Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Viscount Trenchard]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (n)

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on obtaining a Committee stage debate for his Bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in this House, although I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that the obsessive determination of both the last Government and this one to eliminate fossil fuels too quickly, particularly gas, has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example, household electricity in the UK is 42% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the United States. As for industrial electricity, UK prices are two and a half times as much as the equivalents in both France and the US.

The comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear and the UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much of that from France. I did not speak at Second Reading on 18 October but the contribution to that debate by my noble friend Lord Blencathra is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said:

“Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects ‘to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government’. I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that”.—”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 397.]


My Amendment 2 seeks to exempt Great British Nuclear—weirdly and misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as Great British Energy-Nuclear, or GBE-N—from the duty to adhere to the environmental targets laid out in the Bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE-N was a mistake and that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE-N into GBE at the time of GBE’s establishment. I say that the renaming is misleading because it gives the impression that GBE-N is being brought under GBE’s umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming.

Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bill many of us lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects, principally wind and solar, whereas GBE-N does not have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I move this amendment not out of disregard for the environment but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The Bill sets ambitious and admirable goals but, in its current form, it risks entangling Great British Energy-Nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence.

Nuclear energy is not merely an option; it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. However, as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear are finely balanced. The upfront capital costs are at present extraordinarily high. Each new gigawatt-scale power station costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest.

I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such huge projects are always going to need public sector support. To subject Great British Energy-Nuclear to further regulatory obligations under the Bill beyond what it already faces from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and, worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment.

Let us be clear: nuclear energy is not on a level playing field with other low-carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade through contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs and other mechanisms. Nuclear, by contrast, is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions and is simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources but not nuclear projects?

The result of that is that UK-developed new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas, which, fortified with massive subsidies from foreign Governments, particularly the US, are coming over here and driving out UK-originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially.

Furthermore, nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning, the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability; to the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all.

I say this not out of a lack of concern for the environment but because we must think strategically. Nuclear energy is, after all, one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long term. Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable low-carbon grid. The Government have rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt-scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit, it must not be hobbled by duplicative environmental targets that add cost without adding value.

Furthermore, I remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body. It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is measured not in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose, therefore, that we either exempt Great British nuclear entirely or create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure.

Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand in hand. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing his amendment, which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the Bill. I just remind noble Lords that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seeks to install an environmental recovery obligation and adaptation for public bodies to help meet our targets under the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and make an exception for that particular body which does not apply to any of the other 29 listed public bodies that are named in the Bill. For the noble Viscount’s argument to be successful, an argument needs to be put forward that Great British Nuclear is in a particular situation that is separate to all the other bodies named in the Bill, such that it has a specific, cast-iron case to be removed from the provisions in the Private Member’s Bill before us today.

I have not heard that argument, so, in short, I do not support this amendment—rather the opposite. I remind noble Lords that only the other week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield talking about the intolerable risks there. There is a £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This Government have no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and are unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest. That is in sharp contrast with the announcement of a nuclear renaissance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing forward this amendment and all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. I will not speak at length, because I can make my point very briefly.

At Second Reading, I pointed out that there are two classic objections to the proposals in my Bill: on the one hand, they are unnecessary; on the other, they are too burdensome. Both cannot be true at the same time. Yet it seemed to me that in the debate we have just had, the point was made that the nuclear industry, of which I am in full support, is very tightly regulated, therefore, this additional layer of regulation is unnecessary. On the other hand, we heard that this additional layer of regulation would be too burdensome and impose duties on the nuclear industry that would discourage investment. Both simply cannot be true. If it is doing it anyway, it cannot be burdensome; if it is not doing it anyway, maybe it needs a bit of extra burden.

In truth, when we look at what the Government’s website says about GBE-N, we see that it says that it will deliver the Government’s long-term nuclear energy programme and support the UK’s energy security and contribute to our net-zero targets—so tick the box, job done. It is already contributing to net zero.

One of the other tasks that GBE-N will have, alongside the competition to build up to three SMRs, is, along with Rolls-Royce, to choose the sites where the SMRs are to be built. Those choices will have environmental implications. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, when those choices are made, that they should reflect the targets in the Environment Act. If they were clearly going to be detrimental to the target of reversing the decline in species diversity by 2030, it would be reasonable for GBE-N and Rolls-Royce to be asked to think again.

