Great British Energy Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 118 in my name would introduce a new clause which requires GB Energy and its partners to make only investments that make a positive contribution to nature recovery. As my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel rightly explained, the UK is facing both a climate and a nature crisis.

Nature recovery, the restoration of our country’s biodiversity and the climate are matters that are so closely interwoven. They cannot and should not be considered in a separate capacity. Therefore, if GB Energy is to be established in an effort to achieve clean energy by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions in an attempt to tackle climate change, GB Energy ought to operate in a way which looks to make a positive contribution to nature recovery.

The Government themselves recognised the ties between climate and nature recovery. Indeed, they were elected on a manifesto which said:

“The climate and nature crisis is the greatest long-term global challenge that we face”


and

“The climate crisis has accelerated the nature crisis”.


The omission of a nature recovery duty is another shortcoming of the Bill. Climate change and the loss of biodiversity both compound and reinforce one another. The Royal Society has acknowledged that a flourishing ecosystem has the ability to combat the effects of climate change. We know that the UK’s biodiversity is under serious threat, yet we know that natural habitats have a significant role to play in absorbing and storing carbon and regulating the climate.

Wildlife and Countryside Link has called for nature recovery to be put in the Bill and the amendment in my name would do just that. It recognises that restoration of the UK’s nature has the ability to provide up to a third of the climate mitigation effort that is required if we are to achieve net zero by 2050. Rightly, it describes the Government’s failure to include a nature recovery duty as a “missed opportunity”.

A nature recovery duty ought to be a general principle of GB Energy. It would hold the Government to account on the manifesto they were elected on. It would introduce a clear condition, ensuring that GB Energy and its partners operate in a way which seeks to contribute to the biodiversity targets introduced by the previous Government in the Environment Act.

Nature recovery must not be seen to inhibit the facilitation of the production, distribution and storage of clean energy. Instead, it must go hand in hand with the objectives of GB Energy, helping to protect and restore carbon-rich habitats. Indeed, it is complementary to the objectives of GB Energy surrounding clean energy generation and distribution.

We must be cautious that the establishment of this body to rapidly ramp up the installation and generation of renewable energy technologies does not adversely affect biodiversity in the UK. We must seek to mitigate the risk of further diminishing or undermining the UK’s natural assets. The amendment in my name would do just that by embedding a nature recovery duty into law.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 114 and 115. I agree very much with the spirit of the other amendments in this group. I say to the Minister that only one of my amendments is labelled as a probing amendment but they are both, in effect, probing amendments and I would not expect them to proceed beyond Committee as I have written them.

Amendment 114 is about national defence. Clearly, even since I wrote the amendment, this has become even more important in terms of offshore infrastructure, as we saw in the Baltic at the end of last year and following the serious shenanigans of “Eagle S”, the shadow Russian oil tanker which disrupted cables in the Baltic Sea, after which there was a NATO conference yesterday.

The purpose of this amendment is to hear from the Minister that GB Energy, in its offshore investments, will be plugged into the Ministry of Defence, and that the Ministry of Defence—which, if I may be slightly candid about it, has not always been positive about renewable energy onshore—will fully engage in these investments.

I think this is going to get more and more important. All sorts of technologies are coming out to ensure that, as soon as cables or pipelines are tampered with, it is quickly recognised and action can be taken. There is an Oral Question on this area in the House tomorrow, and I will be pressing more on the defence side, as we need to be a little more upfront in our reaction, as the Finns have been. I am really probing to see where that co-ordination with the Ministry of Defence is going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 118A, which covers wider considerations. Let me be clear: it is also a probing amendment, as are all the amendments in this interesting and diverse group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, for adding his support to my amendment, which is about ensuring that communities benefit directly from the renewable energy projects that Great British Energy undertakes. I put it forward to see whether that is possible and to ask, from the Government’s point of view, what barriers to that might exist.

My amendment would ensure that 5% of gross revenue from all Great British Energy

“renewable energy projects generating over one megawatt”,

both onshore and offshore, would

“be paid into community benefit funds”.

The idea for it came from the honourable Angus MacDonald MP’s experience with Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Community Benefits from Onshore Renewable Energy Developments. This guidance promotes community benefits of a value equivalent to £5,000 per installed megawatt per annum, index-linked for the operational lifetime of projects.

My amendment requires that:

“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out proposals for ensuring that local communities benefit from renewable energy projects undertaken by Great British Energy. The report … must set out, but is not limited to, proposals for 5% of the gross revenue from all such renewable energy projects generating over one megawatt to be paid into community benefit funds”.


