Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly address Amendment 113 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. I declare my interest in the ownership of salmon fishing rivers.

Proposals that I have seen in the past for energy generated from tidal turbines have tended to be located where currents are strongest. By definition, this is where sea movement is constricted by narrower channels —between islands, between islands and the mainland, in estuaries or on prominent headlands around which currents and tides race. These locations are precisely where the movements of migratory fish species such as salmon and sea trout, as well as saltwater species, will be concentrated. The wild Atlantic salmon is already an IUCN red list species and the greatest of care must be taken with any further risk to the survival of every individual fish, given that the species is so threatened.

For these reasons, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and those of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, which he and my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford have spoken to very convincingly. I urge the Minister to take these concerns seriously and consider incorporating environmental protections in this Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this first group of amendments has led to an interesting discussion that went somewhat wider than I expected.

Amendments 111 and 112 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and Amendment 113 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, would require the Secretary of State to assess the environmental and animal welfare impacts of Great British Energy projects. Amendments 111 and 112 relate to offshore wind energy projects and the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas structures, respectively, involving Great British Energy. Amendment 113 relates to Great British Energy’s offshore tidal energy projects. Under each of these amendments, if, following assessments, significant environmental damage or animal welfare issues are identified, Great British Energy must cease these activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, started by referring to the partnership agreed between Great British Energy and the Crown Estate. He is right that we see great potential in this for our 2030 ambition for offshore wind at between 43 and 50 gigawatts. We also see potential in tidal stream. I relate that to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the huge increase in future electricity demand and his suggestion that it would likely have an environmental impact, which Great British Energy would be promoting through its investment in various projects and in clearing the way for other projects.

I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the partnership needed between government and the private sector and private finance. I do not know whether that unit in the Cabinet Office still exists, but I am pretty certain that the Cabinet Office is extremely interested in leveraging private finance. This Bill is partly to enable that and to promote expertise in the private sector on behalf of the polices that the Government wish to enact on clean power and net zero.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had some interesting insights on the environmental issues and presented a balanced and helpful report. I make it absolutely clear that the Government’s commitment to the environment is unwavering. We have the Environment Act targets of halting biodiversity decline by 2030 and safeguarding our marine protected areas. We believe that a healthy natural environment is critical to a strong economy and sustainable growth and development. We have a duty to uphold environmental protection and minimise any impact on biodiversity. This must and will extend to any project that Great British Energy is involved in.

I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that projects involving Great British Energy will be subject to rigorous planning and environmental regulations that consider impacts on the environment and habitats. The general theme of my argument is that it is not for GBE to do this; it will ensure that any project it is involved with follows the law and the guidance to protect our environment. It seems to me that the argument noble Lords have is with those environmental protections, which, by implication, they presumably think are not strong enough, rather than with Great British Energy.

Perhaps I can carry on that theme. As an example, projects will be subject to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, under which the impact of these projects on the environment and habitats are considered as part of the development process. Additionally, as part of the nationally significant infrastructure regime, developers are required to provide environmental assessments as part of their application for development consent, which will be subject to detailed scrutiny through an examination held by the Planning Inspectorate. This will include scrutiny of the environmental impact assessment and a habitats regulations assessment, which would consider the likely impacts of a proposed development against a range of environmental receptors.

The planning process, at both national and local level, is underpinned by a number of other pieces of legislation that will apply to projects in which Great British Energy might have a role. They include: the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017; the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004; the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. On offshore wind, I should say that we are working with Defra on the offshore wind environment improvement package to expedite offshore wind consenting while protecting the marine environment.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in England we are committed to meeting our four legally binding targets for diversity: to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030; to reverse declines by at least 10% by 2042; to reduce the risk of national species extinction by 2042; and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, also by 2042. We have launched a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to ensure that it fully supports our mission to recover nature.

We also intend to establish industry-funded marine recovery funds into which applicants can pay to discharge their compensation obligations, underpinned by libraries of approved strategic compensation measures. We are engaging in discussions with the Scottish Government with a view to reaching an agreement on the establishment of, and the delegation of appropriate functions to operate and manage, a separate marine recovery fund for projects in Scotland. We think that the offshore wind environmental improvement package—the OWEIP —will, on the whole, accelerate and de-risk the consent of offshore wind projects while continuing to protect the marine environment.

Great British Energy will not play a role in the decommissioning of oil and gas structures. However, I should say that the UK’s decommissioning regulatory regime requires a robust assessment of the potential impact on safety, technical constraints and costs, ensuring no harm to human health or the environment. Decommissioning proposals are subject to thorough environmental assessment before a regulatory decision is made.

On the matter of tidal, I was interested in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. He referred to the tough challenges involved. I well remember visiting the Pentland Firth when I was last in this job; Rolls-Royce was engaged then, I think. I readily accept that this is a very tough challenge. On the other hand, we are the world leader in tidal stream—half of the world’s operational capacity is situated in UK waters—and we want to go further. My understanding is that six tidal stream contracts, with a capacity of 28 megawatts, were secured in Scotland and Wales in the latest allocation round of the Government’s contracts for difference scheme.

I had responsibility for the River Severn project between 2008 and 2010. I chaired a number of community forums with people in the south-west who were keen to see progress in the Severn but, I have to say, I received the same advice as the noble Lord, Lord Howell: the environmental damage would be so considerable that it was not thought appropriate to go ahead. My understanding—I am not going to guess; I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—is that the position is still the same, but I will find out some more and let him know, because he clearly has a keen interest in this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank and express my support for my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, whose amendments address the matter of subsidised renewable energy technology. Considering that GB Energy is already supported by £8.3 billion, I see no viable reason why it should invest in renewable energy projects that are already substantially supported by government subsidies and funded by the British consumer, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas highlighted. Surely it is essential that the renewable energy industry in the UK is not reliant on government handouts for ever. We must look to create an environment that promotes competition and innovation and mitigates the likelihood of inefficiency.

At present, the Government subsidise low-carbon electricity initiatives through contracts for difference, where they guarantee developers a fixed price for the electricity that they generate. This is funded via a levy on consumer bills and, at the end of last year, the Government were considering holding the largest auction yet in 2025 despite recent scrutiny over consumer energy bills. The British consumer is already burdened by the cost of turning off wind turbines to avoid overloading the power grid; this costs the UK £1 billion a year, with that predicted to rise to more than £3.5 billion in the next decade. Why should the taxpayer be burdened numerous times?

According to the OBR, environmental levies are around £12 billion. This amounts to £400 per household in the UK. Yet the cost of offshore wind is less than current market prices and those agreed in auction rounds. If renewables are supposedly cheaper, I query why we are paying these subsidies in the first place. The truth is that the Government’s clean energy by 2030 agenda will require substantial levels of borrowing, which will be spent on subsidising renewable energy technologies. This rushed target will only cost the consumer more. It will not cover energy bills by the £300 a year promised during the election campaign.

Amendment 130 in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost would prevent the Bill being passed until the Secretary of State publishes a report calculating the costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. The amendment raises the issue of transparency. If we are to pass a Bill that is so financially consequential, we must have sight of the Government’s current spending on renewable technologies.

Amendment 118B from my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom would prevent GB Energy investing in a project

“that relies wholly or in part on”

government subsidies. Amendment 129 would prevent the Act being passed until

“the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further Government subsidy for offshore wind developments”.

These three amendments neatly touch on the concerns that I have raised. I ask the Minister to thoroughly consider the worries expressed by my noble friends.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which reflects previous debates in Committee. It started with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, being worried that GBE will invest badly, not make money and invest in speculative projects, which he thought the Treasury might encourage it to do. My experience of the Treasury is that that is not how it works out in practice. Our challenge is encouraging the Treasury to make investment decisions, and the scrutiny with which it approaches this matter can be described as vigorous.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the Minister anticipate that the Treasury will have a veto on anything that Great British Energy invests in?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

No, I do not imagine the Treasury will have a veto, but I think it will keep a careful eye on the work of GBE. I have already mentioned in previous debates the number of controls that will be in place.

Noble Lords argue this many ways around, but we are trying to reach a middle ground where we get the benefits of a company with people on the board who are very experienced in this area making hard-headed commercial decisions, because we want GBE to be successful and to make a profit. On the other hand, it is also a public sector body accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore subject to the normal public sector controls. The skill of the GBE board will be to find a way through this, and that is why we wish to give it as much operational independence as possible.

At the risk of repeating myself on the cost issue, in its whole-system analysis undertaken for the previous Government, my department concluded that a renewables-led system, complemented by flexible technologies to ensure that supply and demand are balanced, alongside technology such as nuclear, would form the cheapest foundation for a future decarbonised power grid. Since that analysis was published, a range of external commentators, such as Energy Systems Catapult and the Climate Change Committee, have published analysis which reaches similar conclusions.

Noble Lords have quoted Dieter Helm and other commentators but I believe that there is a general consensus on the broad make-up of the most cost-effective future systems, although there will be some disagreement over potential technologies in future. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, raised hydrogen, and, in our short debate on small modular reactors in the House this afternoon, there was a question about value for money in their development. I readily accept that; however, we think that the general mix is the most cost-effective way to go forward.

Amendment 118B seeks to add after Clause 7 a new clause that would prevent GBE investing in any project that relies wholly or in part on government subsidies. I am not in favour of that. First, GBE is operationally independent, so commercial investment decisions need to be made separately from government decisions on subsidy provision. Secondly, GBE will be focused on driving clean energy deployment through its functions. The Government provide different subsidies in different ways across the energy market, so limiting GBE’s activities to areas where there are no government subsidies would unnecessarily constrain the company.

Coming back to a point from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the advice we have had from the Climate Change Committee is that CCUS would enable us to have the lowest-cost pathway to net zero. It described it as

“a necessity, not an option”

for maintaining our climate commitments.

The way in which GBE will interact with existing and new government policies and influence the energy system will clearly be determined on a case-by-case basis. We will clarify the relationship between existing schemes and GBE in due course. I assure the Committee that we are currently seeking advice on Great British Energy’s compliance with the Subsidy Control Act in both its establishment and operation.

Amendments 129 and 130 propose additions to Clause 8. In essence, they seek to delay the commencement of the Act until the Secretary of State publishes a report on the appropriateness of further government subsidy for offshore wind developments, as well as a comprehensive report detailing the full costs to consumers and taxpayers of the UK renewable energy industry. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I resist these amendments. We want to see Great British Energy get set up as quickly as possible and get on with the job. Frankly, I do not see it as necessary for those reports to be published.

On Amendment 129, as I said in our debate on the previous group, we are committed to increasing radically the deployment of offshore wind, which provides us with secure, domestically generated electricity. As I have already mentioned, we want 42 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, up from 15 gigawatts today. The contracts for difference scheme is the Government’s main mechanism for supporting new renewable electricity generation projects. We continue to evolve that scheme to ensure that it is aligned with the Government’s wider objectives. In addition, the clean power action plan that we published last year reconfirmed our view, and that of NESO, that clean power can be delivered by 2030 without increasing costs to the consumer and with scope for lower bills.

Overall, I really think that GBE should now be allowed to get on with the job. I do not believe that putting in amendments that would prevent it investing in schemes that attract subsidies is the right way forward. The Government would certainly resist that.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my concerns remain. This is such a thin Bill and commits the Government to so little—other than spending other people’s money in inordinate quantities—that one can see the potential for things going wrong very easily. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to the two amendments in my name. The first, Amendment 126, is about the jobs in Aberdeen. Unfortunately, this amendment gets involved only in the number of jobs that are created by Great British Energy in Aberdeen. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard has already referred to, it does not make any reference to the number of jobs that have already been destroyed by the Secretary of State for Energy in not granting any more licences in the North Sea, which will have—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

It is all very well the noble Lord saying that, but I remind him that a lot of jobs were lost on the UK continental shelf during his Government’s stewardship.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, but the fact that a number have gone already because the industry is declining is not a compelling reason for destroying even more, in my view—but I hear what the Minister says.

Of course, this contrasts tremendously with the inaugural address from President Trump, saying, “Drill, baby, drill”. He is quite keen on expanding the oil industry in the United States, which is interesting because he slightly gives the impression that the United States has been rather laggardly in producing oil. I have some quite interesting statistics from the Library that indicate that, throughout the Biden years, despite all the green initiatives that were produced, the United States was actually the biggest producer of oil in the world. In 2020, it produced 11.3 million barrels a day, and in 2023 it produced 12.9 million barrels a day. Of that, it was using about 8 or 9 million barrels for its own consumption and exporting the rest. The idea being put out by the Trump regime that drilling for oil will somehow be a new venture is quite interesting; it has been going on, fit to bust, under the Biden Administration—you slightly wonder how that ties in with all the green credentials that he was boasting about, when they were producing these vast quantities of oil. They were way ahead of the Russians, who were the second-biggest producer of oil, at about 10 million barrels a day.

We are now in an interesting situation, as there seems to be a recognition by the Trump regime that we will go on needing hydrocarbons and oil way into the future. At the end of the day, the idea that we can somehow phase all this out in this country slightly defies credibility because, as we have discussed already, the reserves of oil are higher than they have ever been, and we will go on needing it for quite some time. It is rather extraordinary that we do not produce our own oil in the North Sea for our requirements. As it is, we will have to import it from other places, creating CO₂ emissions and so forth on the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for moving his amendment and all noble Lords who made contributions or comments. Perhaps I may take them thematically, starting with the importance of oversight. As regards the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we on these Benches are in favour of the sentiment of Amendments 122 to 124.

As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the strategic priorities for GB Energy are not included in the Bill. Indeed, we have not had sight of those most important principles; we simply do not have any concrete examples of what GB Energy as a company will be trying to achieve. I must therefore ask the Minister: how can we support the Government if we do not even know what the proposed investment vehicle will put taxpayers’ money into? This House and the other place must have sight of the strategic priorities of GB Energy so that we can assess its goals, what it intends to achieve, how these goals will be achieved, in what order they will be prioritised, and how much money will be spent on those goals and priorities.

I turn to Amendment 125 in my name, which ensures that the Bill cannot come into force until a financial framework document has been laid before Parliament. Much like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am deeply concerned that we have not yet had sight of this most important information. I do not feel it is possible to move forward with the Bill, or GB Energy itself, until we have understood its financial structure. I therefore strongly urge the Government to produce a financial framework for GB Energy and let us examine it.

Amendment 126, in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard, requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. The Government are already putting at risk 200,000 jobs in the North Sea oil and gas sector in the UK but, of course, this will hit the city of Aberdeen particularly hard, as it is the centre of the UK domestic oil and gas industry. None of us would object to the Government looking to bring a more diverse range of sovereign energy sources online, but we should not be sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs or people’s livelihoods in the process.

