use that as a bit of a hook on which to return to the question I asked in Committee on Monday; I should have intervened and asked the Minister to answer before he sat down, but I had a problem at that stage, which is why I have given him advance notice today. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my question for me because there is a dispute on our side. My noble friend Lord Fuller is a great exponent of green liquid hydrogen. Let us face it: if we could manufacture it effectively, it would be a bit of a silver bullet in solving many of these problems. But, at the same time, my noble friend Lord Roborough said that it will always be much too expensive to produce. I was slightly surprised by this because, like my noble friend Lord Fuller, I have always taken the view that the technology will develop as it goes along and the price will start to come down. It used to be the policy of the previous Government to support hydrogen; it is certainly supported by JCB.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for letting me speak. I wish to correct the record: it was actually me who described what my noble friend is describing, not my noble friend Lord Fuller.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Although I do of course wish to be associated with those remarks.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I cringe, with apologies to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe; I did not realise that it was he who said it. Anyway, whoever said it, I very much supported the view that it might well be possible for the price of liquid hydrogen to come down as the technology developed and got better.

My noble friend Lord Roborough said to me that it was always going to be expensive. I said that it was being manufactured by wind turbines in the North Sea at the moment, but as we have already discussed, the problem with wind is that it is intermittent. The wind gets turned off every now and then, the windmills do not turn, and electricity is not generated. Apparently, it is very expensive to replace all the filters, and so forth, and you need to have a constant supply of electricity to produce hydrogen.

What is felt about this on the Opposition Benches does not really matter; what matters is the attitude that the Government are taking towards liquid hydrogen and whether this is something that Great British Energy will be investing in or not. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us where the Government stand on liquid hydrogen, as it is an important component of having clean energy for this country.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments aimed, like others, at greater accountability and transparency of the delivery of GBE. In particular, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on budgets. It is all very well to check on delivery and ask for more reports, but you only get what you measure. It needs to be set against a budget and objectives. I have found the objectives in the Bill to be a little vague. I am therefore in favour of Amendment 95 to the extent that it will allow us to set reporting and disclosure against a set of objectives, and a certain budget. I would also add additionality in there, as that is the only way to understand whether the delivery has been effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

May I press the Minister a bit harder on green hydrogen? If my noble friend Lord Roborough is right and, whatever happens, it will be much too expensive to produce, then we surely have to look elsewhere. What is the Government’s attitude towards liquid hydrogen as a fuel for the future?

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. I cannot add anything to what I said before. GBE will look at a range of technology and sources. The whole of energy policy is predicated on security of supply and range of supply, because at various times in British history, although those two things have not been absent at the same time—or perhaps they have, briefly—there have been times when one or the other has been absent. If it is possible for hydrogen to play a part in that security of supply and range of supply—it certainly would on the latter—I do not see why that should not be part of the nation’s energy supply in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree absolutely with the spirit of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on biodiversity, but I say again to the Minister, as I did briefly in a previous Committee sitting, that what I see as essential and what I am used to in working with the Green Investment Group since its privatisation is that there needs to be a strong external audit of individual investments in terms of their carbon reduction and protection or promotion of biodiversity. Again, that should not be in the Bill, but it is something that I would hope very much the board of Great British Energy would insist on—if nothing else for its corporate reputation.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am a little confused by this conversation, because I always understood that oil rigs encouraged shoals of fish, providing them with a safe haven under which they thrived. If they thrive under oil rigs, why should they not thrive under wind turbines as well, if they are pinned to the bottom of the sea?

I agree that, if they are floating ones, it is more debatable whether fish could thrive under them, but, in my view, it does not necessarily follow that having such industrial structures in the sea goes against nature—it might actually go some way towards protecting it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

The noble Lord raises an important issue. As we know, when Shell wished to dispose of one of its oil rigs in the North Sea, to which a number of environmental NGOs strongly objected, there was a fair bit of scientific evidence that it made a positive contribution to North Sea biodiversity. Indeed, off the coast of Cornwall, an ex-naval vessel was sunk in order for it to become a reef, which increased biodiversity. We should not just reject the fishing industry’s views on this. The problem with offshore wind farms compared with oil rigs is the quantity—that is, the size of the area that would be an exclusive zone. That is the issue, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s intervention. May I take him up on his point about the Ministry of Defence, which I used to work for at one stage? He said that the people there were very much against such schemes, but I think that it is mainly to do with communications: if their radar and other communication systems are blocked by wind turbines, they will object to them. That is understandable. We should not paint the Ministry of Defence into the position of being anti all forms of renewable energy because I do not think it is; however, it is always concerned if it cannot reach out and listen to the enemy, wherever they may be, because there are wind turbines in the way. This is an interesting subject that probably needs looking into rather more carefully—it is certainly not as straightforward as some of my noble friends make out.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I shall not prolong the conversation tonight but the noble Lord is, once again, absolutely right about national defence, radar and being able to see an incoming attack with missiles or whatever. The problem was that the Ministry of Defence did not man that area enough. Decisions were extremely slow. There was a rumour—of course, I have no proof of this —that it used to use its slowness and its objections to insist that developers helped it upgrade its military equipment. I do not know whether it was true—I am sure that it was not, of course—but that was the perception. The main problem was the slowness of response.