Great British Energy Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to follow and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Mackinlay of Richborough. His was an outstanding maiden speech from an outstanding new Member of this House—robust, inspiring, informative, energetic and with a touch of provocation, which he uncharacteristically toned down.

My noble friend Lord Mackinlay is a friend whom I knew before his illness to be as courageous intellectually as he proved to be physically. He is a fighter and a winner, and, mercifully, his lovely wife Kati is also a fighter. We are grateful to her for ensuring that my noble friend is with us today. He entered the Commons in 2015 for South Thanet in a forcefully fought general election, when both Nigel Farage and the comedian Al Murray had the temerity to stand against him. I am glad to say that he saw both jokers off and had the last laugh.

As I rapidly discovered when I got to know him after he entered the House in my last Parliament as an MP, he is refreshingly different from so many of the new intake. He is not just a spad and a PPE graduate, like so many of them; he has a science degree and an accountancy qualification. So he takes into account facts and figures, which is terribly refreshing in Parliament. Noble Lords will find that they have to contend with his facts and figures in debates to come.

My noble friend told me that his mother gave him a piece of advice early on in life: above all, to your own self be true. That he always has been, and it is perhaps one reason, he says, why he did not become a Minister in the House of Commons: he was quite prepared to back up his beliefs with his vote, and clearly the Whips did not think he would cease to do so if they tried to buy him off. But he had more influence in the House of Commons than many who did have a period on the Front Bench, as most of them did during the rapid turnover in the last Parliament. This influence was not least through the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, which I have the privilege to belong to, as well as the Common Sense Group and the European Research Group, in all of which he was an influential person. We look forward with enthusiasm to hearing his combative and well-informed contributions to this House in the years ahead.

I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Beckett. She, like me, was President of the Board of Trade, and we presidents must stick together. Probably not all presidents would meet her approval currently, but I have always admired her contribution in the House of Commons over an enormous period of time.

I want to welcome this Bill, which is essentially a prospectus—an incredibly attractive investment opportunity. I use the word “incredibly” advisedly. It is backed by 22 of the most prominent people in this country—members of the Cabinet. True, none of them has ever launched a company before. Indeed, none of them has ever worked in the private sector. But that perhaps gives them a clarity of view which enables them to see investment prospects that have escaped the attention of commercial businesses up and down the country.

The principal promoter of the Bill is of course the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband. It can be said that no company he has been involved with has ever failed—because he has never been involved with any company. He will have the power to issue directions to the board about anything. There is no limitation in the Bill on what he can direct them to do or not to do. He has said, however, that he will use that power sparingly—which will be a disappointment to the board: only rarely will it have his superior wisdom to guide it on the true path.

We are asked to endorse this prospectus before the priorities and strategy of the new company have been published: they will be in due course, but they have not been yet. Investors may be concerned that the Government are putting up costs in the sector in which all the investments are to be made but are saying the prices are going to come down by some £300 per family. Investors might think, “Well, how on earth is it going to make a profit, with rising costs and falling prices?”. But do not worry, the Government have abandoned their promise to cut prices by £300 per family and have rejected all amendments in the other place which would have made that part of the duties of the company, as promised by the Labour Party at the last election. Anyway, as a nationalised company, it will clearly bring the cost control of HS2 and the profit-making capacity of the Post Office to the businesses in which it invests. That must give us all great confidence for the future.

I do not see noble Lords reaching for their chequebooks to invest in this—although clearly the noble Baronesses, Lady Winterton and Lady Hayman, will be, as indeed will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. They have all welcomed it and they will be putting in their money in—or they would if they could. Sadly, the Government have concluded that they might not be able to attract equity investors into this rather strange company that will not tell us quite what its priorities and strategies are going to be. I think the only previous company that was ever successfully launched like that was the South Sea bubble company, which said in its prospectus that its purposes would be revealed “at a later date”. And it went on to have initial great success—before the bubble burst.