The transition to green energy, if it is managed correctly and done in an orderly fashion—not on an artificially accelerated basis—has the opportunity to provide a swathe of new well-paid jobs. We must therefore hold the Government to their word that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs, which is a big number and target. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact GB Energy will have on the number of jobs in Aberdeen. That will show noble Lords whether the Government are keeping their word, whether these jobs are created and will be of benefit to Aberdeen, and whether we have indeed seen the transition talked about.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 127 in the names of my noble friends Lord Hamilton of Epsom and Lord Trenchard. That amendment will ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We should transition away from the use of fossil fuels and reduce the volume of greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, but it must be done in an economical and sustainable manner. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to these concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do listen carefully to what noble Lords have said. Our final debate in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggests, takes us back to some of the early debates and concerns that noble Lords have. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The point he made is that the cost of doing nothing will, in the end, be much more expensive than the cost of net zero. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that sticking to oil and gas is certainly not a free lunch, either. The noble Earl also pointed to the declining reserves in the UK continental shelf. This is a fact of life and why there were losses of jobs in Aberdeen under the previous Government. I will come back to the issue of Aberdeen in a moment.

Clearly, the effect of the amendments will be to defer the commencement of most provisions in the Bill until several requirements have been met. They include the laying before and approval by Parliament of a framework document and statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an outline statement of strategic priorities, the publication of an assessment on the expected impact of the Act on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and the publication of a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero targets. We have already discussed many of these matters in Committee and the Committee will be aware of the Government’s views and intents on this.

Our aim is to get this Bill on the statute book as soon as we can. It is also our clear intention that the statement of strategic priorities cannot be produced without the full involvement of Great British Energy in order to get its expertise, including that of the newly appointed non-executive directors, to inform the statement. This is why we do not believe that we can publish the statement of strategic priorities either during the passage of the Bill or before Royal Assent. Once parliamentary approval is given, we will ensure that we move as quickly as we possibly can to produce the statement.

On accountability, in the end, Ministers will agree with the statement that we are accountable to Parliament. I do not think your Lordships’ House is backward in holding Ministers to account for what they do. We have the Select Committee process, there are numerous opportunities for scrutiny of what we decide in relation to the statement and, of course, the statement is also subject to revision from time to time.

On the framework document, I suppose I can only repeat what I said before. We are committed to producing a framework document. It will, as framework documents do, cover the governance structure, the requirements for reporting and information sharing, and the financial responsibilities and controls. I have given this assurance from the Dispatch Box, so that is a government statement of what is going to happen. The framework document will be extensive and will follow the normal course of action. I hope that assures noble Lords that everything is being done in a proper way and with proper accountability, ensuring that Great British Energy is subject to the appropriate controls—as is only right for a body that is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State for its activities.

We think that it is a very good thing that GBE will be based in Aberdeen; a significant proportion of GBE’s staff will certainly be based there. We think that Aberdeen will benefit from new jobs in the economy created because of GBE’s investment in renewable energy projects. I understand and very much accept the need to ensure, as we have talked about, a just transition for the people involved in the oil and gas sector. We want to do everything we can to enable offshore workers to lead the world in the industries of the future, which is why we are working very hard with businesses, employees and workers to manage our existing fields for the entirety of their lifetime and are putting in place programmes to support a transition. It is interesting that research from Robert Gordon University shows that 90% of oil and gas workers have medium to high transferable skills for offshore renewable jobs; knowing the skills that people who work in the North Sea bring to the jobs they do, that does not surprise me.

This is all I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in relation to President Trump’s decisions: it is interesting that, in his first term, the US actually saw quite a drive into renewable energy. It may be that we will still see the same direction under the new Administration in the end; that is for the US Government to decide. We as a Government are sticking to the Paris Agreement and to the need to get to net zero and clean power as soon as we possibly can.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

There are interesting comments in the press that, although President Trump is committed to increasing the amount of oil the United States produces, that is very much dependent on the price. The frackers of oil and gas in the United States will frack it if they can get a good price for it; if the price drops, they will hold back, so it does not follow that he will actually increase the oil production of the United States by saying, “Drill, baby, drill”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very interesting comment indeed.

I turn to Amendment 127, the effect of which I resist because in the end, it is inconsistent with our intention to set up GBE as quickly as possible. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about information being available now, but we are keen to see GBE up and running. The statement of strategic priorities will ultimately be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We want GBE to play a full part in the discussions on it and the framework document will be extensive, following normal procedure.

On that basis, the Government are not willing to move in that area. However, I am looking at some of the issues around the statement of strategic priorities, particularly in relation to timing, and will perhaps give a sense of some of the pointers that will be raised in it. I will continue to have discussions with noble Lords on that between Committee and Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I start by reflecting the Minister’s last sentence in his response to this group of amendments. I thank him and his officials for the open nature with which they have engaged and continue to engage with us. The prospect of further discussions on these issues prior to Report is very welcome from my point of view.

As I have said, I recognise the need to set up GB Energy at speed, and I recognise that it needs to exist to feed into the strategic priorities. I particularly welcome the Minister’s last sentence. As I said, my amendments in this group were about trying to find a compromise and a way forward. I also welcome his comments from the Dispatch Box on the framework document, guaranteeing that it will be produced and will be extensive and follow the proper course of action. Again, those are welcome documents, and I am sure that Members of this Committee will note them.

It is welcome that GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. It is my opinion that GB Energy will help to create good and stable green jobs. The Minister said that 90% of oil and gas offshore jobs have high levels of transferrable skills. I think we can all agree that we need a just and fair transition for the people who work in our oil and gas industry, and we all need to keep that in mind. The Committee will also note the Minister’s comments on Amendment 127. With that, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been an interesting set of debates.

Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 and 21 November 2024 be approved.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 20 January.

Motion agreed.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Spellar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the orders for the first small modular nuclear reactors.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, Great British Nuclear is pushing forward with the SMR competition and is negotiating with a four down-selected companies. Once negotiations have concluded, the companies will be invited to submit final tenders, which Great British Nuclear will then evaluate, with final decisions to be taken in the spring.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. He will be aware that the Government’s response to the AI action plan this month refers to the opportunity

“to accelerate investment in … Small Modular Reactors”.

He will also be aware that Britain is at the forefront of developing this technology, which could make a significant contribution to our growth agenda right through the country. However, delays in decision-making by the last Government led to significant slippage in the programme. What is the Minister’s department doing? He gave the procedure that would be undertaken, but what is the department doing to get the SMR programme back on track?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand my noble friend’s impatience. It is an impatience that I share, because we can all see the potential of small modular reactors in the UK and the export potential of UK companies that are involved in developing SMRs. With fairness to Great British Nuclear, it is going through a tough process. We will have assurance with regard to the technologies and value-for-money issues. Spring is not far away. I understand the haste with which my noble friend wishes us to act in this area.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the French Government have given this Government a great opportunity to stop any further growth of Sizewell C and use that money for small modular nuclear reactors. This is an out-of-date proposal. It will cost much more than we bargained for. It is a brave and sensible Government who would say, “We will stop that and move to new technology”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if a Government were suddenly to say to Sizewell C, “We’re not going ahead with it”, that would have a devastating impact on our nuclear industry. We are not going to do that. We are moving towards a final investment decision. I do not recognise some of the figures that have been quoted in the media recently. It is 80% replication of Hinkley Point C, but because of that, a lot of the risks have already been ironed out.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I am attracted in principle to the idea of small-scale nuclear reactors scattered across the country on small sites and not just in nuclear submarines. But I have attended a number of meetings with the industry and have no clarity on the economics of the technology and how they compare with alternative paths to net zero. Does the Minister think that the economics are clear yet? If not, will the Government set them out?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two points to make. Our analysis is that, overall, a renewable-led system complemented by flexible technologies, alongside technologies such as nuclear, will form the cheapest foundation for our decarbonised power grid. The value for money for SMRs is a very good question. That is precisely why the work that Great British Nuclear is doing will be so important and why it then has to feed into more general discussions within government about the finance involved.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, as the SMR contracts have been delayed, has the proposed twentyfold increase in AI been included in the clean power plan? What are the Government’s proposals to deliver the energy required and meet our energy net-zero targets if SMRs will not be ready before 2032?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously, we are all very excited by the potential of AI. My understanding is that current electricity demand from, for example, data centre growth—which is part of the package that the noble Earl is referring to—would in 2022 account for 4.05% of UK electricity consumption. NESO’s analysis of future energy scenarios reckons that data centres could increase annual electricity demand by between 27 and 62 terawatt hours by 2050, with estimates of total annual electricity demand ranging from 533 to 700 terawatts hours. Obviously, we are giving this a great deal of consideration.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Existing civil nuclear power stations are protected by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which is, of course, wholly armed. What consideration has been given to who will protect and police modular nuclear reactors? Will it be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would mean covering far more sites than it currently does, or will it be the other police forces? What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Home Office?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a little early to give a definitive view to my noble friend but clearly the role of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a very important one. I reassure him that in the 14-year gap since I was last responsible for that force, there have been huge improvements in the way in which the constabulary works. I keep this matter under very close oversight.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, it is welcome news that the Minister has indicated there will be a decision by Great British Nuclear on SMR technologies in the spring. However, we still await any guidance on advanced modular reactors, let alone details on how they can come to the market and generate much-needed clean energy here in the UK from the early 2030s. A number of privately funded developers—newcleo, X-energy, TerraPower and others—are ready to go and want GBN to have a parallel process alongside the SMR competition to help them realise their ambitions in the UK as soon as possible. Will the Minister please give a clear indication on when a plan for AMRs will be published? Will His Majesty’s Government support those that want to get on with things in the meantime, invest in the UK, boost economic growth, and create thousands of jobs through their supply chains?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and we certainly take account of what she said. We all see the potential of AMRs. We have also seen that some of the major west coast companies in the US are interested in reaching agreements with project developers for AMRs to be sited near data centres in order to produce decarbonised energy. The noble Baroness’s Government produced an alternative routes to market consultation. We are currently considering the results of that and will make announcements in due course. I understand what she said about the role of GBN. These matters are all under earnest consideration at the moment.

[Lord Tarassenko (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, mentioned the AI opportunities action plan, including the plan to build data centres—among them, the largest UK data centre so far. These data centres, which have been designated by the Government as sovereign data centres, will require SMRs to power them. Rolls-Royce, in which the Government hold a golden share, has produced and maintained the nuclear power systems for the UK’s submarine fleet using similar —not the same but similar—technology for SMRs for the last 60 years. Will the Minister ask the Science Secretary and the Energy Secretary, who together will chair the AI energy council, to designate the SMRs that will supply the sovereign data centres, also as sovereign assets, and run a much shorter bidding process open to UK companies only?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think I can give that commitment, although I recognise what the noble Lord says. I can certainly assure him that we are in close discussions across government departments about taking forward the implications of what was contained in the plan. I, of course, recognise the role that Rolls-Royce plays. I do not want to say anything further about that because it is currently in a competitive process in relation to SMRs that is being run by Great British Nuclear.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the proposal by a consortium of Sheffield industrialists for an SMR national manufacturing centre of excellence would create hundreds of highly skilled jobs in South Yorkshire and across the country, and would also open up the opportunity for British industry to compete internationally for the manufacture of SMRs with British components? Can he assure me that this is exactly the sort of proposal his department will consider supporting and is in line with the points made by my noble friend Lord Spellar?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness may know that I met our former colleague Richard Caborn and colleagues from Sheffield to discuss this. We have now asked UK Research and Innovation to review the detail and advise us. We will then consider the next steps. Clearly, this is a very interesting concept.

Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Clean Heat Market Mechanism Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 21 November 2024, be approved. The instrument forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to make the UK a clean energy superpower and deliver warmer homes. It is the Government’s mission to make energy affordable and to strengthen the UK’s energy security. By supporting heat pump manufacturing and encouraging innovation, we are giving more consumers the choice to make the transition to low-carbon, high-efficiency heating.

With over 80% of homes using fossil fuel gas for heating, there is a huge opportunity to deliver affordable and efficient heating and protect consumers from the costly vagaries of international gas markets while reducing a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Heat pumps, which are on average three times more efficient than a gas boiler, are suitable for the overwhelming majority of UK homes, and they have a role of paramount importance role to play in delivering this ambition. That is why in November last year the Government announced a range of first policy steps under our warm homes plan, alongside investment in training and British manufacturing capability, to make it easier and more affordable for consumers to make the switch to a heat pump.

The clean heat market mechanism will provide industry with the stability and confidence to scale up and invest in the heat pump supply chain. It will also ensure that British businesses can benefit from the transition to low-carbon heating as they create future-proofed skilled jobs. Importantly, the scheme protects consumer choice in when and how to upgrade to clean and efficient heating, while providing industry with the encouragement to develop a wider range of products and services for consumers to choose from as the transition gathers pace. Neither this scheme nor any other requires home owners to remove or replace their boiler against their will. For their part, we know that businesses are ready to drive innovation, build relationships with installers across the country and continue to make heat pumps more affordable and more accessible to home owners.

Today’s statutory instrument establishes the scheme from 1 April this year, setting its rules, parameters and timelines under enabling powers established in the Energy Act 2023. The scheme is designed to accelerate deployment of heat pumps, thereby driving down energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. It complements, and is complemented by, a range of other policies, such as grant funding for heat pump installations through the boiler upgrade scheme and other schemes; investment in British manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition; and support for installer training through the heat training grant, to provide wraparound support for a transformation of the low-carbon heating market over time.

The scheme sets a requirement for heating appliance manufacturers to achieve the sale and installation of a proportion of heat pumps relative to their gas and oil boiler sales or to acquire equivalent credits from other heat pump manufacturers. For the first year of the scheme, starting this April, this is set at 6% of relevant boiler sales. The record number of heat pumps installed last year, a full 43% growth in certified installations in 2024 versus the previous year, would suggest that it is right to support the development of a thriving UK heat pump market and that the target of 6% is entirely achievable—and there is no reason to believe that there will be any undue costs faced by manufacturers.

The proposals for the scheme were subject to three rounds of public consultation—two under the last Government, in late 2021 and mid-2023, then a third in mid-2024. These consultations sought views on, among other things, scheme targets, technologies in scope, credit trading and scheme administration. A wide range of organisations, representative and trade bodies and industry professionals, as well as individual members of the public, responded on each occasion.

The Government are committed to working in partnership with industry on delivering the warm homes plan, and since coming into office have been engaging with market actors from across the supply chain to consider views on the right mix of policies and other enabling actions needed to support the expansion of the UK heat pump market that is needed. The Government have also taken steps to provide appliance manufacturers with more time and space to adapt to the introduction of this mechanism, scale up supply chains and expand heat pump operations. This includes a decision to reduce the payment in lieu for any missing heat pump credits to £500 for the first year, which is a change from the £3,000 previously proposed.

