Great British Energy Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including in solar and wind energy development and ownership, as well as as an investor in energy-related equities and as a farmer and lands manager.

I shall speak in particular to Amendment 80 in the name of my noble friend Lord Petitgas, but also support Amendments 85A in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the amendments listed in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. These amendments put detail to the questions I posed to the Government, in my response to His Majesty’s gracious Address, regarding financial reporting and accountability.

Great British Energy is tasked with investing taxpayers’ money to allow taxpayers to benefit from the financial returns from the energy transition, as well as to accelerate and stimulate that transition. It must be right, as with any publicly listed company, that the company is accountable to its owners for its performance. That requires high-quality financial reporting. Listed companies report unaudited financials quarterly and audited annual reports—which also include carbon emissions accountability, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out. The first effect of Amendment 80 would be to bring GB Energy in line with those requirements.

The second effect would be to introduce a more granular analysis of the returns from each investment. This is usual with investment trusts and common in private equity. I see no reason why GB Energy should not report in equally great detail. Fully commercial organisations may choose not to do so to protect commercial confidentiality. However, in GB Energy’s case, it must be desirable to highlight where returns are the greatest in order to direct more private sector capital into those areas and help achieve the primary purposes.

It is also essential that GB Energy is fully accountable to Parliament on an individual investment basis, as well as holistically. This is taxpayers’ money, which could have been used to avoid destroying farmers’ and family businesses’ desire to invest and grow. That places a heavy burden of responsibility for GB Energy to perform well. The Minister may suggest that this is too expensive and cumbersome, but I point out that listed companies measured in the tens of millions of pounds are well able to comply without issue. GB Energy appears unlikely to be an operating company but more of an investment company. That should make these obligations straightforward to comply with, while ensuring that its investee companies and projects also have to keep accurate and timely books to allow GB Energy to comply.

The Minister may suggest that UK company registration requirements to lodge accounts are enough, as has been said in previous groups. Anyone familiar with those accounts will know that they tend to be published around nine months after the close of the financial year, are annual only and contain the least possible information to comply with registration requirements. There is little here that can be helpful in assessing performance.

Amendment 80 creates financial and climate reporting discipline that will then have to be extended throughout the organisation, to all of the investee companies, to everyone’s advantage. Examples of successful government investment in the private sector are hard to find. If this Government are confident that this will be the unicorn, surely the Minister will welcome the amendment, which will create many opportunities to showcase that success.

I also add my voice to Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, and I have many of the same concerns as my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. While this may almost seem like stating the obvious, there are a number of issues around grid connection, and I would be most grateful if the Minister could update us with progress. The first is the issue of nameplate grid capacity. Does the National Grid’s £35 billion investment plan from 2026 to 2031 fully address this need? And, given the increase in the UK Government’s borrowing costs and likely impact on UK companies, does the Minister anticipate any refinancing requirements to build out this transition?

The second is the human capacity of distribution network operators to work through projects with developers, to plan and deliver the grid connection. I understand there is a lack of capacity in this area and it is possible that DNOs could be prioritising their own projects at the expense of third parties. They do not appear to be meeting obligations, which is costing developers millions in delays and cost increases. I understand the bottleneck is largely human capital, which exists in Europe but of which there is not enough in the UK. The Minister has discussed training in previous groups, but would it not be also wise to fast-track visa applications for skilled operatives? Is the Minister confident that his Government have a plan that can deliver beyond 2030, as anecdotally the grid queue analysis and action that has been taken appear to have sacrificed confidence in developments beyond that timeframe in order to meet 2030 commitments?

Under the national electricity system consultation, I understand developers have been given only three weeks to consult on up to 16 documents per project. These developers need to see more resources and more evidence of planning beyond that timeframe in order to keep a strong project pipeline alive. Can the Minister update the House on the impact these actions have had on the developer community? Is he satisfied that the capital and talent are still available in that sector to meet his Government’s objectives?

I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s comments on the sustainability of biofuels. Displacement of food production in favour of growing energy crops risks causing higher prices for everyone. I draw the Minister’s attention to the US blending mandate, which has been in place for several decades and has led to around a quarter of the US corn production going into bioethanol for blending with gasoline. This has had a structural impact on food prices around the world and simply displaces one problem into another.