Setting irony aside, this Government have said that, even though they do not expect to be able to attract investors to put their own money into the company, they are going to take £8.3 billion out of the pockets of taxpayers and put it in. But, more than that, they say it is going to crowd in investment several times that amount into the sector. Will it do so? Yes, it will. I am not being ironic here. It will succeed in attracting other companies to invest alongside it, because other companies will know that, if they invest in projects in which Great British Energy has invested taxpayers’ money, the politicians are not going to let those projects fail. That is why they will be attractive to the private sector: because they know the Government will always come and bail them out, because of the embarrassment of failure. That is why—and the only reason why—a nationalised company such as this can crowd in investment from outside. I think we should all realise that that is the case.

It is significant that the Minister, who spoke with great clarity and little conviction about this Bill, did not give any example of any similar nationalised concern that has ever met the expectations that have been raised for it as they have been raised for this. We know that doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome is supposedly Einstein’s definition of madness. I suspect that is what we are being asked to vote for today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We are. There is always going—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I tabled a Question some time ago to ask the Government whether they knew of any peer-reviewed science or any science collected by the IPCC which suggested that there would be extinction of the human race if we did nothing worldwide—not as much as we are doing now, but nothing—and they said that there is no such peer-reviewed science. Why does the Minister rely on alarmism?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not alarmist at all. I rely on report after report showing the consequences. Shall we turn to our own independent Climate Change Committee? The noble Lord supported the Conservative Government over a 14-year period. I did not see that Conservative Government disowning the independent advice they had received. He might as an individual, but I do not think his Government did. Noble Lords opposite, when they run down organisations such as the Climate Change Committee—or, indeed, the OBR, as they seem to now—need to remember that they listened to and reflected on the advice of those bodies during that 14-year period.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that if climate change is critical, energy security comes a close second. That is, of course, what makes the Bill so important, so I hear what noble Lords are saying. The noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Duncan and Lord Bourne, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bloomfield and Lady Hayman, my noble friend Lord Hanworth, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a number of other noble Lords have commented on the structure of the Bill, with concerns about a lack of detail and questions about the accountability of GBE to Parliament, how it is to be reviewed, and its relationship with the national wealth fund, Great British Nuclear, the Crown Estate, NESO, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned, the Climate Change Committee.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that the fact that GBE is going to be headquartered in Scotland of course does not inhibit its UK-wide responsibilities. I have noted what he had to say about investment in Wales.

However, I accept that there are a number of organisations here and I will take it upon myself to write to noble Lords, setting out how we think the relationships will work together, as I think that will inform our discussions in Committee. On the structure of the Bill, noble Lords will know that this was laid in the Commons very soon after the election as an early priority of the Government. Because of that, we have focused, inevitably, on the provisions that are fundamental to the establishment of Great British Energy. Clearly, we are still working through some of the policy issues on which we need to come to a view, including, of course, discussing them with GBE and the devolved Governments. That is why the Bill, to an extent, does not have the detail which noble Lords wish to see.

However, I have listened very carefully. We will come to Committee, and I hope I can respond constructively to some of the issues that noble Lords have raised. Equally, I want to ensure that GBE is operationally independent and able to make its own decisions within the structure of the Bill and the strategic priorities laid down by the Secretary of State. We are listening very carefully to what noble Lords have to say.

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, last week in our debate on energy, I fully accept that our drive towards clean power by 2030 is but one aspect of the decarbonisation of society in this country and the move to net zero. In relation to transport, heating and industrial processes, this is a huge challenge and one which we are committed to achieving. The noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Ashcombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about the clean power target. There are a number of different ways of reading the report from NESO, but it is quite clear that the number one message from NESO was that it is possible to build, connect and operate a clean power system for Great Britain by 2030 while maintain security of supply. I accept that it is very challenging—there is no doubt whatever about that—and the NESO report contains a number of those challenges. However, this is independent advice; it says that it can be done and we believe it can be done. It is very challenging, but it is doable.

On cost, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the biggest cost is doing nothing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the Climate Change Committee has said that the net cost of transition will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050. The OBR has highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts and that acting early could

“halve the … cost of getting to net zero by 2050 compared to acting late”.

I noted also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, on this.

I come to the Bill itself. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised that we have partly used the UKIB legislation as a model for some of the clauses in this Bill. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were particularly focused on the make-up of the board of directors. The fact is that we have brought in clauses from the Great British Nuclear provisions in the Energy Act. The structure very much follows that. We do not think that it was necessary to put into primary legislation provisions in relation to the board, because this will be covered. It is a company, and so will be encompassed within company law, the code of practice and sound corporate governance. GBE will have a chair and a chief executive officer, both of whom will be accountable to Ministers. It will have a board of directors that follows sound corporate governance practice, including the provisions of the UK Corporate Governance Code and those published by the Financial Reporting Council.

