Great British Energy Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall talk briefly to Amendment 1, because I probably disagree with it rather more strongly than my Front-Bench colleague. That list of objectives is more a list of government objectives than company objectives. It seems absolutely impossible that the company could ever satisfy its objective to reduce energy costs in the UK in a sustainable way in its own right. That seems inappropriate, in that it would not be able to meet those objectives.

I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that it is extremely unfortunate that we do not understand or know what the statement of strategic priorities is. That is the fault and that is the problem. On Amendment 1, I do not believe the company, with a budget of £8 billion, would be able in any way to meet all those objectives. I say also to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I agree with her and I do not think my noble friend Lord Russell would expect that amendment to be part of the Bill. As he said, it is a probing amendment to understand what the Government’s position is on that amount of money into the future.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in this first amendment, because the four objectives outlined are highly relevant. In particular, I shall focus on the second objective, energy security, where maintaining a balanced mix of electricity generation is crucial. As we know, this includes baseload nuclear, renewables, gas and supplementary power by interconnectors.

My primary concern, as will not surprise your Lordships, is gas. It is essential not only to continue production from our existing North Sea fields but to allow further exploration and development in order that we may discover more. At this point, I very much thank the Minister for the time we spent last week discussing this item.

I think it is relevant to point out that, according to research from the Library, the UK’s indigenous gas supply still met 43% of our national demand in 2023, covering electricity generation as well as commercial and domestic needs. However, to bridge the shortfall, we rely on imports from two main sources: Norway, which supplies 32% of our pipeline but faces a growing political and resource pressures due to the European energy crisis; and the United States, which provides 15% through LNG, with other countries contributing less than 5% each.

The environmental impact of importing gas is significant. As of 2022, emissions from Norwegian imports were 50% higher than those from UK production, while LNG imports from the United States generated more than 3.5 times the emissions. Additionally, electricity accounts for only 25% to 30% of the UK’s total energy demand, with the remainder still dependent on fossil fuels. Many of these same arguments can be used for the continued production of oil, even though it is not, I am glad to say, used in electricity generation.

Given these facts, it is imperative that we continue to utilise the UK’s own resources by lifting the current pause on oil and gas exploration and production. I realise that this is slightly counterintuitive but, by doing so, we can assist the growth agenda, protect our jobs in the North Sea, reduce unnecessary imports, prevent higher global emissions and avoid shifting the environmental burden on to other nations. This amendment will very much assist the objectives of Great British Energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. As I said, it is not my job to defend what Drax does. I am asked not to do that but to hold its feet to the fire on the sustainability questions relating to the sourcing. With regard to the life cycle analysis, Drax has an obligation to report the life cycle emissions of the power station, and the regulator scrutinises that reporting.

On the question of emissions from the stack at the UK power station, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, under the UNFCCC accounting system, the accounting for those carbon losses are in the source country, not in the consumer country. Whether that is sensible is a matter for debate, but the fact is that the US has to declare the loss of carbon, and therefore in the UK’s accounting that counts as zero because the US has already accounted for it. Many people think that the consumer, not the producer, should have to account for it. It is not my part to adjudicate on that debate, but it is a perfectly valid debate to have.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we seem to have gone into Committee mode.

I want to talk briefly to Amendment 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to which I have added my name. It is important never to forget that there are those issues in rural communities. I also am on oil, I regret to say. In Northern Ireland, 50% of households are dependent on oil and only 33% are connected to the grid. It is an important area, and I very much support the spirit of that amendment.

I also want to talk very briefly to Amendment 7, which is about adding “nuclear energy” to the list in Clause 3. I do not understand this amendment because Clause 3(2)(b) on the list refers to

“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels”—

that must include nuclear—and Clause 3(2)(d) refers to

“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.

I would have thought that the nuclear sector would say it met both those objects. To add nuclear energy to that list would suggest that it does not meet the other two criteria, so that seems totally counterproductive.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. I will make two very brief points.

My first point is on nuclear and the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, just spoke to, which was brought before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. She made a great point; it is all about that statement of intent from the Government. The only other point I add is that, as regards Great British Energy, we need to think about not only the benefits in terms of the nuclear power stations but capturing that broader benefit for the economy of all the supply chains associated with it. The components, fuels, pumps, rods, control, drive mechanisms—that all requires investment in factories and infrastructure to capture the full economic benefit for the UK. I hope that perhaps Great British Energy could get involved in that, alongside Great British Nuclear.