I disagree with my noble friend Lord Hamilton on green hydrogen, unfortunately, as its cost simply seems to be too high for most applications. Around one-third of the energy is lost in electrolysing water into green hydrogen, and another third is lost in turning it back into electricity, giving it a structural disadvantage versus other forms of energy.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I want to offer a slightly different perspective on this group of amendments. All the amendments in this group, and indeed some later groups, involve a series of rather worthy things—for which there are to be reports or other consequences—to be achieved by giving a direction to Great British Energy. While I support the amendments on the basis that they are probing amendments, I find it difficult to support the structure of the amendments themselves.

It seems to me that, by using the power of direction in Clause 6, the amendments would undermine the nature of that power and subvert the effectiveness of the power of direction, which is a long-standing feature of the control framework for public corporations. Powers of direction for nationalised industries were commonplace when nationalisation took hold from the 1940s onward. I do not know whether they existed before that, but they certainly have a pedigree of nearly 80 years. The first one of which I am aware is in relation to the Bank of England Act 1946, which nationalised the Bank of England. They have been a feature of public body legislation ever since, except in relation to bodies which are created as regulatory bodies.

The power of direction was never conceived as a mechanism for giving routine instructions to public bodies, which is what all the amendments in this group and the subsequent groups are trying to do. In fact, throughout the history of nationalised industries, the power of direction has almost certainly not been used. In relation to the Bank of England, I asked the previous Government fairly recently whether they would like to give up the power of direction over the Bank of England and whether they had used it since 1946; the answer was that they had never used it since 1946, but they definitely wanted to keep it. The fact that a power has not been used does not necessarily have any meaning, because it is designed as a backstop power for use in extreme circumstances. The mere fact of its existence can be a powerful weapon in the hands of the Government of the day.

It should be an uncontested fact that the Government ultimately call the shots in relation to public corporations, however much operational independence they claim to be handing over to them when they set the bodies up. The board of a public body should be very wary of not following the wishes of the Government of the day, unless those wishes conflict with their legal and statutory objectives.

I will always defend the ability of the Government to give directions to a public body, because public bodies should not be above the Government of the day. I think there are far too many public bodies, but if we have to have them, we must have an effective power of telling them what to do when necessary. I would definitely not want that core power to be diluted by being cluttered up with a lot of more day-to-day matters, which is partly what the amendments in this group and subsequent amendments do.

The concerns of my noble friend on the Front Bench and indeed other noble Lords who have drafted these amendments would be better met by placing specific requirements in the Bill, rather than by cluttering up the power of direction which has a very special place in the control framework for public bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, it must be maddening for the Minister that a Bill specifically designed to exclude investment in the nuclear sector keeps on dragging back to the nuclear sector. This is for the obvious reason that these issues are completely and utterly inseparable. Investment in the energy sector generally has got to take account of all the different aspects, and nuclear is obviously one of them.

The Minister raised the question yet again of Sizewell C being a replica, and obviously he thinks I am being very boring on this, but can I plead with him to go back to his department and point out the obvious fallacies in the whole replica concept? If Sizewell C were to go ahead, it would be being constructed in the late 2020s and the early 2030s, probably for completion and producing kilowatts in the late 2030s or later. That will be approximately 25 years beyond the original design of Hinkley C, which was originally conceived under the Blair/Brown Government in the late 2010s.

Everyone in the civil nuclear sector knows that this is a highly fluid situation in which technology is rapidly developing and is going to create, along with the arrival of new things such as AI, a completely new set of designs, which will mean that by the late 2020s the Hinkley design will be frankly out of date. The idea that something that is 20 years old should be replicated is absurd in any advanced technology, and particularly absurd when it comes to electricity generation and civil nuclear power. If one just thinks about it for a moment, one will realise the replica argument carries absolutely no weight at all. I very much hope that any new nuclear installations—whether 300, 500 or gigawatt size—are definitely not going to be a replica of what has occurred at Hinkley C.