We want GBE and the national wealth fund to work closely together. As Great British Energy scales up, we will set out how the two institutions will collaborate and complement each other. On the issue of crowding out investment, surely my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer was right. The whole point about GBE is to speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies but with a focus on where this can complement existing private sector activities.

I must say that the references that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made to HS2 and the Post Office were a bit rich, considering the record of the Conservative Government’s stewardship, or not, over 14 years.

I will come on to Clause 3, the objects, which has drawn quite a lot of comment. I say to my noble friends Lady Winterton and Lord Grantchester and to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Naseby, among others, that emerging technologies such as CCUS or hydrogen could be very much part of GBE’s portfolio once it is operational. I noted the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on waste. On Drax, we had a good run on that a couple of weeks ago, although I may not have convinced noble Lords of the Government’s position. I look forward to discussing storage with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, on the potential of floating offshore wind.

We, of course, are reluctant to see a list of technologies. Noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench will be readily aware of the list argument, and it is well taken. If you list, you are at risk of excluding other technologies. One must be very careful not to constrain the ability of GBE in its operational independence and its ability to spot the technologies that need supporting. I do accept, with my noble friend Lady Young, that community energy has huge potential in itself and as a way to leverage public support generally for the kinds of changes that we need to see happen. We certainly believe that GBE will deliver a step change in investment in local community energy projects and will work strongly in partnership with local authorities and community groups to deliver this. I know that local authorities would welcome a much stronger partnership to enable this to happen. I take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Young about biodiversity. I look forward to discussing that further with them and in Committee.

I come now to my favourite topic: nuclear energy. First, we want to make sure that GBN can carry on with its work—the technology appraisal of the shortlisted technologies for the SMR programme is particularly important—and that it will work in complementary ways to GBE without there being duplication of effort. I picked up the important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that nuclear power is not being underprioritised in my department. I need no persuading of the importance of nuclear energy. It acts as the essential baseload, and when it is aligned with gas that, in future, will be abated by CCUS, we will have the right balance to complement the intermittency of renewable energies.

On nuclear and resources, we have just announced a huge resource allocation to Sizewell C to get it over the next two years. We are working very fast towards final investment decisions over the next few months; we have the SMR programme and we are very excited by the potential of AMRs. I very much take what my noble friend Lady Winterton said about the potential of SMR manufacturing in the UK.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the grid and planning and what they described as the roadblocks to developers. I very much take that point. We have already signalled, in parallel with GBE, our intention to reform the planning system to enhance our grid connections. I take the point about the delays to the connection which developers are suffering at the moment. Clearly, we have to do something about that, but GBE’s main priority will be to help developers get through some of the roadblocks and focus on the energies that need support.

I noted with interest the comments the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made about the impact on farmers and on fishing fleets. I accept that consultation and environmental assessments must continue to be made in any more streamlined planning process and expansion of the grid.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised the question of state subsidies and competition law. As an operationally independent company, GBE will be subject to the same legal and regulatory framework as other entities in relation to subsidy control and competition law, such as the Subsidy Control Act 2022. The Bill does not alter that framework.

I hear what noble Lords say on Clause 5 in relation to strategic priorities and the statement. It is unlikely that we will have published the statement of strategic priorities before Royal Assent, but I have listened to what noble Lords have said. I will reflect on that and I am sure we will discuss it further in Committee. Noble Lords seem to be indicating that they would like to discuss it in Committee.

On power of direction, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was particularly assertive that the Secretary of State would wish to take almost micromanagement control. I assure him that that is not the intention. It is a backstop, reserve power.

On the annual accounts and reports, there will, of course, be accountability. The chief executive officer will be the accounting officer. The National Audit Office will oversee. Ministers will answer to Parliament. Select Committees can invite GBE in to give evidence. Noble Lords will debate. We will have Questions and more general debates.

