Great British Energy Bill

Committee (5th Day)

16:15:00

Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Amendment 111

Moved by

111: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause— “Impact assessment of offshore wind energy installations and generation(1) The Secretary of State must assess the impact on—(a) the environment, and(b) animal welfare standardsof offshore wind energy installations and generation which occur under Great British Energy’s functions.(2) If an assessment under subsection (4) determines that relevant offshore energy installation and generation—(a) is causing environmental damage, or(b) has significant animal welfare issues,then Great British Energy must cease facilitating, encouraging or participating in the relevant activity.”Member's explanatory statement This would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 111 and 112 in my name, and in support of Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller. Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of offshore wind energy technologies. Amendment 112, also in my name, similarly requires an environmental impact assessment, but with the focus on the decommissioning of oil and gas structures. The threat posed by the installation and generation of offshore wind farms and tidal energy is not new to the House. Many will be familiar with these concerns, as we on these Benches raised such issues in Committee in debates on the Crown Estate Bill, and discussed the purpose of electricity generation and the Crown Estate’s role in the stewardship of our seabed. In considering the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Fuller, we must again address the Crown Estate’s strategic and unprecedented partnership with Great British Energy, which is estimated to result in up to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030. We should expect to see considerable and accelerated growth in offshore renewable energy projects, with offshore wind contributing significantly to these efforts. The UK is the second largest offshore wind market in the world. Under the new Government, allocation round 6 has awarded 5.4 gigawatts of offshore energy contracts across fixed and floating offshore wind and tidal stream. The speed and scale of these planned developments raises concerns about the impact on the marine ecosystem, as expressed by bodies such as Birdlife International. As stewards of our seabed and investors in and facilitators of offshore renewable energy projects, the Crown Estate and GB Energy have a duty to assess the impact of offshore energy installation and generation. GB Energy must restrict such installation and generation if it is found to cause the environment and its associated animals harm. Environmental concerns linked to the installation of offshore energy projects and the operation of these technologies include, but are not limited to, increased noise levels, the distortion in light pollution, and the potential impact on carbon storage and the biodiversity of the seabed and its composition. In an overview of the ecological impacts of offshore wind on the marine environment, Birdlife International highlighted the impact of the installation and operation of offshore wind farms on marine animals. It found that the installation and generation of offshore wind technologies produces underwater noise, affecting the echo location behaviour of marine mammals. Porpoises, seals and marine birds have been shown to be displaced by wind farms, with some marine birds displaying consistent avoidance behaviour during breeding seasons. Noise pollution produced by piledriving has also been found to impact the behaviour of pelagic fish. I have briefly outlined the impacts on our environment caused by offshore wind, yet other technologies also have the potential to cause significant harm. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Fuller for addressing the threat tidal energy poses to the fish which inhabit our seas. As he will no doubt discuss this impact in more detail, I will succinctly outline the problems associated with tidal energy generation, which is foreseen to increase rapidly in the coming years. Tidal turbines in open water could result in additional mortality caused by rotor blade collision. This is significant, as tidal waters serve as key feeding areas for fish, as well as passage corridors for migratory fish. Other risks include changes in underwater noise, electromagnetic fields and habitats, and displacement. Finally, I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns highlighted in the amendments in this group and will confirm to the Committee that he recognises that Great British Energy is in a unique and critical position to assess and minimise the impact of offshore energy installations on our environment and the marine life which inhabits it.