We will continue to engage closely with industry both on considerations related to the future evolution of the clean heat market mechanism and, more broadly, on the development and delivery of the warm homes plan so that we can put the UK’s world-leading businesses at the heart of leading the transformation of the heating market. The clean heat market mechanism is an important part of the framework that the Government are putting in place to support a much-needed acceleration in our transition to low-carbon heating, strengthening our energy independence and delivering warmer homes for all. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the clean heat market mechanism represents a clumsy attempt by the Government to impose unrealistic and burdensome targets on the heating industry. While the overarching goal of reducing carbon emissions and decarbonising heating in the UK is commendable, the regulatory approach taken here is flawed.

The mechanism requires that major boiler manufacturers—those selling more than 20,000 gas boilers or 1,000 oil boilers annually—must ensure that at least 6% of their sales consist of heat pumps by 2025-26. Although heat pumps, which run on electricity rather than gas, are often hailed as a cleaner alternative, these regulations fail to consider the practical challenges faced by both manufacturers and consumers.

This mechanism promises market certainty, investment in low-carbon technologies and a reduction in heat pump costs through increased competition. However, these lofty claims are undermined by overly ambitious targets, coupled with the Government’s failure to address the considerable barriers faced by consumers. Far from facilitating a smooth transition, these regulations risk causing significant disruption to the industry.

Set to run from April 2025 to March 2029, the scheme faces growing doubts about its ability to meet its long-term target of 600,000 heat pumps sold annually by 2028. This concern is further exacerbated by the fact that heat pump sales remain alarmingly low, with both the National Audit Office and the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee warning that current sales levels are far too low to meet the proposed targets.

Returning to the effects of this SI, this initiative imposes stringent sales targets on large boiler manufacturers, forcing them to meet heat pump quotas. If these quotas are not met, manufacturers will face damaging fines, in some cases of £3,000 for every heat pump missed. Although manufacturers can carry forward up to 35% of their annual target to the following year, this strain on the industry cannot be overstated. When the original plans for the CHMM were first announced in 2024, some manufacturers pre-emptively raised their prices to account for the anticipated fines, only to lower them after the previous Conservative Government pragmatically delayed the scheme in March to allow the industry more time to prepare. Will this Government consider doing the same?

Furthermore, it is not only the industry that will face a financial burden from these regulations; the most pressing concern is the significant impact on consumers. Although environmentally beneficial, heat pumps remain expensive for many households, with installation costs ranging from £6,500 to £11,500. This is not just a challenge; it is a significant obstacle. Many families are already struggling with the cost of living, and these regulations threaten to impose yet another financial burden. The Government cannot continue to ignore the stark reality that these high costs will place heat pumps well beyond the reach of many ordinary households unless substantial and sustained financial support is provided.

The burden of financing such an expensive transition should not fall squarely and only on consumers. Despite the grants available through the energy company obligation and the boiler upgrade scheme, which offer up to £7,500 in England and Wales, the high upfront cost of heat pumps remains a significant barrier. This policy risks making a greener future inaccessible to those who need it the most.

Moreover, it is essential to question whether the Government have adequately considered the industry’s capacity to meet these targets. The regulation requires major manufacturers to ensure that a specific proportion of their boiler sales, 6%, consist of heat pumps. However, given that the heat pump market is still in its early stages, with many manufacturers struggling to scale up production, where is the recognition of this challenge?

Lastly, the proposed scheme risks undermining the very people it aims to help. The Government’s approach, imposing fines on manufacturers that fail to meet the sales targets, could lead to price hikes for consumers. There is already evidence that some manufacturers have raised prices, as has been said before, and if that trend continues it will not be the manufacturers that bear the cost; it will simply be passed on to the consumer.

In conclusion, although the Government may be well meaning, the clean heat market mechanism, as it stands, is flawed and could have serious unintended consequences for consumers, manufacturers and the wider heating industry. It is vital that the Government reconsider this approach, provide proper financial support for consumers and work with the industry to ensure that the transition to low-carbon heating is both achievable and affordable.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, says that although he understands the intent behind the regulations, we are clumsy and have overambitious targets. He asks us to repeat his Government’s actions in delaying or not going ahead with implementation. We are not going to do that. We are confident that we have a scheme that is practical. As a new Government, we have engaged in extensive discussions with industry.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was critical of us for reducing the level of the fine. The fact that we have done so shows that we are concerned about ensuring that we introduce this in an evolutionary way, which is why we have started with the fines at the level we have set. We are confident that industry can rise to the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, said that sales of heat pumps were disappointing. I thought he might have said that in the last year, 2024, sales had an encouraging increase. We want to build on that with the incentivisation for householders plus the introduction of potential fines for manufacturers, although overall we think that manufacturers will be able to rise to that challenge.

On the issue of cost, which a number of noble Lords raised, of course heat pumps cost more money than gas boilers, but as when one introduces most new technologies, or extends them, the price will come down. We think it will fall significantly, making pumps a more attractive and affordable options for UK households. As noble Lords have referred to, at the moment we are funding installations to kick-start the market, for example through schemes such as the boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes local grant.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked whether non-UK manufacturers of heat pumps could earn and sell credits under the scheme. The intention here is that any manufacturer of heat pumps sold on the UK market acquires credits and can make them available to other parties in the scheme. Of course, there is no obligation on manufacturers to acquire those credits; this is one of the various options available to them. In parallel, the Government are supporting the expansion of UK heat pump manufacturing through the heat pump investment accelerator competition. The noble Lord is absolutely right that further legislation would be required to revise targets for future years of the scheme.

The instrument today sets a target for the first year. This would roll over to year 2 if there were no amendment by further legislation. Here, the Government have committed to consult further this year, before setting targets for future years, and then returning to the House if we wanted to change the target. I hope this reassures noble Lords that we are fully engaged with industry. We will obviously discuss the implications carefully before we come back with any further proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene and for answering a number of my questions. On his point about costs coming down, is he suggesting that they will come down in Britain because they are artificially high to start with, or because we will discover technological ways of producing it that have not been found in continental countries, where they already have large-volume manufacturing? That is one thing.

Could the Minister also respond to another point I made, admittedly in rather garbled form, so I can excuse him for not replying? The correct figures in his document are that the costs of this process are £195 million, while the benefits from reduced carbon emissions are £187 million—less than the costs—but, fortunately, that is supplemented by £34 million of benefits from cleaner air. The whole thing is pretty marginal. Could he comment on the marginality of the cost benefits of this extraordinary regulation?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the point is this: we have to decarbonise our home stock. At the moment, 80% of homes use gas for heating so, as part of our plans towards decarbonisation and moving on to net zero, this is an essential mechanism that we need to take forward. As for the cost-benefit analysis, I do expect the cost of the heat pumps to come down in relative terms, in future. I am not prepared to engage with the noble Lord on the exact whys and wherefores of how that might happen. I just look in history—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

So leave it to miracles.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

No. The noble Lord referred earlier to mystical or quasi-religious belief. I regard myself as a high church Anglican atheist, and I do not bring a fervour to this from belief; I think that the rational response to what we are doing, and to the risk of climate change, is so huge that we have to use these kinds of mechanisms and do something about housing and the current use of gas. This is the way that we think we need to go forward, but we will keep it under review and look closely at costs, manufacturing capacity in this country and the public’s ability to ensure that they have good installations. Overall, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 18 November 2024. It seeks to revoke and alter several provisions in assimilated Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity, relating to the capacity market. For ease, I will refer to this as the assimilated electricity regulation. The instrument makes targeted, technical amendments which are intended to support the continued operation of the capacity market, Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring security of electricity supply. It does not introduce any practical changes to the operation of the capacity market.

Before outlining the specific provisions of this draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. Great Britain’s electricity capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is operational and on the system to meet future predicted demand, thereby maintaining security of supply. The capacity market scheme provides all forms of existing and new-build capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers different types of electrical capacity, including generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity.

Through capacity market auctions held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, the aim is to secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios. This is based on advice from the capacity market delivery body—the National Energy System Operator. Capacity providers which are successful in the auctions are awarded capacity agreements, which range in duration from one to 15 years.

The capacity market was introduced in 2014. Since then, it has contributed to investment in just under 19 gigawatts of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plant as we transition to a net-zero economy. The capacity market was originally approved under European Union state aid rules for a period of 10 years. Following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, a requirement in EU law for approval of up to 10 years was brought into domestic law as part of the assimilated electricity regulation. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has sufficient electrical capacity to meet demand and continues to be required to maintain security of supply and provide confidence to investors.

On the detail of the instrument, it revokes and alters a number of provisions relating to capacity mechanisms in the assimilated electricity regulation, including Article 21.8, which requires that

“Capacity mechanisms shall be temporary”

and

“shall be approved … for no longer than 10 years”,

and other references to such mechanisms being temporary. The instrument also revokes provisions that either are no longer considered to be necessary or require minor correction following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. We are seeking to make these changes so that our post-EU exit legal framework reflects the continuation of current arrangements for maintaining a secure electricity supply, since there remains an ongoing need for the capacity market to ensure sufficient investment in reliable electricity capacity.

Furthermore, following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, the domestic subsidy control regime was introduced. The subsidy control regime does not require subsidy schemes to be granted an approval or limited for a specified period. Therefore, the approval requirement in the assimilated electricity regulation does not reflect our post-EU exit arrangements. Of course, it is important that we keep the capacity market under review and there are multiple controls set out in domestic legislation, all of which will be retained. This includes a statutory requirement for my department to review the capacity market regulations every five years, which provides an opportunity to review the need for the scheme. Ofgem also undertakes an independent five-yearly review of the capacity market rules. Furthermore, the Secretary of State can decide not to hold a capacity market auction. These embedded controls all remain as part of the wider domestic capacity market legislative framework.

In conclusion, this draft instrument revokes and alters certain provisions related to the capacity mechanism in the assimilated electricity regulation. This includes a requirement for an approval lasting no more than 10 years, as well as references to capacity mechanisms being of a temporary nature. These changes are being made to ensure that our domestic legislative arrangements reflect the continuation of the capacity market, which is Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring electricity security of supply. I beg to move.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to use this as an opportunity simply to ask a question of the Minister. Why do we not take the advice of Professor Dieter Helm, in his review of energy policy, which was that instead of us providing the capacity mechanism centrally, we require anyone providing electricity into the system—wind generator, solar generator or whatever—from an intermittent source to provide firm power, in other words to pay for some capacity for the times when the wind is not blowing? If that were done, this whole arrangement would be unnecessary. We would have a much clearer idea of the total cost of intermittent energy if the supplier were also paying for some of the back-up capacity that is necessary to meet the occasions when intermittency prevents delivery of the power.

The only argument I have heard against this is that, if you do it wind farm by wind farm, the aggregate amount of capacity would be statistically greater than is necessary to meet the fact that some wind farms will be producing when others are not, but that surely can be overcome by saying that a certain statistical proportion of the necessary capacity should attach to any intermittent generator. Then we would have a more rational, more credible and more manageable system than the one that we have under these regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

I now turn to some questions and concerns. Although these amendments are designed to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the capacity market, one or two questions must be addressed. Given the removal of the 10-year approval requirement for the capacity market, how do the Government plan to ensure that long-term energy investments, particularly in low-carbon technologies and flexible capacity, are sufficiently incentivised to continue to support the transition to a net-zero energy system by 2050? Finally, with the removal of the requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and monitor an implementation plan for the capacity market, what steps will the Government take to ensure continued oversight and transparency in the market’s operation, particularly as it evolves to address future energy challenges and technological advancements?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting debate. As we move to a clean power system and closer to achieving net zero, it will be critical to ensure we have adequate flexible electricity capacity that can be ramped up quickly when renewable generation is low, such as on dark, still days.

We believe the capacity market remains an effective insurance mechanism for security of electricity supply, providing revenue certainty to market participants and a secure and affordable electricity supply that families and businesses can rely on. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his general support for the regulations. I certainly acknowledge that a lot of the groundwork was undertaken by the previous Government, as he suggested. I can also assure him that we as a department will continue to provide oversight of the way the arrangements will operate.

As for the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, referred to the REMA consultation, which we have debated as well. I think that Professor Helm’s proposals were considered by the previous Government, who decided not to take them forward. My understanding is that there was thought to be insufficient evidence that putting responsibility for procuring flexibility on generators, which would mean decisions being taken at a project rather than a system level, would lead to a low-cost capacity mix. Many respondents also expressed concern that this option would increase risks on renewable generators, leading to higher strike prices and overall system cost without the compensating benefits of efficiency or security of supply. We remain of the view that the current system is probably the best way to manage the issues that I have referred to.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. The question of reviews was also implicit in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and alongside the five-year reviews, each year an assessment is made of the required capacity to meet the expected level of peak demand in four years’ time. The majority of the predicted capacity required is secured well in advance. A proportion of capacity requirement is secured one year in advance, based on latest demand forecasts, so it is a continuous process, if you like.

We keep the capacity market mechanism itself under constant review and consult regularly on amendments and incremental reforms. In late 2024 we consulted on a number of changes to the capacity market to ensure security of supply and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. We hope this will ensure that supply can meet demand as we transition to net zero.

As for the comment about the mix of technologies going forward, the report by NESO and my department’s clean power action plan set out our view of the technologies by around 2030. We will rely on unabated gas as the main mature, reliable technology capable of filling that role at the moment. We expect that the amount of unabated gas we need will reduce as we deploy more low-carbon technologies. Our aim is to move gas into a reserve role, used primarily to ensure security of supply.

The noble Earl also mentioned tidal and other technologies, and we remain open to those possibilities. He may know that I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Alton—tomorrow, I think—to discuss tidal, so we are not ruling out the use of those technologies. I am grateful to noble Lords.

Motion agreed.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

At the point when the Committee decided to adjourn its deliberations on Monday, I was about to make a brief intervention in support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. As my noble friend Lady Noakes explained, GBE will be a private company, which would normally allow it nine months in which to file its accounts. As my noble friend explained on Monday, Amendment 88 changes that to six months, in line with the requirement for public companies. GBE may not be a public company technically, but it certainly is a company of huge interest to the public. It is therefore obviously right that the company should be required to prepare its accounts in accord with the rules applicable to public companies, rather than taking advantage of the more lenient requirement applicable to private companies.

In his remarks in the House yesterday, the Minister said that he recognised that it was the role of the Opposition to scrutinise legislation. But I ask the noble Lord: is it not actually the role of the whole House to scrutinise legislation, including the Government’s own Back-Benchers? He probably did not mean it when he said that it was the role of the Opposition.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

The point was that I was responding to a comment made by the Opposition Chief Whip about scrutiny. But of course I very much take the point that this is a matter for the whole House. The very fact that my noble friend Lady Young spoke to this group shows how effective that scrutiny can be.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his kind explanation, which certainly clarifies that. As far as my interventions on Monday are concerned— I spoke at length and several times—I take issue with and very much resent being accused of having filibustered. If the noble Lord looks at my contributions, he will find that they were all different.