This is a view that is held very widely in France, where they say this design is unbuildable and should never be repeated, and it is the view of many other technicians involved in new nuclear development, which I strongly welcome in all sorts of shapes and sizes, but the idea that we should build a replica 20 years after the last one is frankly absurd. Please would the Minister go back to his department and point this out?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in this group. It is clear from this and other groups that the mood of the Committee is in favour of fuller accountability to this House of the activities of GB Energy. This is not micromanaging; it is simply accountability and transparency. How the actions that are taken by GB Energy are directed, as is addressed by Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and addressed more fully in Amendment 87 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is an essential part of that.

Financial markets have periods of irrational exuberance where greed triumphs over caution and experience. Most recently, we have seen the ill-fated wave of SPACs: special purpose acquisition companies. They are generally launched with great excitement and fanfare and with very loose objectives and end in disappointment. GB Energy is clearly a serious undertaking and its chances of success will be greatly aided by rigorous discipline and concentration of force. Applying strong parliamentary oversight of its directions can only aid that.

Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and Amendment 86A in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, will help in the rigour of those directions. The clause as drafted is simply too vague, as has been pointed out by other noble Lords. There is great and relevant knowledge in the five bodies nominated between these two amendments. It would seem essential for all directions that the Secretary of State should access this knowledge to ensure that these directions are as beneficial as possible.

I ask the Minister: how specific do his Government intend those directions to be? Will they prioritise jobs, bills, net zero or the commerciality of GB Energy itself? Having such directions is vital to ensure that GB Energy does not drift off course and stays aligned with the Government’s will. But the risk of conflicting objectives is confusion and muddle.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I do not support Amendments 66 and 87 in this group, for similar reasons to those that I gave on the first group that we debated today, in that they would weaken the role of the power of direction. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the fourth report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I am not sure that that report stands up to close scrutiny. It is a very brief report with relatively little argumentation, and it is difficult to understand what the underlying logic really was. I suspect that the committee did not fully take account of the historical role of powers of direction in relation to public corporations, and it may well have reached a conclusion on the basis of a partial understanding of the role of public corporation powers of direction as they are designed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I sympathise with the amendments on land use put down by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He wishes to ensure that in this very densely populated country of England we use our limited available land wisely. England—not the UK—is, I think, the fifth or sixth most densely populated country in the world. That includes countries such as Singapore, which are, in essence, city states. So, it is right that we use our land wisely: per head of population, we do not have much of it. Furthermore, as I have said on several occasions, it is the primary duty of any Government to ensure that they can feed their subjects. I believe that the food agenda comes as high as—if not higher—than the defence agenda, although they are clearly very closely interlinked.

However—I am sure noble Lords could all sense a “but” coming down the line, though I shall try to be gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, as he requested—I am not certain that this is the right way to approach this issue. Land use must be planned in the round. We all need to step back and examine our needs from land as a whole, which include food, biodiversity, flood relief, forestry, access for leisure and health, much-needed housing and of course energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, including me, have been banging on about this for several years now. We need a land use framework in the round. I am afraid that a uni-purpose focus such as found in the noble Lord’s amendments, however sensible it may seem in today’s circumstances and business, can only limit our ability to sensibly plan a wider, step-back, more holistic strategy.

For a start, circumstances may change. I see our land use framework as a constant work in progress as the world changes around us. Such changes may include the way our food is produced, the latest imminent threats from foreign countries or the importance of energy to our economy—thus, in this context, the ever-changing balance between food security and energy security.

While today the priority of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is clearly food security over energy, it may be that in the future grade 3 land, for instance, is superfluous to our food security and better off focused on biodiversity or energy. I am afraid that I am not able to support these amendments, however much as a retired farmer I sympathise with their very good intentions.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 67, 73, 104 and 105, which I have also signed. I first congratulate him on a polished and passionate introduction to his first amendments.