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 113. I have previously tabled amendments to the Bill on land, and now I return to the sea, which well fits someone whose territorial designation is Gorleston-on-Sea in the county of Norfolk. These amendments require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the environment and animal welfare standards of the installation and generation of tidal energy technologies and their associated cabling. When we consider tidal energy, I am not thinking just about the fish, important though they are—in the tidal races, the machines can mash their flesh—but about sea-birds and the rest of the marine flora and fauna. I am thinking about not just living creatures but the wider environmental effects that may happen slightly away from the installations of the machines themselves, in the associated cabling that links those machines to land—a topic I will return to. I am not against harnessing this almost inexhaustible supply of energy. The energy is there; it is year-round, predictable and reliable. It deserves to be won and it should be won. But I am not starry-eyed about the practicality of building machines that can survive in the most hostile environment, pounded by the seas and eaten away by salt-water corrosion. I am involved in the liquid fertiliser business, so I know more than most how hard it is to reliably engineer things in these tough, salt-aggressive environments. It is hard to engineer reliability in these unforgiving places, but that does not mean we should not try. We know that tidal generation is best located where the water flows fastest—where it is choked through the channels, so that the speed naturally increases—so the machines can operate most effectively. Last November, I visited Saint-Malo and saw for myself the world’s first tidal barrage power station, opened in 1966; it is nearly 60 years old. It was a really impressive spectacle. It is cheap energy, but it has not come without cost. Thomas Adcock, an associate professor in the department of engineering science at the University of Oxford, says that there has been a “major environmental impact” on the Rance estuary as a result of the tidal station. He said that “this would make it very difficult to get permission to do such a barrage again”. Researchers point to the adverse impacts on marine life of altering sedimentation patterns, as well as the impact on oxygen and nutrient levels in the water. I saw for myself that the fast-flowing water passing through the 24 turbines left nowhere for the fish to go. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, and the silting has reduced the number and variation of other fauna. Sand-eels are the subject of the very first post-Brexit EU fishing trade spat, and of course they are the preferred diet of British sea sea-birds, so this is an important matter. It is in the public interest that this all be taken into account, so that mitigations can be put in place. My amendment would require GB Energy to take into account a number of factors and to continuously monitor them when assessing energy proposals. Examples include the cumulative impacts of the installations when considered alongside the predicted impacts of other projects in the area; transboundary impacts, whereby activities in other countries, such as commercial fishing, may be affected, as we have seen; and interrelationships whereby impacts on one receptor, such as noise, can have a knock-on effect on another and disturb species. Examples include sub-sea noise, which my noble friend mentioned, physical processes such sedimentation flow —we saw this in France—and the updated navigational risk assessment possibly deflecting vessels into the path of other sensitive zones. For offshore tidal proposals, perhaps with tethered devices, we must have regard to the cables that will transfer the energy to the coast. Coming from Norfolk, I take particular interest in the Cromer shoal chalk beds marine conservation zone. It is one of 91 such protection zones established by the last Government, by an organisation lately chaired by my noble friend Lord Banner. The MCZ is a protected inshore site 200 metres off the north Norfolk coast, extending about 10 kilometres out to sea and covering 321 square kilometres. It protects our diverse species. It is predominantly sandy, but the chalk beds provide a stable surface for seaweeds and static animals to settle and grow, and they are home to the Cromer crab, one of the important exports of our county; it is an important source of economic activity too. So, even though marine energy machines may be some miles offshore, we need to consider the whole cable system as well, particularly if it passes through places like the Cromer MCZ on its way to the grid. None of this is mentioned in the Bill, which is a slim Bill