I will not go into the rest of the details; the amendment is before noble Lords. It simply puts into the Bill that local communities should directly benefit from renewable energy undertaken, and that there is a mechanism available for doing that. On the 5% figure, I am happy to have a conversation with the Minister if it is an issue. I note that Denmark’s Law on the Promotion of Renewable Energy 2008 had a 20% figure, in relation to which 5% is a lot lower.

To talk more about the spirit of the amendment, this is really about helping disadvantaged communities, particularly those that are hosting our renewable energy. A lot of them are in the highlands and in Scotland. They disproportionately suffer from poor infrastructure and poor public services, and a lot of them are living in fuel poverty. They are putting up with having their landscapes covered in turbines, dams, electricity transmission lines, substations and all the rest of it. I support community energy, as everybody knows—I have spoken to it in two other amendments and will not go into it here—but this is about more than that. This is not a nice-to-have; in my opinion, this is an essential part of the energy transition. It is about ensuring the continued long-term support for this journey that we are undertaking as a society.

Recent opinion polls on these matters are really strong. Where local communities benefit from the energy infrastructure, particularly the infrastructure that they host, their support for this transition is much stronger and more resilient. If this support falls away, that could be the end of the whole transition and of all this, so this is not just about being fair and supporting the communities that need it most and that host this stuff. It is also about making sure that these things go on beyond one Government and one term, that they are here, that we manage to take society with us on this journey, and that those who are hosting things that other bits of society need benefit from them.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, I signal my support for Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I note that the Wildlife and Countryside Link put out a detailed briefing on that and why it needs to be there. I also support Amendments 114 and 115 in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson. I will not go into too much detail on that. As he said, there is an Oral Question on this tomorrow. It is unfortunate that we have had more recent incidents, not just in the Baltic but off the coast of Taiwan. Obviously, the UK has a number of electricity interconnectors and gas pipelines —we had a conversation about gas in the House this week—and they will only ever increase. New contracts have been signed. We have about 7.7 gigawatts at the moment, and that will rise to 18 gigawatts by 2032, so this is a crucial part of our energy security and our journey to net zero.

I would ask the Minister one thing. We can have conversations about the other aspects later on, but I am worried about the Government going away, stepping up their appreciation of this risk and maybe recalculating some of their calculations around the security of supply as we transition to net zero in 2030 and beyond. Is there is a greater need to look at some of those things again? We will talk about the rest tomorrow.

If the Committee will excuse me, the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, has left me a note. Does the Committee mind if I read that in support of my amendment?

These are his words: “My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 118A. I should first declare an interest as a director of two family-owned hydroelectric companies in Wester Ross. Having worked in the Treasury during the 1980s boom in North Sea revenues, I am all too conscious that Britain has a poor record in reinvesting the benefits of energy windfalls and an even worse record in passing on those benefits to communities directly affected by energy production. I think Shetland receives some money, but other places do not”.

“It is in the nature of renewable energy production that it tends to take place in remote areas. I am thinking in particular of the Highlands of Scotland, but the same applies to Cornwall, Devon, Wales and Cumbria. People living in these communities often have to live with negative aspects of renewable energy: towering windmills or hydroelectric schemes which change the natural environment and can particularly scar a hillside. Because of the remoteness, oil and gas and electricity connections cost more”.

“Successive Governments in Westminster and Edinburgh have supported the principle of requiring energy developers to support their local communities, and there have been some good examples of community investment. But practice is variable, and often contributions are set in cash terms and bear no relation to the subsequent success of renewable energy schemes. Great British Energy has a huge opportunity to lead by example in exercising best practice. By setting up community benefit as a fixed percentage of gross revenue, this amendment seeks to ensure communities benefit more fairly. A 5% contribution is relatively modest, as I understand it”—and he then goes on to make the Denmark point.

“Of course I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will agree to the amendment, but I have a feeling that he will argue that this amendment will cut across the operational independence of Great British Energy and that this Bill is the wrong vehicle for addressing community benefits. If that is the case, I would like to ask the Minister if he can go beyond fine words of general support for community benefits. Will he commit to setting out a clearer definition of what represents a reasonable and fair rate of community benefit for a given level of revenue for renewable energy projects?”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We certainly got the noble Lord’s point.

This has been an interesting debate with which to finish today’s proceedings. I start with Amendments 106, 107 and 115. The debate between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Hamilton, on the benefits of oil rigs and other structures for fish populations allows me to say that other energy infrastructure can also have a positive impact on nature. We know, for instance, that wind farms can coexist with farmland easily. We have examples of solar meadows, which is a practice of growing wildflower meadows on solar farms. I have heard talk of green corridors, where beautiful new pylons are built to extend the grid. I am not being facetious here, as we need to look at ways in which energy can contribute to nature recovery. It is an important point to make.