So, although I have heard an argument for removing GBE-N from the list of public authorities, I am not convinced by it—although I will take it away and think about it further. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, and I thank the House for the thoughtful and considered attention that it has given to my amendment.

Let me conclude by returning to the core principle that underpins this amendment. We simply cannot deliver a cheap, reliable and secure energy future without nuclear power generation. It is therefore essential that we increase Britain’s nuclear capacity. Unlike the intermittent technologies so generously backed by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides what no other low-carbon technology currently can: reliable baseload power. It offers inertia to stabilise our grid and consistency to underpin our economy and long-term energy security that does not depend on the weather or foreign imports. It does all this while requiring substantially less new grid infrastructure than widely dispersed solar and wind installations. The more new nuclear we have, the less we need to erect ugly pylons in our beautiful countryside.

Yet we are not on track. As things stand, Britain will not have small modular reactors connected to the grid until the 2030s. That is not a criticism of the technology but a reflection of government hesitation—hesitation that stands in stark contrast to the headlong rush to achieve clean power by 2030, relying almost entirely on intermittent renewables and simultaneously dismantling our domestic oil and gas capacity in the North Sea.

We also need to explore the urgent need to accelerate the commercial development of so-called AMR technologies, some of which—such as the Japanese high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, whose prototype was developed at Winfrith in Dorset in 1965 as the Dragon reactor—are proven to be inherently safe. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I regret the reduction in the funds committed to GBE; it makes it all the more unlikely that Great British Energy will have any funding available for nuclear projects. I thank my noble friend Lord Effingham for his strong support and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for agreeing to write to me about changes to the corporate structures of both GBE and GBE-N.

It is true that nuclear projects are strictly regulated from a safety point of view. I say that in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said that it could not be true both that nuclear was overregulated, so it should be easy to comply with these additional regulations, and that it was underregulated, meaning that increasing the regulation would make the UK seem a less attractive destination for investment. I think that both are true. It is true that, from a safety point of view, nuclear projects and nuclear power stations are regulated extremely strictly, but the environmental regulations are a different type of regulation. The environmental and planning-related regulations are an additional burden with which GBE-N is not, at present, expecting to have to comply; they would represent an additional burden to investment in nuclear projects.

With my gratitude to the Minister and other noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will take this amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and accept it. I also hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and listen carefully to the concerns I have highlighted today and take them away for consideration. I am not content to see our canals become no-go zones and neglected urban areas. I hope noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow’s amendment, which is not inconsistent with my previous amendment seeking to exempt a particular public body from the list affected by the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I also support my noble friend’s desire to include another public body. But the conditions of the two public bodies are inherently different. Great British Energy-Nuclear is in a hugely different and uniquely difficult position, whereas I agree entirely with my noble friend that it is regrettable that the Canal & River Trust has removed bins.

Our towpaths, river communities and waterways are an essential part of our community. Think of a family who are out for a walk along a canal with three or four children eating bags of crisps and ice creams. Where can they put all the litter? It is not realistic to expect all of them to carry it all home in huge bags. The removal of the litterbins by the Canal & River Trust is hugely regrettable. For that reason and the others put forward by my noble friend, I support his amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I am very conscious that the next debate is waiting to begin. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his amendment, and mainly for the degree of clarity it gave me on the status of the Canal & River Trust. According to the ONS, it is a public non-financial corporation as well as a charity, an interesting status that I have never come across before.

There is huge scope for debate about what goes on and comes off the list, although I would prefer it to be mostly about what goes on it. I will give another example to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who rightly pointed out that mayoral authorities should be on the list. I will make the case for one particularly important body, for which I should have tabled an amendment. If the Bill proceeds further, I will table an amendment to bring the newly created National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—on to the list. It has been set up to implement the 10-year national infrastructure strategy. It will have a key influence on land use and development, and their impact on climate and environment targets.

Under its memorandum of understanding, I believe that it has inherited—although it is very difficult to track this down—the climate change duties from one of its predecessor bodies, but it is not clear whether it has any duties towards the environmental and biodiversity targets. It is very important that this hugely impactful infrastructure role be brought on to the list. I do not believe that the Government can achieve both the climate change and the biodiversity and other environmental targets if bodies such as NISTA are not tasked with pulling their weight on this when exercising their powers and delivering their primary objectives. I believe that bodies can walk, talk and chew gum and that the future of this planet, this nation and this economy depends on all public bodies learning to do that. It is possible.