I suggest that one reason why there have been so many amendments to the Bill is that so little was included in it. It is very thin Bill, but it has £8 billion of public money. Many of us are puzzled that GBE is being established effectively with £8 billion of public money, whereas Great British Nuclear, which has no public money to speak of, continues to operate in a kind of silo. I recognise that the noble Lord attempted to reassure the Committee about how GBN and GBE will work together, but I do not think that they can be described as comparable organisations.

I had intended to support my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on Amendment 88, and I added my name to it. I think that it is necessary because although GBE is intended to be structured as a public company, it will have only one shareholder, the Secretary of State. As my noble friend explained on Monday—she is well known as an expert in these matters—we must be sure that GBE will be managed according to the standards that would be expected by shareholders in public companies. That is why changing the nine-month provision for filing accounts to six months is so necessary.

I have also added my name to Amendment 89, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. It is particularly important that the accounts must comply with the stipulation in proposed subsection (d), to provide

“an assessment of the extent to which”

any investments made or partnerships entered into

“have encouraged additional investment by the private sector”.

It is clear that the very long incubation period for nuclear projects places them outside the criteria for many private sector investors, but some public investment can be effective in unlocking private investment through match funding, as the Rolls-Royce SMR programme has already shown.

I also support Amendment 92, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and that of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which would ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor-General must audit GBE’s accounts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 88, 89 and 92, which stand in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard and other distinguished colleagues, including the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Cameron of Dillington. These amendments, although technical in nature, are vital to ensure that Great British Energy operates with the highest standards of transparency, accountability and good governance. This is not simply a matter of administrative precision; it is the fundamental issue of public trust.

Amendment 88 ensures that GBE files its reporting accounts within the same timeframe required of public companies under Section 442 of the Companies Act 2006. This alignment with established statutory requirements is essential. It demonstrates that GBE, although a public body, will not be afforded preferential treatment or lesser obligations than private enterprises. The public expect and deserve this parity, especially given GBE’s role as a steward of taxpayers’ funds.

Amendment 89 introduces additional requirements for GBE’s annual reporting accounts. Crucially, it provides the Treasury with the flexibility to define additional reporting requirements over time. This ensures that GBE can adapt to evolving priorities and maintain accountability as it grows. It is worth emphasising that comprehensive and transparent reporting is not an administrative burden; it is a cornerstone of effective governance. This amendment guarantees that GBE will meet not only the letter of the law but the spirit of public accountability. By ensuring this level of scrutiny, we are demonstrating a commitment to good governance that transcends political or ideological divides but sends a clear message that public funds and the public interest will always be protected.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in this debate, both today and in our deliberations on Monday. It seems quite a long time ago since then, and I am looking forward to a very constructive engagement today and welcome the contributions that all noble Lords are going to make.

Let me say at once that I very much understand the importance of information being provided in order to judge the performance of GBE and of it being held to effective account. There is no disagreement at all between me and other noble Lords on this. Noble Lords will know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, explained very clearly in her remarks on Monday, that her Amendment 88 requires GBE to file its annual reports and accounts within six months from the end of its accounting reference period. As she said then, and as noble Lords have repeated, this aligns with the Companies Act 2006 for public companies whose shares are publicly traded. Of course I agree that a six-month filing period is appropriate for public companies. Financial markets need up-to-date and timely information on the performance of a company, as do its range of stakeholders and shareholders, to help them make informed decisions when companies are seeking to raise capital.

I also understand why noble Lords wish this discipline to be applied to GBE, but it is a private limited company owned wholly by the Crown. It is not unreasonable for the Government to say that, on that basis, we should be in line with the Companies Acts requirements, which set a nine-month filing period for private limited companies. I should also say that this is an arrangement applied to most government-owned companies: for example, the National Wealth Fund, the National Energy System Operator and the Low Carbon Contracts Company. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was concerned about the filing deadline, but it is also the case that the vast majority of these organisations, government-owned companies, file their accounts well in advance of the statutory requirement.

I understand the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made about public interest in Great British Energy, and I welcome that. Indeed, I want GBE to be well-known and seen as spearheading the drive we wish to see in relation to Clause 3 and the statement of priorities in Clause 5. We wish GBE to be as successful as possible.

My point is that, in a sense, what is in statute in relation to the Companies Act is a minimum requirement because, as GBE is owned by the Secretary of State, it will be subject to the usual mechanisms that apply in the public sector. They are put in place to ensure that the public interest is discharged and proper public accountabilities are in place.

On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made an interesting point: one of the concerns some people have is that, because of GBE’s structure and because it is publicly accountable, it will be subject to a considerable number of the controls put in place for bodies that fall within public accountability. The key question is: can we ensure that GBE has sufficient operational independence to perform effectively in its work? There are a number of issues here around the way it will work in future.

I should also say that the annual report and accounts are not the only means of scrutinising the funding allocated to GBE. All funding to GBE must be voted on by Parliament; because of that, it will be scrutinised through the supply and appropriations debates in the other place.

Amendment 89 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes specific topics to be included in the annual reports and accounts of Great British Energy, as well as the granting of an additional power to His Majesty’s Treasury to require further information. I can confirm that much of the proposed content will already be included and publicly available in the annual report and accounts, as required by Clause 7, and will be laid before Parliament. As an example, the financial assistance details under new paragraph (a), proposed by this amendment, will be included in the accounts of GBE. Details are likely to include issued share capital and items on the balance sheet of the company, such as borrowing from government if that method has been utilised.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone were concerned that Great British Energy would need only to follow the provisions of the Companies Act in preparing its annual report and accounts. However, I can assure them that that is not the case. GBE will adhere to the additional reporting requirements for government-owned companies over and above the reporting requirements under the Companies Act. These include the obligation to follow the Treasury’s directions on accounts through the powers extended in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, laid out in the government financial reporting manual and related “Dear Accounting Officer” letters. The most recent of these account direction letters requires bodies to give a true and fair view of the state of affairs, including net resource outturn, the application of resources, changes in taxpayers’ equity and cash flows for the financial year.

Furthermore, GBE will be required to report on its governance around exposure to and risk of climate-related scenarios in its operations, as set out by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. Finally, any future funding of GBE will be subject to agreement through a government spending review, or another mechanism, as the Government see fit.

Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes to require the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor of Great British Energy; I think she said on Monday that it is a probing amendment. I am very happy to reassure noble Lords in this case. It is already the case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be the external auditor of Great British Energy. The company will also need to comply with the provisions set out in the Treasury’s Managing Public Money document, which requires the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be the external auditor for non-departmental public bodies such as Great British Energy. The requirement will also be set out in the framework document for Great British Energy, which we will debate shortly.

Amendment 90A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, seeks to require additional reporting from Great British Energy. Again, I assure her that much of the information that she seeks will be provided in GBE’s annual report and accounts, as a matter of course. The annual report and accounts will include key achievements and milestones, general business information relating to its strategic direction, a review of the company’s performance, challenges and future outlook, as well as financial statements and resourcing levels. It will also include reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

GBE may also make more information available through reporting, such as when projects or investments are announced. We want to set this company up to be transparent and accountable, with a reporting regime appropriate to its company basis and status. The accountability of Ministers to Parliament for its performance will also be in place.

We very much take the point about the need for this organisation to be transparent and accountable. In the light of this debate, I will set out how this all comes together in detail and send a note to noble Lords. I hope that provides some greater reassurance.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I realise that Monday is quite a long time ago now and that the noble Lord has probably forgotten this, but I asked a specific question then. The impact assessment for the Bill says that, because the Bill does nothing but create the company, “no quantification of benefits” and costs

“has been provided at this stage”,

and that those benefits and costs

“will be subject to future spending reviews and business cases”.

I asked whether those future spending reviews and business cases would be made public.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not sure that I can answer that point in detail. The impact assessment is built around the legislation, rather than the future activities of GBE. May I take that specific question away? Clearly, the funding that the Government provide Great British Energy will have to be in the public domain and part of the normal process of dealing with a spending review and the financial consequences and flows of money that follow it. I am happy to look into that in more detail, if the noble Lord would like.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

That would be very kind. The issue is that, if the Bill had been done in the normal way and included the detail of what GBE was going to do, the impact assessment would have covered those activities. However, those things are not included in the Bill so are not covered by the impact assessment. When the statement of strategic priorities and the detail of what the company will do are published, there will be no impact assessment on them, other than the spending reviews and business cases. It is important that they are made public, as if they had been part of the impact assessment that would have happened if this had been done in the usual way.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, I think we have acted properly with the impact assessment, which is based on the Bill. GBE has yet to commence its work. I have said that I will write to noble Lords detailing how we see GBE being held to account, in terms of its reporting and accountability, and I will add some more information about how that relates to the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I hope that in writing this note, which I welcome, the Minister will give us an account of how GBE will report on the strategic priorities set by the Government, and that they will include not just climate but environmental and biodiversity targets. They are the twin crises that GBE is helping to solve.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned that the minimum requirement was the nine-month reporting window under the Companies Act. Could he give us an idea now of what he sees as a desirable reporting timeframe? If he would like to reflect, perhaps he could include those thoughts in his letter.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I do not think so. Clearly, there is a statutory requirement. All I was saying is that our experience in my department is that the bodies that have a similar discipline have generally reported well within that figure. I am certainly happy to say that one would always hope that an organisation such as this would report in a timely fashion, but I cannot go any further than that.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, regrets that she is not able to be here today, because this was scheduled after she already had other commitments, so, with the leave of the Committee, I will channel the noble Baroness to wrap up. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this constructive debate and the Minister for his constructive response.

Common themes are emerging throughout our discussions on the Bill, and the subject of transparency and accountability is probably the major one. I know that the noble Baroness will be disappointed by the response to shortening the reporting deadline to six months, which does not seem overly onerous. I was encouraged, I think, by what the Minister said about the reporting requirements and I look forward to receiving the letter he has spoken about. However, he did not refer in his answer to a couple of things that were in the amendment and are really important.

First, it is important that GBE reports on the investments it has made, and I do not think he mentioned that. Secondly, as a number of noble Lords mentioned, the key issue is that of additionality—in other words, what impact GBE is having on crowding-in private investment alongside the public investment. As I said on Monday, anyone can spend money. If this is to be in any way positive, it needs to attract private investment that would not otherwise have happened. It is really important that that is measured in the same way as it has to be by the National Wealth Fund. I think it is true to say that the National Wealth Fund, because it has the obligation to report on additionality, is actually performing rather well on additionality.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I said by implication that I consider those matters that I would expect the company to report on.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I am reassured to hear that and I look forward to receiving the letter. We may need to come back to this, and I hope the noble Lord will be willing to sit down, discuss the overall questions around accountability and transparency and, I hope, put something forward himself that will strengthen what is, if I am honest, a somewhat thin Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes, in her absence, for her amendments in this group. In fact, this amendment, Amendment 93, ties closely with Amendment 125 in my name, which would ensure that this Bill does not come into force until a financial framework document has been published. Together, these amendments address an essential issue in the governance of GBE: the need for proper financial oversight and clear frameworks that ensure that this body is held accountable. That is the reason why I support Amendment 93 and why it is so critical to the Bill—because it would require the Secretary of State to prepare a framework document that sets out not just the operating principles but the financial principles through which GBE will pursue its strategic objectives.

Without this clear framework, GBE would operate without the financial clarity and accountability required to protect public funds and to ensure that GBE’s financial practices align with the UK’s broader energy strategy. A financial framework is not just a bureaucratic detail; it is fundamental because the energy sector is complex and fast-moving. GB Energy will be responsible for substantial public investment. Without this financial framework, there is a risk of financial mismanagement and inefficiency or lack of transparency. The framework simply provides clear guidelines on budgeting, expenditure, revenue generation and risk management; it also ensures that GBE’s financial decisions align with the Government’s energy and climate goals, such as achieving net-zero emissions and maintaining energy security.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who spoke in her absence. As the noble Baroness raised earlier on in our debates, her amendment inserts an additional clause requiring the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a framework document setting out the principles underpinning the relationship between the Secretary of State, my department and other relevant public bodies and also requires financial and operating principles to be included in that document.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

In effect, under the Bill GB Energy will take a chunk of the activity of the National Wealth Fund—approximately a third of the total value, in fact—and put it into another entity. As I said, the National Wealth Fund’s framework document includes quite a lot of information around requirements to make financial returns and, in particular, the additionality principle. Therefore, because we are, in effect, moving a chunk of the National Wealth Fund’s activities into a different entity, it would presumably be appropriate that that remains subject to fairly similar levels of governance and control. Could the Minister perhaps say a little about the expectation on financial returns and additionality, which he has not mentioned in his response so far?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, by implication, we would expect the organisation to be as transparent as possible and to cover the sort of areas that the noble Lord mentioned. It is also fair to say that, given the comparisons being drawn between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, in the case of the UKIB, the framework document was published before Royal Assent. The point is that the organisation was operational before Royal Assent, but this Bill is being brought to Parliament before we have operationalised the company, so there is a distinction. As I said, noble Lords can be reassured that there will be a stringent framework document to ensure proper accountability. I am searching to find something else to say to give comfort, but I have to say that this is as far as we can go. Having said this from the Dispatch Box, it has to happen.

Returning to the part of the amendment that would require the relationship between GB Energy and other relevant public bodies to be included in the framework agreement, noble Lords will know that that is not typically part of a framework document, but GB Energy’s relationship with relevant public sector bodies will of course be part of delivering its objectives. Again, the partnerships will be undertaken in accordance with GB Energy’s operating principles and, where appropriate, we will provide definition to those relationships in the upcoming statement of strategic priorities. As part of its annual reports and accounts, we will of course expect GB Energy to report on activities undertaken as part of its public sector partnerships. We expect it to enter into a number of partnerships or relationships with other public bodies, but that is not appropriate for the framework document.

The other point to make here is that GBE will be accountable to Parliament, with a statement of strategic priorities laid before Parliament, and the accounting officer of Great British Energy, and Ministers, will be accountable to Parliament for the work and performance of the company. Members of your Lordships’ House will be able to ask questions and debate, and I have no doubt that Select Committees will wish to examine the chair and chief executive of the organisation from time to time, which seems wholly appropriate and will provide the public accountability that needs to go alongside the normal accountability that a private company would expect to operate, within the legislation that it will be covered by. We need to remember that it is also publicly accountable alongside the accountability that it needs to discharge as a private company.

The issue I come back to is that we have to ensure that it has enough operational independence. A push-back from noble Lords might be to ask: will it be overly constrained? We have to get the balance right between proper accountability and reporting and—dare I say it —what I hope will be an entrepreneurial approach to the formidable task it is being given. That is why the appointment of the incoming chair has been so important —to give us that expertise and experience.