with fat consequences. The Secretary of State is not required to give directions to GBE to take these important environmental safeguards into account. My previous amendments observed that GB Energy is a company: there is to be a fiduciary board, and it is established under the Companies Act 2006 to promote its private self-interest. So, unless it is constrained, we should not be surprised if GB Energy acts in its private interests, not the country’s interests. If it follows purely commercial principles, why should it need to take the marine environment into account unless it is directed to? This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide such directions. I expect the Minister to say, “This is all very well but it is not really necessary”. However, we must learn lessons from the water Bill, which flowed through this House as an example of what to do when you have a private company that is established for public purposes yet strays from the path. I do not want a repeat of that. Success does not look like having successive legislation later to cure the unintended consequences of GB Energy getting carried away because it acts in the private interest, not the public one. Let us put protections in the Bill now. This amendment would provide a simple safeguard, along with those proposed by my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel, so that the Secretary of State is directed to ensure that sensible precautions are taken to protect our fisheries, sea-birds and other flora and fauna in the whole end-to-end tidal generation system, from the coast all the way to the grid. I am not trying to block tidal power and I am certainly not seeking to add cost or complexity—still less a set of directions or to provide excessive control. My concern is to make sure that this private body, established for public purpose, acts in the wider public interest—not just its self-interest—as to its environmental responsibility and sets an example to others.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Offord’s Amendments 111 and 112, to which I have added my name. It has become increasingly apparent, from many points of view, that impact assessments are necessary. In particular, in exercising its functions, GBE should be required to consider the environmental impact and the effect on sea-birds and marine life of its installation of offshore wind facilities, as well as of its decommissioning of oil and gas structures. I also support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendment 113, which seeks to place the same obligation on GBE with reference to tidal energy projects. I have looked for information on both the Sound of Islay project and the Bristol Channel project, both of which I was reasonably familiar with some years ago but about which I have heard nothing in recent years. I am heartened by my noble friend’s enthusiasm for the sector and look forward to hearing whether the Minister expects that GBE will be encouraged to make investments in it. As my noble friend Lord Fuller said, this is a slim Bill with fat consequences. We have to make sure that GBE will act in the public interest.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Offord and Lord Fuller for tabling the three amendments in this group, all of which I support. I want to address a few remarks to Amendment 111. I had not realised that we are the second-largest renewable energy market in the world. Most of the equipment is made outside the UK; I hope this is something we will do better on in future. I do not think my noble friend referred to the position of porpoises and dolphins, which have been causing me great concern over the past few years for the same reasons that my noble friend Lord Offord gave. We took evidence on this from the RSPB and from the department of ocean systems—I think it was called that—at the University of Plymouth in 2020-21. Two issues arose from that which I would like to put to the Minister. The first, from the RSPB, said that “substantial sums” are being made, which really should be “reinvested back into the natural environment from which” these sums are derived. Is that something the Government are keen to do? The reason I ask is simple: I asked for a moratorium at that time, when we were under a Conservative Administration, until we had established what the impact was on birds and other marine life, such as whales, porpoises and dolphins. Over the last five years, we have had a number of inexplicable bankings of whales in particular but also of dolphins and porpoises. It is up to the industry to fund this work, so that we better understand why this is happening. If, as my noble friend Lord Offord argued, there is interference with the sonar of marine life, that should be established before we build the next stage of these massive developments at sea.