Amendments 67 and 104 would prevent GB Energy supporting renewable energy projects on, or owning, land that is grade 1, 2 or 3 to prevent the loss of good agricultural land. Amendments 73 and 105 would encourage GB Energy to pursue developments on land that has designations of grade 4 or 5 or on non-agricultural land.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects that have been signed by our Secretary of State have already had a detrimental impact on our best and most versatile farmland. In answer to my Written Question on 2 December about the agricultural impact of the Cottam, Mallard Pass and Gate Burton solar farms, the Minister—who is sitting in his place and is also doing such an able job of shepherding this Bill through this House and Committee—stated:

“For each of these cases, the Examining Authorities’ Reports have been published alongside the Secretary of State’s Decision Letters”,


so I had to find the answers myself. The examining authorities are clear that best and most versatile land, including grade 2, is being lost to existing solar developments. It seems hasty that some of the largest and most controversial solar developments appear to be being signed off with little or no weighting given to the quality of the land or food security. The justification seems to be that the land will be returned to agriculture after 30 or so years, as my noble friend pointed out. Unfortunately, we need to eat for those 30 years.

At Cottam, 5% of the area was best and most versatile land. The report said

“according to the ExA, the Proposed Development would not meet the requirements of the NPPF in this regard and subsequently accorded this a negative weighting”.

At Mallard Pass, 40.7% of this project was best and most versatile land, with the remaining 56% grade 3b —so captured by this amendment but not by “best and most versatile”. The report said

“the ExA acknowledges that there is a corresponding degree of conflict with the Government’s Food Strategy aim of broadly maintaining domestic production at current level, and that there is a potential higher agricultural yield and associated economic benefit from the farming of BMV land that would be lost”.

In answer to my Oral Question prior to Christmas, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, conceded that the Sunnica project had a negative albeit slight impact on farming. In answer to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble Baroness stated that grades 1 and 2 farmland were not being developed for solar. As my research has demonstrated, this is not entirely true for important grade 2 farmland nor for grade 3a.

It is clear from these examples that the Government’s goal of energy security from renewable energy trumps food security every time. I ask the Minister two questions: with so much land of grade 4 and below in the UK, including in areas with strong solar radiation, why is the Secretary of State so eager to approve sites which undermine our food security? Why are the Government not being straight that this is happening? I had to dig for some time to answer these questions after the replies I was given. Are the Government seeking to hide the embarrassing details of these actions? Research from SolarQ demonstrates that solar development is falling disproportionately on grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and underproportionately on weaker grades. Why is this?

The proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework would remove the protection for agricultural land for food production, simply requiring that poorer land be preferred. Given that the current NPPF is already undermining best and most versatile land use, weakening its protection makes a bad situation worse and makes my noble friend Lord Fuller’s amendments even more important.

At present, it seems that this Government will approve any renewable energy project development that anyone cares to put forward, without an overall strategy for where those projects are best placed. Our Government began development of a land use framework that would help inform and clarify this decision-making. The current Government have committed to continuing this work and publishing that framework in the not-too-distant future; I believe consultation is expected to begin at the end of this month. That would allow for an open discussion about our priorities and a rational process for determining where we want our solar and wind energy infrastructure to make sure that each of our limited and precious acres is put to its best use.

It is clear that our best farmland is not being treasured or protected by the Government and it is critical that we use every opportunity to protect it. In the Great British Energy Bill, we have the chance with these amendments to prevent at least part of the industry pursuing damaging developments that are not in our national interest.

I hope the Minister will see the wisdom of putting these protections in the Bill. Would he be willing in his department’s involvement in the land use frame-work also to ensure that renewable energy project development happens on our least agriculturally productive land?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments pick up the right issue but produce the wrong solution. There is no doubt about it: we need the land use framework to come forward very swiftly to avoid the sort of piecemeal decision-making that we are hearing about, not only on food security and energy but on all sorts of other issues.

To try to task GB Energy with this role is entirely the wrong approach, because the reality is that GB Energy is simply a medium-sized company aimed at investing in a comparatively small number of projects, and again would be a very partial solution to these big dilemmas about how we use the very scarce land we have at our disposition in this country. I want the Minister to press his colleagues in other government departments, because we require a multi-department land use framework that will take a multifunctional look at how we use land. We need not just to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which will also talk about locational issues and land use in respect of energy; that spatial plan must be nested within the land use framework, and it is increasingly pressing that it comes forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked us to be gentle with him. I will say very gently that in this House we do not talk for 12 minutes on an amendment.