As noble Lords will see, it is very difficult for us to agree to Amendment 121A, which would defer commencement of most of the provisions in the Bill until a framework document had been laid before Parliament. We do not think it possible to produce a framework document without the active involvement of the company itself. That is probably as far as I can go on this interesting area, but I can assure noble Lords that there will be a fully fledged framework document, which I think will cover all the issues that noble Lords are concerned about.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, and the Minister for his response, which is helpful and encouraging—I understand his point. However, I think he put his finger on the fundamental problem with the Bill, which is precisely what he said: the company is being established before we really know what it is going to do and before it starts to operate. Therefore, there is no scrutiny of those things at the moment. When he says that there is accountability through, for example, the statement of strategic priorities, it is not strictly true. It gets laid before Parliament, but there is no debate, approval or anything. The framework document will not even be laid before Parliament.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, of course, that is a fair point but, equally, I would say, as a Minister accountable to Parliament, that the opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions and take part in debates is considerable. I would expect that GBE and any statement of priorities will be fully part of the rough and tumble of life in Parliament. Anyone who has been involved in a company organisation such as that will know that parliamentary accountability really does bite and is effective.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The Minister is right on that—I cannot disagree—except, again, that accountability is only as good as the information on which one bases it. If there is no information, or if it is really thin, it is hard—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to intervene constantly, but I think noble Lords will be awash with information about GBE, its performance and activities.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I am very encouraged to hear that but there is nothing in the Bill that says that. If one is honest, what tends to happen is that if something is really successful, we will be awash with information telling us how successful it has been. If it is less than successful, I wonder how much information we will see. Fair enough, but there is a wider discussion to be had between now and Report on transparency and accountability, and I hope the Minister will be open to that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 93.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord. I would be keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response to that amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I will start with Amendment 102, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. As he said, the amendment focuses on Great British Energy’s relationships with its key stakeholders and would require the company to publish a report every two years detailing its relationship with a number of named public bodies.

As I have already said, we of course expect and want Great British Energy to enter into a number of partnerships or relationships with other public bodies. This will include public bodies beyond those highlighted by the noble Earl, including, for example, those operating in the devolved Administrations—although I agree with him very much about the importance of the relationship with the Crown Estate.

I think it was implied in what I said earlier that we are absolutely certain, as part of the rigorous reporting requirements that the organisation will need to take part in through its annual reports and accounts, that it will report on activities undertaken as part of these partnerships. That seems to me a perfectly sensible request, which I can affirm readily. In view of that, I am not sure that you need a separate report, but we can make it very clear to GBE that we expect it to report on this regularly. We have already publicly committed to setting out how Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund will collaborate and complement each other. I can assure noble Lords that we have made the same commitment on Great British Energy’s relationship with Great British Nuclear.

In terms of Great British Energy’s relationship with Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, again, we would expect GBE to be subject to the same legal and regulatory frameworks as other entities. Clearly, when it comes to the Crown Estate, I readily say that, of course, GBE will report on its relationship, just as the noble Earl said. The Crown Estate will be doing similar, and we hope that there will be a consistency of approach in their reports. I am sure that there will be.

Turning to Amendments 94 and 103, which would require independent reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for putting their names to them. We all agree that Great British Energy needs to be accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering against its objectives and the statement of strategic priorities. The Bill already ensures that GBE will provide regular updates through its annual reports and accounts. These documents will be laid before Parliament, ensuring public accountability. Clause 5 provides that GBE must “act in accordance” with the priorities set out by the Secretary of State. To ensure this, Great British Energy must publish a strategic plan on how it will deliver those priorities, and it will update this plan regularly.

On the question, generally, of a review, I certainly understand the point that noble Lords have made and agree that reviews are important. I am prepared to consider the principle of a review between Committee and Report. I would not want to get into a debate about how regular those reviews should be. It is important that GBE has a good run before it is subject to such a review. Equally, I do not think you want a review happening on a regular annual basis because that would detract from its ability to perform effectively, but I understand the principle of a review. I will take this away without commitment at this stage, but I am happy to talk to noble Lords between now and Report about it.

Coming back to additionality, we obviously agree that it is an important principle, and we would expect Great British Energy to learn from the UKIB/National Wealth Fund approach. Of course, GBE has rather a wider role than the National Wealth Fund, particularly in that it is not just an investor but a developer, and it has an important future role to play in trying to get rid of some of the barriers to investment that we have seen in the energy sector.

Having said that, I think additionality will be covered. Equally, we accept that undertaking reviews from time to time is important. But they should not be done so frequently that they lose impact in what they are there to do. I hope noble Lords will accept that I have tried to be constructive in my response to these amendments.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this group, and I thank the Minister for listening to these concerns, which, as always, are to do just with the review and governance of GB Energy for it to be held to rigorous and proper account. I thank the Minister for considering how he deals with this. In the meantime, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

Oh, I am sorry.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

But we are coming to that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thought the noble Lord had moved on; I apologise for interrupting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this group of amendments, and I thank the Minister for responding to me; I apologise for interrupting him. I appreciate everything he said, and I appreciate that there will be reports on GB Energy and that there are lots of opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. It is appropriate that we ask these questions. The amendments in this group and others look to go a bit further to ensure that certain things will be reported on.

In response to the discussion on the previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asked me whether we were looking for a separate report. In my mind, this is about making sure that GB Energy produces a really good-quality annual report that covers a broad range of areas and is open and transparent about its activities.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Perhaps I may intervene. In the discussion on the first group of amendments, I promised to write a letter to noble Lords focused on financial information. It might reassure noble Lords if I pick up that challenge and say that we should perhaps also try to encompass the annual report arrangements. If that would be a sensible way forward, the letter will set this out very clearly in writing so that noble Lords can see it after Committee but before Report.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

That would be greatly appreciated and would really reassure us. That was the point that these amendments were trying to get to, so I thank the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, but I just point out very quickly that the other Act that has a clause that is not quite the same but similar to Amendment 99 is the UK Infrastructure Bank Act. As I have already pointed out, that is the really analogous organisation to Great British Energy, so it must be appropriate, I think.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for initiating the debate on his Amendment 98, where he proposes to place a number of requirements on the role of the chair of the board of Great British Energy. I agree that the chair, the board and the chief executive officer have major responsibilities. I must say to him though that I do not recognise GBE as being an executive arm of my department. It is very interesting that he said that, because the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made the interesting remark on Monday that there is a risk in having too many controls and reporting arrangements in relation to GBE, detracting from what we need it to do. We do want it to have operational independence, albeit working within the context of Clauses 3 and 5 of the Bill, the requirements under the Companies Act and the accountability arrangements I have already referred to. We need very highly skilled people at the top of GBE to find their way through this in order to ensure that it actually delivers on the things we want it to deliver on.

At the risk of inviting the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to intervene, I take his point about winners and Governments: this is the whole point of having an organisation that is not part of government—but, of course, it is owned by government—and being able to really get on with the job that needs to be done.

I will address pre-appointment scrutiny of the chair in relation to Amendment 101 soon. Amendment 98 requires the chair to be a full-time position based at the headquarters of Great British Energy in Aberdeen. I must say that it would be highly unusual to specify that a company’s non-executive chair should be full time or based formally at an organisation’s headquarters. Looking at the Grand Committee, almost all noble Lords here have taken roles as chairs or non-executive directors of organisations that can be based very far from where they are resident. Frankly, if we were to adopt this principle, we might inhibit the appointment of high-calibre people, notwithstanding that Aberdeen is a very fine place to live and work, as I know from the experience of having a family member working in the offshore oil and gas industry from there.

I do not think that a full-time chair is appropriate; I think it is perfectly appropriate to have a part-time, non-executive chair in that role, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has already remarked. Having an interim chair does not preclude having a very lively presence—and a jolly good thing too. I do not think we should insist that that should be a full-time role.

My main board experience is in the public sector, in the National Health Service, and I have been around in the NHS for long enough to know the problem of chairs who come in on a daily basis and inhibit the proper role of the chief executive. I would be wary of encouraging that development in GBE; I am sure that it will not happen.

Again, in relation to the annual review of the chair’s performance by external auditors, which is to be laid before Parliament, first, we will of course ensure that there are annual performance reviews for Great British Energy’s chair. This aligns with best practice followed by other public bodies, and my department is well used to doing this in relation to a number of the bodies it oversees. The review will typically be performed by a senior official in the sponsoring department, supported by the senior independent director on the board, who will have deep insight into the chair’s performance over the year.

Of course, there will also be regular meetings between the responsible Minister and GBE, as there is in my department between Ministers and other organisations, as would be expected. In a sense, these are also part of the accountability mechanism. However, I acknowledge the expectation of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that Parliament will have a strong interest in the chair’s performance. I fully anticipate that the relevant Select Committees will call on them on a regular basis to provide evidence and, of course, I fully expect the chair of GBE to accept those committee’s invitations.

Amendment 99, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, would place certain requirements on the composition of Great British Energy’s board. As noble Lords have said, it largely replicates provisions in the UK Infrastructure Bank Act. We made clear in our founding statement that GBE will be an operationally independent company, overseen by an independent board. We do not think that it is necessary to legislate these provisions, since established governance documents, such as the UK Corporate Governance Code and the Governance Code on Public Appointments, already apply.

The UK Corporate Governance Code, published by the Financial Reporting Council, sets out best practice in relation to corporate governance. Although it applies formally to listed companies only, it is standard practice for government companies to comply with it or, where they do not, explain why. The Governance Code on Public Appointments provides clear guidance for ministerial appointments, which are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and should be followed even where roles are not formally within the scope of the commissioner. I can give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that Great British Energy will comply with these codes, ensuring best practice in corporate governance.

GBE will also be required to follow corporate governance best practice to help guide the composition of its board. This will have an impact on the number of directors required at each stage of GBE’s development and operation. We think that, having given those assurances, there needs to be a degree of flexibility at this stage about how GBE goes forward in relation to the composition of its board. The noble Lord’s amendment would also place standard requirements on when an individual should cease to be a director. I can assure him that such provisions already exist, including in the Companies Act 2006, and that they will, as is common practice, be replicated in GBE’s articles of association.

Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, proposes to require all appointments by GBE to be scrutinised by the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee in the other place before they come into effect. This is similar to new subsection (1), proposed by Amendment 98. Noble Lords will know that Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny by House of Commons Select Committees provides clear guidance on the criteria and process to be used in these circumstances. It sets out that decisions on the scrutiny of individual posts should be made between the Secretary of State, the chair of the relevant committee and the Cabinet Office. It is not common practice for this to be set in primary legislation.

The guidance gives the criteria of the types of roles which may be in scope. Importantly, it sets out the principle that the posts which require pre-appointment scrutiny are, most typically, the chair or equivalent of the organisations. None of the roles identified in the guidance as requiring pre-appointment scrutiny are in government-owned companies of the kind that GBE will be. No public body currently appears to have its full board subject to pre-appointment scrutiny. Where individual roles are scrutinised, it is done following agreement between the Secretary of State and the committee chair.

From our point of view, the calibre of Great British Energy’s director appointments will be of great importance. We want GBE to succeed, so we want the highest calibre of people to be appointed as chair, to non-executive positions and to the chief executive officer role. We anticipate that recruitment for the substantive board will begin over the course of this year, and we will ensure that recruitment is undertaken in a manner which aligns with best practice. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that in line with Cabinet Office guidance, any relevant public appointments to Great British Energy will be discussed with the appropriate Select Committee chair. I hope that I have been reassuring regarding this.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and understanding response, and I thank other noble Lords who spoke in support of these amendments. I have two very quick points in response.

First, I note what the Minister says about the likely degree of independence of Great British Energy. We will have to see how that turns out, but I make the point, which was not really dealt with in his response, that there will always be an area where the company thinks that something is operational, but the Government believe it is political. That is where it is important to have clarity on relationships and how accountability works, so I am not entirely persuaded that the Bill gets this right at the moment, but I hear what he says.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am not sure that you can legislate for this. I understand what he says, because as Ministers, we have relationships with a number of key bodies at the moment. We have formal relationships, there are accountabilities, reports and meetings, but we also build up trust, understanding and working closely together. It is difficult to legislate for that. In saying that we want GBE to work, it has to feel operationally independent, or it is not going to work. We cannot micromanage it, but on the other hand, we are setting the tramlines in the context in which it operates. It is hard to go much further than that, in reality.

[Lord Frost]

Obviously, there is a degree of judgment and practice in how these things are done. There is also a degree of judgment on the extent to which it is desirable to fix the framework within which these judgments and relationships operate, which is probably the area of disagreement.

On the question of where the chair is based, the amendment may not be perfectly drafted. I think there is a difference between “based at” and “resident at”. The point of this amendment is to make sure that the business of the company, when transacted by the chair, is very firmly in Aberdeen, the HQ of the company, and not dragged elsewhere by the fact that the chair may not be resident there. This may not perfectly deal with that point, but it is an important point all the same, so I welcome the Minister’s comments on it. I will reflect on whether any of this is necessary at Report, because it is part of a wider discussion, but for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise; I thought that it was acceptable. The noble Lord should have intervened earlier if it was not. I would not have done it if I had known that it was not acceptable, so I apologise to the Committee.

[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.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I rise to close this group and indeed this sitting of the Committee today. It is worth saying that the chairman of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, has acknowledged the importance of communities. He used the words that GBE should be considered “a three-party partnership”, involving the private sector, the public sector and the community. If we also take account of the Labour assurances that have been given to communities along the way, I see no reason why we cannot consider these amendments further at the next stage, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Gas Storage Levels

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. First, I must remind the House that, on Friday, National Gas confirmed that:

“The overall picture across Great Britain’s eight main gas storage sites remains healthy”.


The diversity of Great Britain’s sources of gas supply means that we are less reliant on natural gas storage than our European counterparts. This includes, as the noble Lord suggests, supplies from the UK continental shelf; our long-term energy partner, Norway; international markets via liquefied natural gas; and interconnectors to the European continent.