16:30:00

The second issue arose from Trudi Wakelin from the Marine Management Organisation. In the evidence session to us, she made the extremely appropriate point that:

“It is fair to say that there is a presumption of consent in the national policy statement at the moment, which gives a certain amount of confidence to developers as they are moving forward”.

She went on to explain that this is shrouded in confidentiality, owing to the nature of the contracts involved. I make a bid to the Minister for greater transparency in future contracts, when planning consent is sought.

I make a further plea to the Minister—I will never let an opportunity pass—that we have joined-up planning applications so that, at the same time as an offshore wind energy installation and generation planning application is sought, it is indicated that there will be onshore pylons and substations of a magnitude that would quite alarm the public. It is fair to make this transparent at the earliest possible stage, and that the planning is done as part of one application, not two separate applications—one offshore and one onshore. I know that East Anglia and Yorkshire are particularly vulnerable to these applications. With these few words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I ought to report on Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord. The assessment of the effects of offshore wind farms on the environment, with particular reference to sea-birds, has been ongoing for some years now. That does not necessarily undermine the future of the amendment, but it indicates that it might not be necessary. The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology—the CEH—has been monitoring sea-birds in the North Sea since the 1970s. It largely studies birds on the Isle of May, just off the coast of Fife, but also sea-birds up and down the east coast of Britain. Over the past decade, these studies—largely funded by wind power operators, but also by the Scottish Government, the RSPB and others—have been extensively monitoring the effects of offshore wind farms on sea-birds. Admittedly, having to cope with and discount the simultaneous effect of bird flu has meant that this has proven a very complicated exercise recently but, with bird flu now on the wane, colonies of sea-birds seem to be flourishing in spite of the growth of offshore wind farms. The jury is still out, but the effect of these farms seems pretty low compared to that of bird flu and the new climate change-induced phenomenon of marine heatwaves. The latter winter current changes affect the growth and presence of sand eels, which are hugely important to the winter diet of many sea-birds. The point is that the bottom tip of a marine turbine blade is 30 metres above sea level. That is pretty high and nearly all sea-birds fly below it. Kittiwakes are the notable exception but, even here, the CEH is helping the wind farm operators to examine how to minimise their losses. One solution is to paint one of the three blades black, which seems to have a beneficial effect. It is also helping to mitigate overall losses by building artificial nesting sites for kittiwakes on the Yorkshire cliffs, for example. The intention is that the overall kittiwake population should not be affected. It is possible—and the jury, as I say, is still out on this—that offshore wind farms actually help sea-birds flourish. Most birds thrive relatively well during summer months, but they suffer and sometimes die from lack of food in winter months. While the recent cessation of sand-eel fishing by UK fishing boats has helped—they are now not allowed to fish for sand-eels—the Danes continue this practice in considerable quantities. However, neither the Danes’ nor other fishing boats tend to fish inside wind farms for fear of snagging their nets. Thus, wind farms have become a sanctuary for sand-eels and other fish and could therefore be having a beneficial effect on the overwintering of sea-birds. But, as I say, the jury is still out. The environmental assessment of offshore wind farms is already happening, is based on data going back to the 1970s and seems to indicate so far that their environmental effects are not hugely harmful.

I should like first to speak to my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendment 113, on tidal energy. I ask the Minister what the position is on the Severn because, in theory, the Severn bore has immense capacity to generate electricity, going upstream and downstream. It always strikes me that if we are looking for tidal energy, the Severn bore offers better opportunities than almost anything else. I am told that when people looked at this, they found big problems with flooding land further upstream, which would have led to enormous compensation claims from farmers and so forth. I should be grateful if the Minister filled us in on the Government’s thinking on the Severn, because it strikes me that if we could create tidal energy there, that would be very beneficial to the country as a whole. Amendments 111 and 112 address environmental considerations. We have seen in the newspapers today that the Government are bringing forth a Bill that will say that in future, environmental considerations will not be taken into account in quite the same way in respect of building projects. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking on that Bill, when it is likely to appear and what it is likely to say? We are all interested in this issue. Will it read directly across to energy projects, as it does for construction projects? We have heard from the Prime Minister about this wonderful tunnel they have been building on the HS2 line to preserve bats, which is costing £100 million. Then, we heard that it was not going to preserve the bats after all, and they were all going to die somehow. We want to be updated on the Government’s thinking on that. We get all these remarks from the Prime Minister, but they are significant in terms of the environmental concerns associated with construction projects. What I really want to know from the Minister is whether this is going to read straight across to energy projects in the same way and make it easier to get other construction projects going, such as housing. I should be grateful if he filled us in on that when he sums up.