I listened to noble Lords and I understand that they have looked at the UKIB legislation. We will reflect on that, but my noble friend Lady Young is right: there is a balance here between due accountability and not putting a load of bureaucratic micromanagement on this organisation, which is not what we want to happen.

I absolutely agree with noble Lords that we must make the most of the supply chain. I picked up the point about skills and managing the transition in the North Sea.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton—my noble friend, if I may call him that—and I have worked together on these issues. I congratulate him on his work and the huge effort that he has made in Parliament, the influence that he has had on legislation, and the help that he gave me around enforced organ harvesting, particularly in Xinjiang province but in China more generally. At this stage, we expect UK businesses, including GBE, to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains. They should not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour. I am very happy to talk to the noble Lord about the energy potential of Merseyside, as he suggested, and to discuss the issues that he raised so eloquently.

I have reached the time limit. This has been a very good debate and I am most grateful to noble Lords. I would like to think that contributions were constructive, and I look forward to debating this in Committee.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Lilley]

85I: Clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must carry out a review on the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs.(1B) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require GB Energy to carry out a review on the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 85I and to speak to Amendment 131 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Reay. Nature abhors a vacuum and Parliament abhors a blank piece of paper, which is what the Bill, in effect, creates in the way of the GBE company. It is a company that has no clear purpose, limits or functions, so it is our duty to write in some clear purpose and constraints, and that is what my amendments, like many tabled by other noble Lords, try to do.

Amendment 85I requires the Secretary of State to review

“the use of long duration energy storage by Great British Energy and its projected costs”.

Amendment 131 says the Act may come into force only when the Secretary of State has published the review.

The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House produced a report entitled Long-Duration Energy Storage: Get On With It, which we debated last Thursday. This recognised—indeed, took it as axiomatic—that, if we replace fossil fuels entirely with intermittent wind and solar, we will need storage to meet periods when demand exceeds supply. It will be absolutely essential to have that storage. It is not just short-term storage to cover daily peaks in demand, nor even for the medium-term periods the Germans call Dunkelflaute, when it is cold, windless and sunless, which it invariably is at night; there can also be whole years when supply is below average. So some storage needs to be of long duration.

As well as establishing that there will be a need for such long-duration electricity storage, the report evaluated different technologies providing that storage. It concluded that the best approach would be that, when wind and sun are generating more electricity than we need, instead of turning off the windmills, we should use the excess electricity to electrolyse water to create hydrogen that could then be stored in large salt caverns—largely under Chester, I gather—to be used when needed. The committee acknowledged that, by the time the electricity has been converted into hydrogen and then burned to generate electricity again, about 60% of the energy has been wasted—but that is better than wasting all the excess electricity that would be produced by wind.

Unfortunately, the report of the Select Committee provided only the widest possible range of estimates of the likely need for storage. It is literally almost a priceless report, in the sense that it reaches no conclusions of its own as to the likely price of storage, let alone the amount by which it will increase the price of electricity. So Great British Energy will not be able to rely on the Select Committee’s report and will need to carry out its own review, as specified in these amendments, into the amount of storage needed and its cost.

The Select Committee report does however cite a report by the Royal Society that indicates that the potential scale of costs is huge—the capital costs in particular. It says that the capital expenditure required for wind and solar to meet the increased demand when transport and heating have been electrified will be some £210 billion. On top of that, there will be additional capex for long-duration storage of some £100 billion, and investment to strengthen and extend the grid to reach the storage of an additional £100 billion. So, the cost of storage plus grid strengthening will effectively double the capital costs of a fully renewable generating system based on wind and solar. It is, incidentally, hard to see how that can reduce our electricity costs, as the Government originally proposed and claimed ahead of the election was the purpose of GBE. So I am not surprised that the Minister rejected the amendment from my noble friend Lord Offord requiring Great British Energy to set out how it would contribute to the objective of reducing costs.

Clearly, investments on the scale that the Royal Society envisages should not be undertaken lightly. It is highly unlikely that GBE, capitalised at £8.3 billion, will be remotely capable of crowding in private sector capital of £100 billion just for long-duration energy storage alone.