I understand and fully accept what the noble Lord says about the North Sea and the contribution of the oil and gas sector, which we have debated, but it is essential that we move as quickly as possible to clean power. Clearly, by 2030, that will give us a great advantage in energy security. We will look for low-carbon, flexible technologies to ensure that we have the proper balance when we get to clean power. We want to see a successful transition in the North Sea, recognising the contribution that it makes and will continue to make.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree, first, that this is a fabricated scare story? There are no issues with our gas. It is not running out and it can be quickly resupplied via pipelines and LNG. Secondly, does he agree that the best resolution is the rapid end to the Conservative’s legacy of overdependence on very expensive imported foreign energy? To that end, the Conservatives would be well advised to stop filibustering on the Great British Energy Bill, which will greatly improve our energy security, decrease our overdependence on expensive imported foreign gas from tyrants such as Putin, bring down energy bills and costs for bill payers, and help us to meet our energy and climate targets.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad that I was not alone in thinking that we enjoyed a filibuster last night. What is tragic is that the Conservative Party is clearly retreating from net zero and clean power and has become obsessed with gas. This is not the way that we need to go. The noble Earl is quite right. Centrica chose to put out what I can only describe as an alarmist statement. NESO and British Gas are quite clear that we did not face a crisis and that we have adequate supplies. I hope that those who were involved in making those claims last week will reflect on the concern that they caused.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement. For the clarity of the house, can he confirm that the statement put out last week by NESO was a completely normal, conventional, operational statement which is made regularly to ensure that we have one of the safest and most reliable systems in the world?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

That is right. NESO manages this with an operating margin, made up of the operating reserve—1,400 megawatts, which it always keeps in reserve. There is a contingency reserve of an additional 800 megawatts on top of that operating reserve. That contingency reserve was tight last week and so an electricity margin notice was issued, as my noble friend suggested. This is a perfectly normal market response to a tightening of the situation, which was resolved immediately.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. The Minister’s Statement and his reply to the noble Lord just now are reassuring, as was all the independent analysis of what happened last week. We were not in a crisis. Nevertheless, it is important that, as we move towards more dependence on renewables, we look at the issues of long-duration energy storage and energy efficiency. We do not have a long time until 2030. Can the Minister tell us when we will be able to put some real targets on the amount of long-duration energy storage, which the Science and Technology Committee of this House says that we need urgently?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I was present during the debate on Thursday on the Select Committee’s excellent report on this very subject. I refer my friend the noble Baroness to the action plan that my department issued only a few weeks ago, estimating that between 40 gigawatts and 50 gigawatts of dispatchable and long-duration flexible capacity could be needed by 2030. We are going to take a number of interventions to ensure that this happens. We have already announced a ground-breaking deal with Net Zero Teesside, our first power CCUS project. We are developing a hydrogen-to-power business model to derisk investment in that area. Ofgem will be introducing the cap and floor scheme to support investment in long-term duration electricity storage. We aim to open the scheme to applications in quarter 2 of 2025. We fully take on board the point that the noble Baroness makes and the Select Committee report.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, what was the level of storage at the Rough facility when Labour last left office in 2010 and what happened to that storage facility after the Tories took power?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Rough was closed in 2017. At that time, when the party opposite was in government, I do not think that it raised any concerns at all. Indeed, the then Energy Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, said that the closure of Rough would not cause a problem with security. In 2022, Centrica decided to re-open the site. This was a commercial decision by the company. It now seeks government support. One needs to draw a line between the announcement that it made last week and its request for government support.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many people in the public will still not understand the logic of why we spend some £14 billion buying gas from Norway from the same North Sea that we ourselves could be taking it from. Does the noble Lord think that Norway cares any less about the environment and net zero than we do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

For a very long time, we have taken supplies from Norway. It is surely a great advantage of our system that we can look to a diversity of supply. The North Sea supply has been declining over many years now; if it were not in that situation we could, where we needed gas in the future, just look there, but that is not the position. That is why we are trying to manage a transition which recognises that the North Sea still has a contribution to make. The essential point here is that we move as quickly as possible to clean power. That is the best way to get to homegrown energy, which I think the noble Baroness is really pointing to.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I wonder if I can move on to the need for warm homes. Heat pumps are very efficient in heating homes—every kilowatt of electricity generates three to four kilowatts of heat—yet cheaper electricity from renewables ends up being a more expensive option to heat homes than gas because the price of electricity is tied to the high price of gas. Does the Minister agree that this situation is nonsensical and that electricity prices must be decoupled from the price of gas?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

That is a very wide question, and it is of course a matter that we should always keep under review. It is a situation that has existed for some time and which we inherited from the previous Government. On the substantive point, the noble Baroness is right about heat pumps and home insulation. We clearly need to make great progress on that.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Bill be reported from the Committee of the Whole House in respect of proceedings up to and including 13 January; and that the order of commitment of 18 November 2024 be discharged and the remainder of the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it would be helpful to the House if I explain this Motion and, for those noble Lords who were not in your Lordships’ House at 10 pm last night, the circumstances that give rise to it.

The Great British Energy Bill is an eight-clause Bill that provides a statutory basis for Great British Energy as a publicly owned company to become operationally independent and start delivering benefits for the UK. This includes driving clean energy deployment and boosting energy independence so we can enjoy the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy. It was in the Government’s manifesto, it was one of the first Bills to be introduced following the general election and it has been through all its Commons stages.

The Bill was initially scheduled for two days of Committee of the whole House. Progress in Committee has been, shall we say, somewhat slow. In total, 153 amendments have been tabled, which is around 19 amendments for every clause of the Bill. Last night, it was the Government’s intent to finish Committee, but at five minutes past 10 the Opposition Chief Whip moved the adjournment of the House, which was successful.

Report has been agreed for 11 February. Noble Lords will have noted that, over the next two weeks, the House will be heavily engaged in this Chamber with the Mental Health Bill and Martyn’s law. So, noting the request from the Official Opposition for more time to scrutinise the Bill, my noble friend the Chief Whip has kindly arranged for it to be considered in Grand Committee on Wednesday 15 January and 22 January if required, and noble Lords will be able to table further amendments today. If the Motion is agreed to, the groupings will be circulated to those who have tabled amendments as soon as possible, with a deadline for changes at 8 pm. I hope this will allow further debate on the Bill, which indeed is what the Official Opposition requested, and I very much hope that the whole House will support the Motion. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, last night this House voted to adjourn the House at a conventional time of 10 pm to stop the Government rushing through the Great British Energy Bill—on which the Government intend to spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. Today, after two and a half days of scrutiny in this Chamber, the Government are seeking to finish the Bill away from the Floor of your Lordships’ House in Grand Committee. As far as I recall, where the Official Opposition object, this is quite an unprecedented move. Before we adjourned last night, we completed nine groups and started a 10th. In all the years that I was a Minister, I would have been delighted to have completed and made so much progress on a Bill in a day. Ten groups is not a filibuster; it is reasonable progress in anybody’s books.

I note the Government’s new habit of labelling groups “degrouped” despite us providing reasoned titles for them. So, for the benefit of the House, I will very briefly run through the groups that we debated yesterday, and then perhaps the Minister, if he wishes, can tell us which of these did not deserve to be debated: directions to GB Energy on consumer energy bills, new jobs, developing supply chains, the cost of fulfilling strategic priorities, national grid infrastructure, carbon emissions, imported energy, UK manufacturers and financial returns; the impact of GB Energy investments on electricity prices, returns, employment and the environment; consultation and oversight; the inappropriate use of prime agricultural land; a large miscellaneous group—actually intended to be helpful to the Government—which included mandatory reinvestment of profits, exclusion of investments to projects with government subsidies, independent evaluation of investments, limitation of investments to UK-registered companies, limitations on money spent on travel to conferences, and support for companies and universities; nuclear energy; curtailment of renewable energy; energy storage; renewable energy generation; and reporting, accounts and auditing.

Which of those topics did not deserve fair and proper scrutiny? Energy security, energy storage and the environment? Just this weekend, we have read reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer negotiating closer ties with China and of fuel reserves reaching critical lows in the very cold spell. It is very important and topical business. If there is a group of amendments that did not deserve to be debated, I should be very grateful to be enlightened.

Every noble Lord in this House has a right to be heard, and yesterday we heard from Members with widespread experience and expertise. I challenge any noble Lord to read back through Hansard and find me one speech that they consider inappropriate. All of them were informed and insightful, and within the advisory speaking times set out in the Companion.

The job of the Opposition is to scrutinise the work of the Government and hold the Government to account. This is nothing personal; it is simply the proper functioning of our Parliament. When the tables were turned and it was the Labour Party occupying these Benches, we had 13 Bills which took more than 10 days in Committee. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 and the Welfare Reform Act 2012 took 17 days, and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 each took 15 days. We debated thousands upon thousands of amendments. I was often the Minister on those Bills. Since 2015, the most amendments tabled to a Bill has been 1,249, but there have been 51 Bills which had more than 200 amendments tabled to them, 23 Bills that had more than 400 and 16 that had more than 500.

We will not be voting against this Motion today. We made our point last night, and I had hoped that the Government might listen. I reiterate that we simply seek to subject legislation to the fullest and most appropriate scrutiny, as is our responsibly.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for not opposing the Motion that I intend to press in a moment. Of course I recognise that it is the role of the Opposition to scrutinise legislation. I would say that Grand Committee offers an opportunity for effective scrutiny, and I have no doubt that, in the two days reserved, we will see many more contributions from noble Lords—no doubt repeating the points that they have made time and time again on this Bill.

I just say to the noble Baroness that, in relation to the groups of amendments that we debated last night on directions, it is interesting that when, at the beginning of Committee and at Second Reading, noble Lords opposite seemed to accuse the Government of wishing to use the Clause 6 directions to micromanage the company, we made it abundantly clear that it is a backstop reserve which we hope will never have to be used. Noble Lords opposite then simply used the direction clause to act to come forward with a series of amendments. Many of the issues had already been debated in the first five clauses, and there was a vigorous degrouping to ensure that we had many repetitive contributions. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 27 years. I recognise a filibuster when I see it. Last night was a filibuster.

Motion agreed.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. If I may, I will call out the elephant in the room on this Bill. We have had 10 groups of amendments turned into 18 groups on this final day in Committee—over half of the groups that we are discussing today are the result of one party degrouping amendments. We have spent over two hours speaking to the first group of amendments, and we have 18 groups to speak to today. I have heard a lot of speeches, but in the case of many, I could not tell which amendment they were even speaking to.

I will say just this: we support the Government and the Bill. This is an extremely important Bill. I am pleased to see action taken on these measures after the Conservative Party failed to do anything about it, left bill payers vulnerable to the increase in bills as a result of the war in Ukraine and ended up spending £40 billion of taxpayers’ money subsidising bill payers for no long-term benefits. In this group, we are generally supportive of Amendments 61, 65, 69, 70 and 74. For groups that we feel were unnecessarily degrouped, we will probably not make comments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because it seems to me that we have “enjoyed” what essentially has been a rerun of previous debates, with Second Reading-type speeches, when the key concern, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggests, is Clause 6 and the power of direction.

So I do want to come back to the intent of Clause 6. First, we want GBE to be operationally independent. A founding principle of GBE is that it should be independent as far as possible in executing its functions. The Bill is focused on making the minimum necessary provisions to establish the company. At Second Reading, some noble Lords opposite accused the Government of drafting the Bill in a way that meant we would use Clause 6 to micromanage GBE. We have always maintained, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly pointed out, that this is a backstop provision, yet now noble Lords opposite seek to micromanage both the Government and GBE by these various amendments, most of the issues in which we have already debated.

Secondly, we have set up GBE as a company for long-term success and as an enduring institution. Some of the amendments, which include short-term targets, would be wholly inappropriate in legislation. Indeed, it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State to set priorities via the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5, of course within the framework of Clause 3.

My third point is the intended use of the power in Clause 6. Let me make it absolutely clear, as I have done in the past, that the power to give directions to GBE is intended only for urgent or unforeseen circumstances. These amendments would widen the intention unnecessarily. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right about the relationship between government and such organisations. She and I have both had experience in relation to the NHS; it is a slightly different set-up, but we are talking about the relationship between a government department, the Secretary of State and public bodies. She will know that there the Secretary of State has always had a power of direction, but I think it has had to be used only a handful of times. The reason of course is that chief execs of NHS bodies understand that the Secretary of State is able to set the overall direction of the National Health Service without having to call on what is essentially a backstop power.

My fourth point on a number of the amendments is that the existing reporting requirements are set out in the Bill, which makes provision for GBE to produce and publish an annual report and accounts. They will undergo external audit; they will contain information on the activity of the company over the year; and they will also include reporting in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. GBE may also make information available through reporting, such as when projects or investments are announced. We think that that is sufficient accountability.

On some points raised by noble Lords on Amendment 59, we believe that in an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect bill payers permanently is to speed up the transition from fossil fuels to home-grown clean energy. This is consistent with advice from the Climate Change Committee and it is why we have set an ambitious target to reach clean power by 2030, which the independent NESO considers achievable. We believe that the key role of BGE is focused on driving forward deployment.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I agree with them on the importance of nuclear power. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this is the second time he has tried to divert the Government from supporting Sizewell C. I say to him that this is a massive development and we are moving to final investment decisions over the next few months. It will produce 3.2 gigawatts, it is a replica of Hinkley Point C, 80% above ground, and we have the regulated asset-based approach which will bring in private sector expertise and disciplines. So, in agreeing with him on the importance of small modular reactors and advanced nuclear reactors, we should not underestimate the potential of Sizewell C—and indeed Hinkley Point C when it comes on line, I hope at the end of this decade.

Of course I take the points that data centres will need a lot of electricity, that grid capacity issues are vital and that we need more investment in the grid. I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, about the beauty, or not, of pylons. I of course accept the point he makes, but we are going to have to have more pylons. None the less, they will have to go through vigorous planning and meet environmental protection requirements.

On jobs and Amendment 60, GBE aims to revitalise the UK’s industrial areas and we think that, by situating its headquarters in Aberdeenshire—which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will welcome—it will be able to leverage the skilled workforce available there and throughout Scotland. More broadly, we have set up the Office for Clean Energy Jobs to promote clean energy employment and focus on skills development and training in the core energy and net-zero sectors.

Amendments 61 and 76 concern supply chains, which are of course very important indeed. GBE’s founding statement has already made it clear that my department expects the company to prioritise the development of supply chains and to report to government on progress. To come to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of course we have debated these matters over the years and I absolutely understand where he is coming from. But it will be for GBE as an operationally independent company to determine the projects and technologies it chooses to invest in, in accordance with its objectives. It will be expected to respect human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and it will be subject to the provisions on forced labour and supply chains, both under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023.

We recently set out our Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which requires significant deployment of solar electricity—noble Lords are right on that. Developing sustainable, diverse and resilient solar supply chains, free from forced labour, is important for the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows, we also have the Solar Taskforce, which will be looking at these matters.

On Amendment 63 on the cost of fulfilling the company’s strategic objectives, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, that the Secretary of State will set ambitious but achievable objectives for Great British Energy that can be achieved through the funding envelope. GBE will be backed, as noble Lords will know, by a capitalisation of £8.3 billion over this Parliament, and its objective is to crowd in additional private sector investment. However, it will be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines and, like existing publicly financed institutions, its investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments.