My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to a company deeply involved in the energy transition, particularly in some of the switching station construction, which, obviously, is the land-based part of the vast increase in electricity from wind pylons that is planned—necessary, in fact, for us to begin to get anywhere near the clean electricity volumes we require for the modern economy. We all heard President Trump making some ambitious statements yesterday. He was very strong on the fact that vast investment would be required in clean electricity—indeed, electricity of all kinds, in his case—to cope with the great new data systems that he has persuaded private industry to co-operate with the state in building. I think he said it would be $500 billion, or £300 billion; whatever the figure was, it was enormous, and the amount of electricity will be colossal. Running the data centres that will be required, which we are trying to build here as well, can drain entire systems of electricity. The demand is vast. This relatively small area, worth £8.4 billion—he calls it “peanuts”, and it seems nothing compared with these figures—will be part of this, and it will obviously have a very large footprint: a major environmental impact. My noble friend Lord Hamilton spoke about tidal power and the Thames Barrier. To give a little history—I am sorry, but it is relevant to where we are now—he will remember, because I know he has a crystal-clear memory, that, 40 years ago when he was my Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Energy, the first folder on my desk on day 1 of moving into the job was a gigantic report on the Severn barrage. The conclusion was that it would not work and would have a huge environmental impact on nature and the surroundings, rather on the scale of the idea that has now been floated down at Hinkley—that some kind of marshland development should be promoted, which will also have an enormous impact and is causing a lot of protest. So, this is not a new question. We have been talking about barrages and tidal energy and its capacities, and the undoubted impact it can have in specific areas on a rather small scale, for at least 40 years, and we will no doubt be talking for the next 40 years. In a specific situation it makes sense but, generally, as part of the huge electricity supply that we are now contemplating, as NESO told us only yesterday, we are now moving towards the base camp, to use its language—to this colossal increase in clean electricity by 2030. Just as we are at that point, we can now see that these small additions help, but they will not be part of the central solution. My noble friend Lord Fuller raised a number of very interesting questions. He also made a general point which is relevant to this amendment as well as others: where are we on new thinking about public purposes harnessing private money? It is an old and obvious question. It is particularly obvious now, when the modern state has vast amounts invested and huge duties to fulfil. In fact, some of them are too vast for the state to cope with in its present form. It has no money, or, rather, it is underwater in debt, as the entire nation is—indeed, the entire world is—and it is hesitant to raise more by taxation and therefore has to look to the poor old consumer and the taxpayer for anything it can raise. The private sector has the money. The sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and investment pools around the world have vast amounts of money and are looking for places to invest it, but they cannot find them. Somewhere in between those two—the Government having all the demands and the private sector having all the money—there has to be a reinvention of the co-operation between the state and the private sector, which the ideologists in our various parties will not like at all, but that is where we are going. We had a try with the private finance initiative, which was invented by the Conservative Party and taken up with some enthusiasm by Labour, now in government again, and then it ran into difficulties. I believe that there used to be a unit in the Cabinet Office looking at this whole new area—I hope it is still there somewhere—of having new kinds of co-operation in the digital age between the Government, or the state, and private sources of money. I would quite like to know from the Minister whether that unit is still operating and, I hope, having some very new ideas, and not just in this area. The same problem arises in a vast range of areas. As to the impact on the environment, which this amendment so rightly focuses on, something of this kind has got to be included in the Bill. It would be a dishonest Bill if it did not have something addressing these issues. I mentioned the switching stations; I am not quite sure how many new ones we will require between now and 2030. I think that two have just been started. I have a figure of 13 switching stations around the coast of this country. Whether they will be built in time, I very much doubt but, if they are, I would like to know what sort of impact they will have on the environment.

16:45:00

I am sorry that I missed a debate on pylons last week. It clashed directly with another Lords commitment in which I was involved, so I could not be here. The pylons are obviously an issue. How much can we put underground and can we have the vast change in the entire grid and transmission system by putting spare electricity from the winds at night through electrolysis into hydrogen, and then distributing the hydrogen—not by pylons, obviously, but by modern methods—similar to how we distribute diesel and petrol now? That might be a little more dangerous but one of the ways that we begin to get to grips with this issue. The pylons’ environmental impact will otherwise undoubtedly be considerable. Could we have a few comments on that?

There are two missing great chunks of this issue. There is the recognition that the environmental impact is enormous, and that it requires intimate co-operation —an issue we have come back to again and again of co-operation with new or existing nuclear sites, maybe with small reactors on them instead of the big ones. There will have to be co-operation there, because most of the nuclear sites are on the sea and most of the switching stations obviously have to be on the sea as well, presumably in similar places. I do not know; this is all left completely undecided and undiscussed. It is certainly not mentioned in the Bill at all and I would like some comments from the Minister on that.