My second point is around energy security. To follow on from something I raised in Committee, we have clear definitions for much of the terminology in Clause 3 but we do not have a clear definition there for energy security. I raise that because it can mean different things to different people. I think the Government are very focused on fuel security—gas and reducing our reliance on fossil gas. But of course there are many other aspects to energy security: there is cybersecurity, physical security, system reliability and price predictability. It is important to fully define that term so that stakeholders are not left guessing about what is really in the remit of Great British Energy. When summing up, can the Minister commit to having, certainly in the statement of strategic priorities, a firmer definition of what we mean by security of supply?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support the Government’s Amendment 8. It is good that the Government have introduced this amendment so that Great British Energy can facilitate, encourage and participate in local community energy projects. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the work he has done on this, as well as a number of different campaigning organisations and other Members of your Lordships’ House. This is a very important amendment, and it will be a great help to a whole range of different community organisations.

I also support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in pressing the Minister about the community energy fund. Some reassurance there would be very helpful.

Village halls, sports centres, voluntary youth organisations and churches could all benefit from being able to generate local energy for local people. I certainly see the potential for our churches, which have wonderful south-facing roofs. With the planning consent given to King’s College Chapel in Cambridge to have solar panels and other landmark projects such as York Minister and Salisbury Cathedral, there are new opportunities emerging.

I warn your Lordships that, if you are ever invited to go to a dedication of solar panels on a church roof, just beware. When I went to dedicate the solar panels on the roof of St Peter Mancroft church in the centre of Norwich back in September, a very observant member of the public rang 999, saying that a youth was stealing lead off the roof. When I came down, having dedicated the solar panels, I had to answer to two local police officers who had turned up—it was a great compliment to be called a youth, though.

This is important work for community groups and the charitable sector to be able to contribute to their local communities in new ways, particularly in areas of low economic activity, and to provide income for their sustainability. There is a challenge that I wanted the Minister to be aware of, however. The connection charge that is asked for to upgrade the electricity connection to many churches and community centres often prohibits them being able to do this sort of work. In the diocese I serve, St Margaret’s church in Lowestoft has just been quoted a sum of around £100,000 to make the connection. That means that the project is just unaffordable, so we need to be creative and think more about how community groups can be able to engage.

But I warmly support the Government bringing forward their Amendment 8.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the Government’s amendment. I would also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on her work to get her amendment there, which I think added pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has made a very good point. It may be something that will carry on in other Bills as we go through the Session.

I want to talk briefly about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. There is some truth in it, but I think it is an amendment in the wrong Bill. This whole area of land use will come in when the Government finally bring forward their land use legislation. I would point out that onshore wind has a very small footprint in terms of agricultural land. If we had that 20-mile radius, I am thinking of the first field south of London that has, perhaps, a very modest wind farm or a single turbine. It would probably require a consultation with some 5 million people for that one turbine. So, I think it is the wrong place and the wrong amendment for this Bill, and it discriminates against certain parts of renewable energy. There is something in it in relation to land use that does need to be pursued, but perhaps in a Bill to come later in this parliamentary Session.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I have glad tidings for the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding her concerns. There are between 23 million and 27 million homes in this country still using gas for heating, cooking and warmth. Clearly, that has to be tackled. The answer is quite simple, but complicated as well. The answer is that modern electric boilers can replace all those gas boilers, without having to dig and provide new hydrogen pipes and all sorts of other such complications.

The snag is that electricity is so hopelessly expensive. That is the deterrent. Here we are, wishing to transform millions of homes away from gas, and the pipes then will all become redundant. We can put in modern electric boilers, which can do the job just as well, but the cost goes up rapidly. If only we could focus on how to reduce the cost of electricity by building rapidly—which we are not doing—the cheaper, smaller modular reactors and cheaper devices for producing electricity, and even using more hydrogen on the electricity side; that is another story that we have not really discussed. Even on that basis, we are facing the problem that electricity is very expensive. As long as we keep it that way, as long as we play that game in relation to the overall energy cost, we are shooting ourselves busily in both feet.

--- Later in debate ---

Just briefly on Amendment 19, we are supportive of it, although I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has said she will not call a vote on it. But on the deforestation point, will the Minister kindly say whether government Amendment 38 would be relevant here?

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment and, like others, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his long-time work on this crucial area. On supply chains, those companies involved in fitting solar or anything else in this area should really be concerned about their supply chain in terms of scope 3 emissions, where they have to track their supply chain backwards, so I would hope that was also a method to check means of manufacture as well. I am also very sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 18 is a simple yet essential safeguard that ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has long stood against forced labour and exploitation. If we are serious about a just and ethical transition to clean energy, we must ensure that Great British Energy, a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards. There is a clear precedent for this approach. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains, yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in the sourcing of solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt.

This amendment does not create unnecessary bureaucracy or hinder investment; it simply ensures that taxpayers’ money does not fund exploitation. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. It is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risk for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, supporting this amendment strengthens the integrity of Great British Energy. aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations and sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.