On Amendments 69, 70 and 85A, on the impact on carbon emissions of GBE’s investments, the company is committed to advancing the deployment of clean energy to aid the Government’s goal of decarbonising our electricity system by 2030. The amendments would require a report to be produced for every investment made by Great British Energy, which seems neither proportionate nor effective. On importing energy into the UK, we acknowledge that reliance on imported fossil fuels presents economic and security risks, as evidenced by the situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The best response is to increase domestic power generation through renewable energy sources and nuclear power, while simultaneously transitioning to more sustainable methods for heating homes, fuelling vehicles and powering industry. These can substantially mitigate our exposure to volatile international markets and energy price fluctuations. We see GBE as being at the heart of those efforts.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does the Minister accept, however, that converting oilseed rape into aviation fuel does not produce clean energy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we rely on agreed definitions as to whether an energy is clean. The noble Lord mentioned biomass and Drax. He will know that the Government’s view, which his party also took when in government, is that the carbon absorbed by the forestry that replaces what has been transported to Drax more than covers the carbon expended in the process of bringing it to Drax, including the use of shipping. For 14 years, the party opposite accepted that this was an appropriate definition.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment, on the risk to off-grid households and the value of renewable liquid fuels to these households. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also covered that point, and I listened with great care to what both had to say. Clearly, we want fuel-poor and off-gas-grid homes to benefit from the transition to net zero. The current energy company obligation includes incentives to deliver measures such as low-carbon heating to off-gas-grid rural homes in Scotland and Wales. Phase 2 of the home upgrade grant provides energy efficiency upgrades and low-carbon heating measures to low-income households living in the worst performing off-gas-grid homes in England in order to tackle fuel poverty.

We recognise that renewable liquid fuels could play a role in decarbonising heat off the gas grid. We therefore expect to prioritise the use of renewable liquid fuels for the small number of homes that are not readily suitable for electrification, as these have the fewest options to decarbonise through alternative low-carbon technologies. My noble friend Lord Berkeley suggested a meeting on this; I am very happy to engage with him and, indeed, with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.

Amendment 76, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, relate to sourcing materials for GBE projects from the domestic supply chain. Adding the proposed detail to the Bill would too narrowly restrict the company in carrying out its activities, halting the potential feasibility of projects where UK sourcing is not currently possible.

On jobs, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, concerning the importance of the UK continental shelf and the need for an orderly transition. My daughter supported her career as a wireline engineer in the oil and gas industry working out of Aberdeen, and I am well aware of the importance of the sector, what it has contributed to the UK economy and the skills and dedication of the people working there. As we have described, we want an orderly and just transition.

GB Energy will be committed to helping drive the growth of supply chains in the UK to accelerate the deployment of key UK energy projects. It is important, however, that we comply with the international trading rules that the UK is bound by, such as prohibitions on requiring local content contained under various agreements under the WTO.

Amendment 80, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, requires the Secretary

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wonder if I can press him further on the issue of jobs and the impact on our own economy when countries run, in their own jurisdictions, the kind of slave labour arrangements that I and others referred to earlier. He will have seen the information about the loss of electric vehicle-related jobs because of the flooding of the market—we do not have any tariffs on those vehicles, whereas every other G7 country does. He will know that, in the last quarter, the trade deficit with China was some £32 billion but at no time since 1995 has there ever been surplus on our side of the equation. How can we justify, therefore, pouring more money into the economy of a country that relies on slave labour? It cannot just be left to companies, even Great British Energy, to identify whether a country is using slave labour or not; surely that is a matter for the Government, too.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises matters of great geopolitical importance and importance to the UK’s economy. He will have seen that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has been in China in the last few days, seeking to engage that country in relation to economic co-operation and development, within appropriate security safeguards. We want to see jobs in the energy sector developed as much as possible in the United Kingdom, but equally, we are operating in a global economy. For very good reasons, we are concerned about the introduction of tariffs which may inhibit international trade, and we must also be mindful of the economic value-for-money issues that clearly have to come into play in this area.

Let me return to the Bill and what is appropriate for us to include in it. We believe that this issue is a matter for GBE, working within the constraints set through the statement of priorities and through Clause 3, and also in relation to the further work we are going to do. We have mentioned solar, and noble Lords are right that much of the raw material for solar panels comes from China, although it is British companies working in the United Kingdom that benefit more from the value of the work on solar installations.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, as a publicly owned company, GBE will be held accountable through regular reporting to my department. It will be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines, its investments will be subject to safeguards and risk assessments, and it will invest in the private sector to share risk and reward.

On green taxonomy, a decision about how a potential UK green taxonomy could be used or applied has not yet been finalised. The Government have launched a consultation to gather views on the value of the case for a UK green taxonomy, and it will close on 6 February.

We need to come back to what Clause 6 is for as a whole. It is a backstop which one hopes would never have to be used; it is not a way to encourage the Secretary of State to micromanage a company that we very much want to be operationally independent.

[Lord Petitgas (Con)]

I want to go back to the point about the company acting independently. There is little bit of confusion about this company being an energy company, as opposed to an investment company. There will be myriad small investments. If it acts independently, which is fine, it needs an investment committee, and I have not read anywhere that there will be one. The chairman-elect is Jürgen Maier. He may know the sector but he is not an investor. So, effectively, taxpayers will be limited partners in an investment company without an investment committee and with a chair who is not an investor, so it is not unreasonable to ask for information about rates of return and to understand exactly how it will be done. If the answer is, “Don’t worry, it’s an independent company but value for money will be done by the Treasury with DESNZ”, that is a different governance process, but the governance of investment and selection to me remains relatively obscure.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not really think I can go any further than the remarks I have made this afternoon. It will ultimately be for GBE’s board to decide how it will arrange its board committees. I have noted what the noble Lord said about an investment committee. I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of Jürgen Maier, who may not be an investment expert, as the noble Lord suggests, but my goodness me he has a lot of experience in this sector.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, in bringing the debate on these amendments to a close, I can deal head-on with the Minister’s comments and those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the time given to the Bill. We have so far had one and a half days in Committee and we have one further day allocated, which will be only two and a half days on a Bill that spends £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, has no detail on how that money will be spent and gives endless power to the Secretary of State for Energy. It is entirely reasonable that we scrutinise it. The weekend’s press was full of the energy crisis that we face, with the shortage, storage and national grid issues.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, there is no energy crisis.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I said, the point of government is to ensure that there is no energy crisis and at the weekend we had reports of there being gas supplies for less than one week, which is concerning to the public. Therefore, it is only fair and reasonable that Parliament debates that in some detail.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what we had was one company looking for government subsidies using the opportunity to make alarmist headlines.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The point is that this is a topical debate that the whole of the public are interested in. They understand energy prices like nothing else now. They understand that, in terms of their household budgets, this is a major part of their cost of living and it is only reasonable that we get to debate this.

The amendments in this group are straightforward and simple. They are nothing to do with micromanagement; they are only to do with the accountability and transparency of this new company, which, as my noble friend Lord Petitgas pointed out, is not an operating company. The public think this is a company that makes cheap energy. It is an investment company sitting on one floor of a building in Aberdeen making investment decisions, and we have no idea how it will do that.

At the last election, the Government made promises to working people on this topic: to reduce energy costs, create jobs and drive forward our energy transition. Therefore, taking my noble friend Lady Noakes’s constructive point, we can argue about how we deliver the substance of these amendments, but we should not ignore the substance. Is it not fair and reasonable that we have in the Bill some consideration of government promises made to the public about the cost of energy—£300 in savings, which, incidentally, is £8 billion, the same amount as is being invested in 28 million households at £300—or the fact that 650,000 jobs are to be created? Is it not reasonable that the Bill somewhere talks about the fact that we want a strategic priority for the UK to develop its own energy supply chain? Is it not unreasonable that we have amendments that deal with how we make sure that the supply chain is fair? We have talked about a fair transition: well, where is the fair transition, to pick up what the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Alton, said, when we destroy our own highly skilled jobs in the north-east or end up using products made under dubious circumstances in overseas territories?

I would argue that all these amendments need to be considered. There is consensus in this House that we need energy security and that we need to get to 2050. The question is: why is this being speeded up artificially when we and the technology are not ready? Why are we doing this artificially?

My final point has been mentioned by many noble Lords so far: none of this works without the plumbing working. The national grid needs a serious upgrade and comprehensive investment to deliver this. If in these straitened times—we are continually reminded by the Government Benches that there is no money—there is a spare £8 billion, should it not be better used by being put into the national grid once and for all? In the meantime, given that we are where we are in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, can I make a comment on that? I am a trustee of the green share in the Green Investment Bank, which was privatised by the Tories after it was set up by the coalition Government. It was a very profitable operation, although it was fully publicly owned. The issue was that it was almost too conservative in terms of making money under Treasury rules, so it did not make as much of a difference—it did make a difference—as it should have done. One of the risks is that GB Energy could be too conservative because the Treasury is too close to it and will not let it do the innovation that needs to happen for decarbonisation to take place by 2030.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make just two points. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a very interesting and wise contribution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that of course I have heard the expression that Governments are not very good at picking winners. That is why we have set up GBE. We will have a company with people with expertise to enable investments to take place within the context we set under Clause 3 and Clause 5 as strategic priorities. None the less, it will have operational independence.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right; noble Lords in their various amendments are seeking to pin down GBE through excessive reporting requirements. The risk is that GBE, far from being allowed to flourish and develop, will be inhibited and micromanaged. That is why these amendments are wholly inappropriate in relation to Clause 6. The power of direction is not to be used in the way that noble Lords are suggesting; it is a backstop power. What is the point of setting up GBE if we are to undermine its independence in the way these amendments suggest?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, as in the previous group, these amendments are not designed in any way to micromanage. There is very little in the Bill that gives us any indication of how this company will operate. As indicated by my noble friend Lord Petitgas, it is an investment company without an investment committee or any investment directors. All that is being sought by these amendments is some level of accountability and scrutiny.

Once again, I say that when promises are made to the public that the Bill will address their concerns, it is not unreasonable that we ask for amendments to be made accordingly. For example, looking at employment in Amendment 68, we are simply asking for a report—as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said—on the impact these investments make on employment and bills. Why is that an unreasonable thing to say? We have 200,000 people in highly skilled jobs in the North Sea. They are worried that they are about to be phased out unilaterally and prematurely. Why is it unreasonable to have somewhere in the Bill a requirement that GBE comes to Parliament and explains what it is doing in relation to employment in this key sector?

As we have said before, the Bill has failed to substantiate the promises made. The job of the Opposition is to highlight that and to make it clear that this needs to be debated and scrutinised. That is what we will continue to do. In light of that, for now I will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, Amendments 63, 73, 104 and 105 offer a practical and necessary solution to ensure that the best land is reserved for food production while still allowing for renewable energy development on less productive land. This is not an either/or situation; it is a matter of finding a balance that serves both our energy needs and our need to protect the land that sustains us.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his first set of amendments. Of course, he is right that our food security is very important indeed to this country, just as moving as quickly as we can towards clean power is also very important, and I certainly accept that of course there is a balance to be drawn. Certainly, the importance of maintaining our natural resources to support UK agriculture, and supporting local stakeholder consultation in affairs that affect their surroundings and the quality of the environment, are values that I share with noble Lords who have spoken in the debate tonight. But I must come back to the fact that we are talking about Clause 6 and the issue of whether we should seek to amend Clause 6 in the directions that the Secretary of State can give to GBE.

I repeat what I said in the first two groups: these directions are a backstop where an intervention is needed, not a way in which to develop policy in relation to land use. In response to my noble friend Lady Young and other noble Lords, my understanding is that the Government plan to publish a 12-week consultation on land use early in this year. The consultation will inform the publication of a land use framework in England, to be published later on in this year.

I have also noted constructive comments about the need for us to develop—indeed, some noble Lords wish us to mandate—the use of solar in warehouses and in industrial and domestic properties, and these matters are under very urgent consideration at the moment. But we will always need ground-based solar, as well as onshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested, which of course is why we got rid of what was in effect a ban that the last Government so grievously introduced in relation to that development.

The projects that GBE will be concerned with, that it will invest in and that it will give guidance and encouragement to—because of course that is an important part of its role, too—will be mandated. Inevitably, its job will be to consider government guidance on the most suitable land for renewable energy projects, and any project that it is involved in will be subject to the same rigorous planning processes that currently exist to protect agricultural land, minimise the impact on food security and provide ample consideration for local community interests.

The environmental impact assessment regulations of 2017 require that certain types of projects, including large-scale renewable energy developments, undergo an environmental impact assessment to assess their potential impact on the environment. Developers must also ensure that their projects comply with environmental regulations, which can include mitigating impacts on local wildlife, water resources and soil quality.

Further, the National Planning Policy Framework includes the preservation of agricultural land for food production as a key consideration in its legal framework governing renewable energy projects. It emphasises the need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land, namely grades 1, 2 and 3a, from development that could compromise its productivity. Developers must consider the classification of the land involved in renewable energy projects and ensure that developments do not conflict with planning policies aimed at safeguarding agricultural land.

On the noble Lord’s suggestion that there is a dash for renewables, yes, there is a dash for renewables—I do not deny it. We have to have a dash for renewables. But that does not mean that existing protections are being overridden. Of course we recognise that poorly sited onshore projects can have impacts on the local area, which is why we will retain important checks and balances to protect the environment.

But, in the end, we come back to why we have Clause 6. It is a backstop power which we hope will never have to be used; it is not a way of seeking to change policy in relation to land use.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate that has explored the tensions between food and energy security in the context of the national interest. It has recognised the tensions between the establishment of a private company, GB Energy, acting as it is required to do in its own narrow self-interest, and its responsibilities as a public body with a duty to set the right example.

I have taken from some of the comments that, “Lord Fuller has perhaps played the right notes but in the wrong order”. I am not Morecambe and Wise to my noble friend Lord Roborough, but I would just like to refer to some of the points that have come along.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his comments on the balance of land use and the importance of the “tilted balance”. Please do not misunderstand: my amendments are not saying that there should be no solar or renewables, or that we should have only food production. It is about where we put this thing in the tilted balance.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for shining a light on the fact that, notwithstanding that the Minister said, “Well, there are rules to be followed”, the rules are not being followed. That is why it is important that these amendments are made to the Bill, because we cannot really give the benefit of the doubt: if hitherto they have not been followed, why will they be followed now?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, but even more grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for being gentle with her so I did not have to be.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the broad picture, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for his point about tenants, because that has been lost as part of the social fabric in this.

I will be brief. This is such an important issue that I do not feel we can just leave it on trust that the Minister for Energy Security will necessarily dovetail in with the Minister for Food Production to get that tilted balance right. The nation cannot risk GB Energy going rogue, and there has to be a better way with that. It is hard. Energy security and food security can be bedfellows: we are not being fundamentalist about this. At heart, my amendments are about putting food production on the best land, and solar and other renewables on other land.

We have we have fleshed out quite a few details and I know we are in Committee. I hope the Minister will meet with me and colleagues before Report, so that important safeguards can be taken into account in the Bill, if not in Clause 6 then perhaps somewhere else—who knows? I also hope that we may even have the heralded land use framework which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, promised before Christmas—but there we are.