I am sorry, but I am just a little confused which amendment the noble Lord is speaking to. This is obviously not Second Reading and we are not making general speeches. Could he help me with which amendment he is speaking to?

I had actually finished but I spoke repeatedly to the environment amendment. I mentioned it six or seven times. I am not sure what the noble Earl’s motive is. I thought that ought to be clear. Is it not clear?

Can we just return to the Severn barrage? I agree that, 40 years ago, my noble friend was looking at this and that I was looking over his shoulder at the time. The concerns about putting in a barrage on the Severn were mainly about flooding a whole mass of land further upstream. This was in the days when farmers were expected to grow food. It is rather changed now; we expect our farmers to have immense environmental concerns and, in many cases, the whole grant system is skewed towards people having nature reserves on their farms rather than producing food. Surely, if a lot of this land got flooded that would be incredibly encouraging for people who want to encourage wading birds and all the rest of it. I am sure there would be enormous environmental benefits, rather than a downturn in the prosperity of the land which then got flooded by the barrage.

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.

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.

17:00:00

In conclusion, the points noble Lords have made about potential environmental damage are perfectly valid. We always recognise that there are tensions in the pursuit of net zero. I understand the concerns about pylons, for instance. On the other hand, we have to make progress and, overall, by going towards net zero we will be protecting nature and biodiversity from the impacts of further climate change.

The key point is that the environmental protections are in place. Noble Lords may say that they need to be improved—and the Government will listen to that—but, equally, I think many of us agree that the current planning system needs reform and that we need to speed up approvals where appropriate. I am not going to fall for the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton; all I can say about what was in the newspapers this morning is that it was purely media speculation. However, lying behind it is the aim of the Government, which will have to be cross-departmental, to reform and speed up the planning system, and potentially to deal with the bat issue. But it must be done while ensuring that we maintain our environmental protections. It is on those protections that we should depend, not on giving Great British Energy a duty that it is not right for it to discharge.

My Lords, in concluding this group, I thank all noble Lords who have made thoughtful contributions on it. We are dealing with the impact of GB Energy and its activities on our environment. In my concluding remarks, I will briefly mention Amendment 118, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, which was discussed previously and is closely tied to the same issues raised in this group. That amendment would create a statutory duty for GB Energy to behave in a way that looks to promote nature recovery. The British Ecological Society has found that nature-based solutions can help to resolve the problems of climate change by reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. The alarming truth is that England is widely considered to be one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, following historic and ongoing declines. We must also note a point raised in the debate this afternoon: it is not just the deployment of wind farms or tidal technologies that causes environmental damage. If GB Energy is also set to decommission, as we have discussed, or to repurpose oil and gas structures, it must assess and mitigate the risk of this practice on the environment. As my noble friend Lord Fuller so rightly explained, GB Energy is a public company; it is only right that it acts in the public interest. I do not see why the Minister would disagree, but I thank him for his detailed response. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment 111 withdrawn.

Amendments 112 to 118A not moved.

Amendment 118B

Moved by

118B: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause— “Investment in subsidised renewable energy projects Great British Energy must not invest in any project that relies wholly or in part on subsidies from the UK Government.” Member's explanatory statement This amendment would prevent GB Energy from investing in projects which rely on UK Government subsidies.