Indeed, witnesses to the report and noble Lords in the debate cast doubt on whether a credible way could be devised to remunerate private sector investors to make it worth their while to provide the storage capacity. The suggested scheme involves setting a floor and cap for the revenues generated by providers of stored hydrogen when they sell and buy electricity during periods when it is needed. Unfortunately, owners of storage will want to maximise their revenues by arbitrage trading as frequently as possible when electricity prices rise and fall. This may mean that they have insufficient gas when a period of shortage of renewable energy continues for a long time, which is precisely what this long-duration energy storage is intended for.

Those in the debate and, indeed, on the committee who pointed out that this problem exists tended to conclude that the logical option was that long-duration electricity storage would have to be provided and owned by the state. I am not an enthusiast for nationalisation but nor am I a doctrinaire opponent if it is indeed the least bad option, as may well be the case. If it is the case, can GBE be the vehicle that would help create such a state holding company? It scarcely seems credible given its capital base of £8.3 billion and potential investment required of £100 billion. Yet, without long-duration energy storage, it will be impossible to replace fossil fuels by renewables. So, the Government must somehow tell us how, through GBE or otherwise, they are going to finance this long-duration energy storage.

The Royal Society report on which the Select Committee relied made some heroic and barely credible assumptions. The costs and deficiencies of electrolysers and gas turbines needed to convert hydrogen back into electricity would fall dramatically, in some instances by up to 90%, over the period between now and 2050. The report that this amendment would require would also surely have to consider whether it might be more cost effective to defer investment in these technologies until those reductions in costs and efficiency improvements had materialised.

That would mean relying on gas, purely as a backup, for a few extra years, but the extra emissions would be small and negligible in the grand scheme of things. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has already reinterpreted decarbonising electricity production by 2030 to mean that, rather than reducing emissions by 100%, it will involve reducing emissions by only 95%. There is a precedent for anticipating a degree of flexibility. I hope, therefore, that any report that this amendment requires GBE to produce will consider that option.

We should remember that when Dieter Helm analysed the Government’s energy policy, he concluded that we have wasted up to £100 billion of taxpayers’ money so far by investing prematurely in immature technologies rather than waiting until they became sufficiently efficient for us to get advantage from that greater efficiency. These amendments would enable us to know the answers to some of those questions before GBE goes ahead and spends any taxpayers’ money.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who makes some extremely good points in trying to put more meat on the bone of the Government’s proposals. It seems to me in a macro way that the Government’s energy policy is all over the place, not least their new desire to attract Chinese investment—have we not been there before? It is causing great concern, not least now to the Security Service.

That apart, whatever the Government decide to do, they will have to dramatically increase storage, as we have heard today. However, there is precious little in this Bill to tell us how that storage will be dealt with, where it will be located, or how that will be handled by planning. We have just heard that some of the storage will be below ground in Cheshire. Other storage will, of course, be above ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome so many Members of the Opposition to our debate and I look forward to their continuing interest in our deliberations going on this evening. I must confess to being somewhat at a loss, because all the points raised in this debate have been raised tonight in other amendments. What we are seeing is clearly a filibuster, and the degrouping of so many of these amendments on Clause 6 is the visible evidence of this. We have already had a debate on energy storage, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, moved. We have already debated power lines and planning environmental protections, and we have discussed nuclear power, SMRs and AMRs. I simply do not understand. What is the point of having yet another debate on these issues, which amount to Second Reading discussions about the Government’s energy policy? We are debating Clause 6 directions. This is a backstop provision, normal in Bills of this sort in relation to the bodies that we are talking about, and it is quite inappropriate for us to seek to micromanage GB Energy in the way noble Lords have suggested.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his non-reply to the debate. The answer to his point about whether it is necessary is that it is impossible to overstate the importance of cheap and reliable energy to the economic growth of this country. If the only way we can have reliable energy is by having hugely costly energy, either because, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, to ward off delays as we saw in recent days costs eight or 10 times what it normally costs or because to prevent that sort of risk involves spending hundreds of billions of pounds, that is hugely important. I am very sorry that the Minister, whom I normally praise for his replies, which are usually fulsome and effective and substantive, has avoided addressing those points, because they are crucially important and they have many aspects and it is important that those many aspects be investigated in the course of these debates in Committee. Obviously, I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope that none the less that we will force the Government to think seriously about these issues before carrying us further down a route which could make our already very expensive energy even more expensive.

Amendment 85I withdrawn.