I agree on the importance of our coastal communities and commercial fishing, as reflected in Amendments 106 and 107. Amendment 115 would require GBE to consult annually with the commercial shipping sector and fishing industry. I would expect GBE to provide regular updates on its work on such issues through its annual reports and accounts. We know that the projects that Great British Energy is likely to be involved in will all be subject to relevant regulations, including environmental impact assessments. There will be statutory stakeholder engagement to understand the potential impact of development. In line with other energy developers, GBE will consider the impact and risk of its activity on the commercial shipping sector and fishing industry, as it will other affected stakeholders. I will draw these remarks to the attention of the chair of GBE, so he can understand the importance of the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, has raised.

In relation to coastal communities, there will be many opportunities in the energy sector in the future. We talked about the challenge of the North Sea transition. We obviously hope that, as jobs reduce in the oil and gas sector, the people involved can take up other jobs, some of which I hope will be in the wider energy sector. But overall, GBE has an important contribution to make in this area.

On Amendment 114, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised an important point on the Ministry of Defence and security agencies. Clearly, to ensure resilience, GBE will have to consider the impact and risk of its activity on offshore installation, including its pipeline and cable connections, within the context of relevant security regulations and hostile state action. It is a very important and serious matter. All nationally significant infrastructure projects, which include projects in the energy sector over 50 megawatts, undergo rigorous scrutiny to monitor and mitigate security risks. In the end, these decisions fall to Ministers to make in relation to development consent orders.

There was an interesting debate on air defence issues between the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Hamilton. I have to say that my department is working very closely with the Ministry of Defence on these issues. We are talking closely and working to ensure that our own offshore wind ambitions can coexist alongside air defence. MoD programme NJORD will deliver an enduring radar mitigation solution, which will prevent turbines from interfering with MoD radar systems. In the context of our more general working relationship with the Ministry of Defence, it will be a responsibility of GBE to consider and consult relevant stakeholders. My department will of course ensure that that happens appropriately.

Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, would place a nature recovery duty on Great British Energy. Let me say at once that we are absolutely committed to restoring and protecting nature and meeting our Environment Act targets. We want GBE to focus on its core mission to drive clean energy deployment, but I assure the noble Baroness that the projects that GBE invests in and encourages will be subject to all environmental and climate regulations, in the same way that every other company is.

I draw her attention to our recently published Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which dedicates an entire section to

“Integrating clean power and the natural environment”.


I was going to quote from it, but I do not think I need to do now. We are launching an engagement exercise in 2025 to invite communities, civil society and wider stakeholders to submit their ideas on how we can best encourage nature-positive best practice into energy infrastructure and development. Feedback from this exercise will allow the Government to better understand how we can integrate nature restoration through the clean power 2030 mission. We very much agree with the substance of what the noble Baroness said.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

As the Minister will know, terrestrially, there is now biodiversity net gain, which came through the Environment Act and is applied to terrestrial developments. I do not think this is for the largest of them yet, but that is due to happen. I understand it is the Government’s intention to introduce marine biodiversity net gain regulations. I presume GBE will be subject to those.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to have to take advice on that as I do not have the information. However, if there are regulations which apply to companies, GBE will be expected to comply, and to act consistently with general government policy towards biodiversity. I will write to him about that in some detail.

On community benefits, I take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords. In our manifesto, we committed to ensuring that communities which live near new clean energy infrastructure projects can directly benefit from them. We are considering at the moment how to effectively deliver community benefits for those who live near new energy infrastructure, which includes new energy generation and transmission technology. We are developing guidance on community benefits for electricity transmission network infrastructure and onshore wind, which we will be publishing in due course. We are also reviewing our overall approach to community benefits, both to ensure consistency and quality and to ensure that communities are properly recognised and are able to come with us on our net zero and clean power journey. This includes looking to existing examples in Europe and further afield to see what has worked elsewhere. I look forward to updating the House on our approach to community benefits shortly.

The role of Great British Energy has been set out in its founding statement, and our commitment to putting local communities at the heart of the energy transition is a very strong component of what we are doing. The local power plan will support local communities to take a stake in the shift to net zero, as owners and partners in clean energy projects. They are important in themselves, as there is a huge appetite in many localities for community power, engagement and involvement. I agree that seeing a tangible benefit for local communities is important in itself, but it is also growing general support for the move to clean power and net zero, which is very important indeed.

We take the noble Lord’s point. It is clearly important, we are working on the details and will be publishing further information in due course. In my first week as a Minister in the department, I visited Biggleswade onshore windfarm, a small windfarm with 12 turbines. The company there is voluntary and there is a good practice trade guideline of paying £40,000 a year to the local community for such things as the local parish church, the community hall and other things. It was really good to see and is an example of what can happen.