My Lords, the concern that we have here is all to do with financing projects, and the worry that the Great British Energy fund will be used to bolster the financing of some highly speculative energy projects that the private sector is not prepared to back. Those are the ones that will be moving in the Government’s direction and they will be very speculative. They may well not make money; they may be almost doomed to lose money when they start. There is a great concern here that, when the Treasury is raking around to get contributions for a highly speculative scheme, it will be looking for Great British Energy to put some money into the pot in addition to taxpayers’ money. One thinks here about the development of batteries or energy storage—which is all very controversial—and the whole business of storing CO₂ emissions and pumping that into existing oil wells. I am not sure that the technology for that has been completely satisfied. It all seems to be rather speculative as to whether it will ever happen. That is the worry that many people have about this Bill. There is a very lively private sector that is happily picking all the low-hanging fruit when it comes to profitable ventures in the energy field. If we are not careful, Great British Energy will be left with everything else that is far from profitable, is extremely speculative and may well lose taxpayers’ money in the process. We want some reassurance from the Minister that this will not happen. Otherwise, it really will be an abuse of taxpayers’ money if Great British Energy just gets involved in all the things that the private sector is not prepared to back. There are so many different areas that are very speculative when it comes to energy. We had a great debate about hydrogen in the past, for instance. My noble friend Lord Roborough and I do not in fact agree that there is a future for hydrogen. We do not seem to have had any great elucidation from the Minister on this; I do not know whether the Government think that hydrogen is a good idea or a bad one. Either way, it is a typical example of a very speculative form of alternative energy that could cost a fortune to develop and lose people an awful lot of money if it did not work out at the end of the day. The point of my amendment is that I am very concerned that the Great British Energy fund will be used for these very speculative ventures and I am not sure that that is really what the taxpayer is looking for. I had an issue with what my noble friend Lady Bloomfield said about all the profit that would be made by Great British Energy. I am not sure that it will be making any profit; I think it is much more likely that it will make thundering great losses and all the billions of pounds that are put into it will merely disappear with very little to show for it in the future.

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I begin by noting my interests as set out in the register; I have a new interest as a director of Net Zero Watch. Amendment 130 would postpone the entry into force of much of this Act until the Secretary of State publishes a comprehensive report setting out the full costs of the renewable energy industry. My noble friend Lord Hamilton has just set out the logic of having such a clause that delays the entry into force of certain provisions. From my point of view, the logic is that certain things need to be made clear before Great British Energy can effectively start its work. It is in this area—the cost of renewables, the subsidies, the taxpayer support, the higher prices—that this problem of establishing the basis on which GBE is proceeding seems the strongest because it would be going into this without any reliable costings in this area and with a real sense that what is known about the costs of renewables is not being disclosed entirely frankly for full and honest debate. When we try to have a debate on this subject, we are often shot down by a statement that, whatever the costs, the costs of climate change are higher. But again, that is never set out. I was lucky enough yesterday to be able to ask the Secretary of State when the last cost-benefit analysis had been done on this subject, and he said it was in 2021. That was before the Ukraine war, which is used as the justification for the rush to renewables. The NESO report was produced last autumn. It shows that both the pathways to decarbonisation of the energy grid in 2030 are more expensive than doing nothing. That is even clearer if you eliminate the vastly inflated carbon price included in those costings. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary for Energy Claire Coutinho said last week that internal work within the department on the full system costs of renewables, which she commissioned when she was Energy Secretary, had been stopped. That work would have given us the data that would have enabled the report that my amendment requires. To conclude on this point, I refer to a blog by Sir Dieter Helm, a well-known expert in this area and not someone with whom I agree on the fundamentals of climate change. He says in this blog, written last week, on the prospect of renewables costs falling: “It would be wonderful if it was true, but sadly it isn’t anytime soon”. He goes on to say the UK and the EU are “telling fairy tales that ‘it’s all going to be cheaper’ here”. He is one of the biggest experts in this area. We need honesty and GBE needs clarity about the reality on which it is proceeding with its work. That is why I have tabled my amendment, and why we need a proper report and clarity. GBE needs a reliable starting point so that its actions can be tested against reality and we can be sure that it is acting properly in the public interest. I hope the Minister looks at the issue with that in mind, and perhaps gives this amendment sympathetic consideration.