On the basis that the Minister will meet me, I am prepared to withdraw these amendments, but in so doing I signal my intention to re-present them on Report, having taken soundings from colleagues that, if we cannot make satisfactory progress towards getting an acceptable way forward, we may need to test the opinion of the House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government are to invest in nuclear energy, using GB Energy as their investment body, they must look to improve the global competitiveness of the UK nuclear industry and seek to crowd-in private investment. High start-up costs of nuclear projects and the potential for cost overruns have long been a daunting obstacle to the private financing of nuclear power plants. Considering this, the Government must look to create a market which is attractive to private investors if they are to achieve their goal of decarbonisation. I look to the Minister to confirm how the Government propose to support and attract this private investment. What consideration have they given to the competitiveness of the UK nuclear sector compared to that in the US, for example, or in France, as my noble friend highlighted? Have the Government carefully considered the many ways by which they can finance nuclear projects? Finally, will the Minister confirm or deny whether GB Energy will be involved in supporting the nuclear industry by way of loans, guarantees or any other financial support?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always good to have a discussion about nuclear energy. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is ever consistent in putting forward his views. I assure him and the Committee that the Government see nuclear power as having a vital and important part in our energy mix.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that the fact is that no technology is mentioned in the Bill, and that is quite deliberate—so the absence of nuclear in the Bill should not be taken as an indication that we do not think that it has an important role to play. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on Labour’s record on nuclear, it was in fact a Labour Government, in 2008, who took the decision that we would go back to new nuclear. Shortly afterwards, I was appointed a Minister of State at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, and I took part in many discussions at that point about how we got the sites, developed the supply chain and attracted investment. The fact is that we were succeeded by a coalition Government, followed by a Conservative Government, and it was not until, I think, 2017 that a final investment decision was made in relation to Hinkley Point C.

I am very proud of the nuclear sector. For all the challenges that Hinkley Point C has had, the fact is that a UK supply chain has been developed. The point about replication at Sizewell C is that that supply chain can then continue to service Sizewell C. We then want to see small modular reactors and AMRs developed, because we see them as having great potential. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that he has not responded to the points raised by his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in relation to Sizewell C. I am sure he will agree with me that, if we were to pull the plug on Sizewell C at this point, it would have a devastating impact on the confidence of the nuclear sector, in this country and globally. Actually—although he is not here—the point about replication is about the derisking of Sizewell C, building on what happened at Hinkley Point C, including the design changes and all the other issues, such as the time it took to develop the supply chain and the productivity issues. The case for Sizewell C is very strong indeed, and we look forward to moving towards a final investment decision over the next few months.

On the relationship between GBN and GBE, we have decided that GBN will remain a separate legal entity. That is important, because it makes sure that we have a body that can focus completely on nuclear energy, but working very strongly together with Great British Energy. The two chairs have met and have, I believe, built a very strong relationship already. I expect them to be able to work in strong partnership in future. I do not think it is necessary to put onerous requirements in the Bill. Certainly, Clause 6 is not the way in which to do it.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is concerned about the approach that GBN is taking to the SMR technology selection process. It was instituted by his own party in government, and I think he was critical of his own Government. Well, I am not. I think the SMR technology assessment was absolutely the right thing to do. In September 2024 it concluded the initial tender phase of the process and downselected four companies. We hope for further progress over the next few months.

I recognise the huge potential that AMRs bring, and we will respond to the alternative routes to market consultation. We are obviously very keen to do what we can to attract nuclear company developers in this country.

On the impact of competitiveness, I really do not think the Bill is an appropriate vehicle for those considerations, and nor do I see that being part of Great British Energy’s role. But of course I want there to be a thriving nuclear industry in this country. I want to see us build on the supply chain that has been built around Hinkley Point C and then on to Sizewell C, as I have said.

In conclusion, I hope the noble Viscount will recognise that while he may disagree with elements of the Government’s policy on nuclear, he should be under no misapprehension: we believe that nuclear provides an essential baseload. We will continue to support the industry in the future.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply, and I thank my noble friend for his intervention. To some extent I am heartened by the Minister’s words, although I remain a little unconvinced by his assertion that he sees nuclear as being so important. There is a fundamental difference between GBE and GBN, in that GBE has £8.2 billion of capital and GBN has only a few hundred million. The two vehicles are completely different, so I would be rather more relieved if the Minister had explained that the capital made available to GBE would equally be available to nuclear projects that GBN might recommend for investment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Can I just respond? Nothing precludes GBE from investing in a nuclear development.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

I thank the Minister again for his reply. Nevertheless, GBN does not have any money for investment, so GBN is by definition a very different kind of vehicle compared with GBE. In light of the Minister’s reply, I would like to withdraw my amendment for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill, as well as in the other debates in this House on the future of our energy, we know that renewable energy by its nature will always be unreliable. It is, by its nature, intermittent. Many of us have expressed concern that this undeniable fact will result in shortages. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Murray, last year Europe in fact experienced several episodes of Dunkelflaute. On the other hand, as has been highlighted by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, what happens to energy supply in periods of persistent sunshine and wind?

Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position in which the national grid is unable to cope with excess renewable energy supply. Grid capacity is a particular challenge for the offshore wind sector, because those sites are necessarily located far from sources of demand. Currently, the national grid pays renewable energy generators billions to reduce supply when there is more renewable electricity than the grid can manage. This problem will only be compounded by the Government’s ambition to build renewables faster than we can develop and connect them to the grid.

With that in mind, we should address the fact that the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for a new energy project can reach 10 years. Not only this, but a project without a grid connection today may not come online until well after the Government’s target of grid decarbonisation by 2030. There is no doubt that the renewable energy projects that will supposedly be supported by the establishment of Great British Energy will face the same connectivity difficulties.

As my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, over £1 billion was coughed up by bill payers last year to pay renewable energy generators to curtail excess supply, including £20 million in one day alone. This will only worsen under the Government’s agenda, and it will be consumers who will bear the cost via their energy bills. If renewable generation is scaled up so rapidly without the grid capacity to transmit it to the areas of high demand, those curtailment payments will only increase. We know that excessive curtailment fees are already being paid to wind farm operators who are generating more power than can be used. This is paid to get operators to switch off their wind farms and avoid overloading the grid. How ridiculous is that? We expect these curtailment costs only to rise under the new Government’s regime, and by 2030 it is possible that there will be a staggering £20 billion a year in subsidies and in maintaining back-up grid capacity. That equates to roughly £700 per household each year.

I turn to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which I support in their entirety. Amendment 85E requires Great British Energy to

“report annually on the impact of each investment it makes on the levels of curtailed renewable energy in the UK”.

Amendment 85D requires Great British Energy to

“invest in additional energy storage infrastructure to store excess renewable energy”,

and thereby minimise the cost of curtailing excess supply. In tabling these amendments, my noble friend has addressed many of the issues that I have discussed.

It is essential that the establishment of Great British Energy does not cost the taxpayer more than the already allocated £8.3 billion, and that it assesses the impact of its investments on the cost of wasting excess supply and prioritises the means of storing renewable energy. I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for Amendments 85D and 85E, which are focused on the issue of renewable energy curtailment. I must repeat, as I said earlier, that this debate is, in essence, about technologies, rather than the appropriate use of the directions in Clause 6. However, I assure the noble Lord that we are determined to increase significantly the deployment of short-term and long-term duration electricity storage to reduce curtailment.

I, too, was present in the debate on energy storage last Thursday, which was very interesting. My noble friend Lady Gustafsson recognised then that a variety of energy storage technologies would be needed to achieve net zero. That includes technologies such as lithium batteries and pumped hydropower storage—which can deploy at different scales and provide output over different lengths of time—and it can include emerging technologies, such as liquid air energy storage and flow batteries. Low-carbon hydrogen, too, can act as a low-carbon flexible generating technology and provide very long duration energy storage.

Today, around 7 gigawatts’ worth of grid-scale electricity storage is operational in Great Britain. This is made up of 2.8 gigawatts of pumped hydrogen and 4.3 gigawatts of grid-scale lithium battery storage. I add that we have announced a long-duration energy support scheme. We will publish a technical document in February. Applications will open in the second quarter, and we hope that the first agreements under the cap and floor system will take place in early 2026. It will be technology neutral, and it will be for projects that could not be built without the cap and floor system.

There are some developments in train: SSE, for instance, is doing exploratory tunnelling in the north of Scotland for pumped-storage hydro. Highview Power has reached FID in terms of liquid air energy storage near Carrington. Points on curtailment costs are well made; we see it as a key priority to accelerate network infrastructure to increase capacity on network and reduce constraints.

I do not think there is a lacuna; the Bill is constructed in the way it is. We have Clause 3 and the strategic statement of priorities in Clause 5. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the substantive point he raises is important and accepted by the Government.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and am provided with some reassurance that the Government take storage seriously. However, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Ashcombe, the cost of curtailing output is presently substantial, as the Minister conceded. As my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Offord pointed out, the difficulty with the current structure of the Bill is that we are not moving fast enough to secure sufficient storage capacity such that we do not need to make such large curtailment payments.

I urge the Minister to consider inserting in the Bill, at the very least, some form of requirement for reporting in relation to curtailment payments, which would encourage the market in storage capacity. With that, I am content to withdraw my amendment.

--- 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.

Energy Costs for Businesses

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the cost of energy for businesses in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government believe that the only way to protect bill payers permanently, including businesses and non-domestic organisations, is to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels and towards homegrown, clean energy.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but Britain’s energy cost for business is the highest in the G20, with Russia, China and the United States having the cheapest. Gary Smith, general secretary of the GMB union, says that Labour’s green strategy is “naive”, displays a

“lack of intellectual rigour and thinking”

and will lead to job losses. Does the Minister agree with Gary Smith? If not, why not?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is not how I recognise our energy policy. The noble Lord will have seen our action plan towards clean power, published at the end of last week, which sets out how we intend comprehensively to move towards clean power by 2030. I just say to the noble Lord that the highest price that businesses paid for electricity was in 2023, under the Government in which he was a member. What that shows is that, if we remain dependent on the volatility of international fossil-fuel prices, we will always be vulnerable to the kinds of spikes we have seen. That is why we need clean power and homegrown energy.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan is clear, on page 81, that nuclear power has a role to play in achieving clean power by 2030. Will my noble friend the Minister give a little more detail on what the Government are doing to support the development of the technology around small modular reactors, so that they can eventually be built in this country, support British jobs and reduce costs for businesses?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to explore the contribution that nuclear will play in the lead up to 2030, but of course beyond, which is why we have the building of Hinkley Point C, then Sizewell C when we get to a financial investment decision next year, then the SMR programme and then the AMR programme. As far as small modular reactors are concerned, Great British Nuclear is conducting a technology exercise at the moment; it is in financial discussions with four of the companies concerned. We will come to the issue of spend and public support in the multiyear spending review that is taking place over the next few months.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree about the importance of making sure that we continue to make efforts to reduce the costs of energy for industry. Some 56% of UK businesses would like to increase their on-site power generation, so what are the Government doing to help industries undertake such actions to help with their renewable energy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, of course I very much agree with the noble Earl in wishing to see a reduction in the cost of energy, particularly electricity, for our businesses. We believe that in the long term—and in the medium term, to 2030—clean power is the way to do it. He raises a very important point: one of the responses, as he will have seen in the US, is the linking of heavy energy users, which can be companies such as Amazon, with their data centres, to nuclear power generation through advanced modular reactors. Of course, the other very important issue is getting connections to the grid, which is why the clean power action plan is so important in relation to speeding up those connections.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, following the very helpful reply which the Minister gave during the earlier stages of the Great British Energy Bill on the subject of slave labour, can he say what further consideration he has given to the dilemma of purchasing solar panels that have been made in a state accused by the House of Commons of committing genocide and using slave labour in the Muslim areas of Xinjiang?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as ever, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising these very serious matters and particularly the plight of the Uighurs in Xinjiang province, which we have debated. He knows from my response in the Great British Energy Bill that we are looking at this very carefully. He is right that there is a tension, and clearly many of our solar panels come from China with all the attendant issues that this involves. But we have established the Solar Taskforce to look into the issue of supply chain, and we will be taking very seriously the points that the noble Lord has raised.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, I have berated my own party over many years on this subject; I shall now enjoy doing so to the noble Lord’s opposite. What is the Government’s attitude to tidal power, which is indefinite, utterly predictable and costs nothing once installed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I always enjoy the noble Lord’s interventions. I recognise that there is a potential in tidal power, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is—can I say—badgering me on this and has had a debate already in the Great British Energy Bill about its potential. At this stage, we remain open to discussions about how that can be taken forward.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Could I ask my noble friend: is fusion energy still 20 years away, as it was 20 years ago?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are putting some resources into the fusion programme. The years that I have in mind are the 2040s, which are a little less than 20 years away. This reflects our belief that there is very much potential now, and that the UK is in a very strong leadership position on it.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the ways that large businesses reduce their energy costs is by signing up to power purchase agreements, or PPAs. That is only possible for large businesses. Is there a way that Government could make sure that those benefits of more competitive pricing could come down to medium or small businesses, maybe by clustering or some other method, so they can get the advantage as well?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to give that consideration. The noble Lord will have noted that we are looking at whether we should introduce a regulatory regime for the third-party intermediaries, because some businesses are affected both by mis-selling and other problems with the current system. The other point I would make is that the Energy Ombudsman’s remit is being extended to small businesses within the next few days, and I hope that will also be of advantage to those companies that he mentioned.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is importing record amounts of electricity from Europe. We understand that the EU is to propose limiting access to its electricity markets. How can the Minister ensure that businesses can transition to net zero over time without facing prohibitive energy costs during this process? Surely if supply goes down, costs will go up.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we should not speculate about this until we see actual evidence that it may come to pass. The real way to ensure continuity of supply is to do what we are doing, which is to move as quickly as possible to ensuring that we have homegrown, clean energy. This is what we are seeking to do.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, are we not in a time warp? The problems we now face were created 14 years ago by not having a Government that invested in clean power. Is it not time for them to take responsibility for the mess that they have left for Labour to clear up again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think there is rather something in what my noble friend says. We inherited a parlous situation in relation to the public finances and a failure to invest in essential infrastructure. One example was their dithering about nuclear power. Not one nuclear power station came close to being opened in 14 years under the last Administration.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, following the discussions about tidal power, what discussions have been had with the Welsh Government about using the very high tides in the Severn estuary? Linked to that, what discussions have been had with the Scottish Government about the potential for hydro-electric power?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, right at the start of our new Government’s Administration, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister signalled that we wanted to reset relationships with the devolved Governments. That is happening. We are in regular discussion with the devolved Governments on energy policies. In the Great British Energy Bill, the consultation requirements are set out in relation to those countries.