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom’s Amendment 118B, with which I obviously agree, as I do on most things—apart from the widespread competitiveness of green hydrogen. I also draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in solar and wind energy project development. This amendment appears entirely logical in preventing GB Energy investing in any project whose economics depend wholly or in part on government support. This would prevent any impression that the Government may be self-dealing or that there could be any bias in project support from the Government. Without the amendment, there is a risk of a chilling effect on private sector projects that may wish to compete with projects backed by GB Energy, if there is a perception that the Government will always prefer GB Energy projects. There is also a risk that the Government will face the moral hazard of temptation to prop up failing GB Energy projects and investments. For these reasons, this is a highly desirable amendment. I am also interested in the Minister’s replies to my noble friend Lord Frost on the whole system cost of renewables—particularly if the Minister were able to give this Committee some insight into the carbon costs that his department are using. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he can do so in writing. If the Minister does not agree with the wisdom of my noble friend’s amendment, what transparency can he offer into the amount of government support that may be falling into the hands of GB Energy’s projects?

17:15:00

My Lords, I have one question, prompted by my noble friend’s proposed amendment, about a major solar-based renewable project that was mentioned in White Papers under the previous Government; I think the former Secretary of State under the Conservative Government called it a project of central significance to the whole transition and net-zero aspiration. It was in Morocco. They were planning, with financial support—a subsidy—from the Moroccan and British Governments, a colossal solar-based system to transmit electricity under the Bay of Biscay via a special new kind of transmission cord now being developed in Scotland. It would have delivered a final amount of 3.6 gigawatts of electric power into the British system. Going forward, that would remain a considerable contribution to our clean electricity of the future. Is the project still part of the scene under the new Government? If it is, will GB Energy have any role in it, because it is a very important factor in our overall energy needs?

My Lords, I will make a link between Amendments 118, 118A and 130. On Amendment 130, it will be interesting to see whether we get the results, but my impression is that, in this country, there is not a single net-zero or renewable project that is not subsidised by the Government in some way. In fact, that is one reason why there has been so much private capital: with the electricity price being run off the marginal cost of gas turbines and the marginal cost of renewable energy—particularly from wind farms—being zero, in effect, there is no way not to make money in that business. This raises a question around the subsidisation of the whole system, including whether GBE should pile in further when it is already subsidised. It also raises the question of whether we need GBE, because we already have private capital in the system. In fact, we probably have more wind energy than anybody else in the G7. We have said this before. There is a lot of private capital coming into this industry. The real question is less about GBE and more about what level of subsidisation we are prepared to put in. This may explain why we have the highest energy costs in the G7—double those of the US. This morning, my noble friend Lord Howell talked about Stargate and the announcement made by the US. We will find it very difficult to compete—let alone not having the money, our energy costs are double those of the US—if we want to run LLMs and supercomputers.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Amendment 118B withdrawn.

Amendment 118C not moved.

17:30:00

Clause 8: Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment 119 not moved.

Amendments 120 and 121 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 121A not moved.

Amendment 122

Moved by

122: Clause 8, page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) This section and section 5 come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.(2A) Sections 1 to 4, 6 and 7 come into force on the day the statement required by section 5(1) is laid before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment means the Bill cannot come into force unless the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament.

My Lords, I stand to open the very last group of amendments as part of the final day in Committee on the Bill. This group is on commencement and, in moving Amendment 122, I will also speak to Amendments 123 and 124. I will be very brief on my amendments in this group, as I feel that I have already spoken to them in the group on strategic priorities during day 2 in Committee, a debate that was so nobly led by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who I note is in his place. We had a very good and useful conversation on the strategic priorities as part of that group. Amendment 122 would require that the strategic priorities are laid before Parliament. I have also tabled Amendment 123, which would require that they be laid before and approved by Parliament, and Amendment 124, which is, as I said, more of a compromise on these issues. It says that the Act “cannot come into force unless a document setting out the thematic headings of the statement of strategic priorities has been laid before Parliament”. That last amendment is where I really want to be on these issues. My sense is that there is a general concern across the House, and across parties, on the need for some further clarity on the strategic priorities, but I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading. He made a welcome statement that some work should be done to try to find a solution on this. I also recognise that the Minister is in a difficult position here and that there is a need to get on with the Bill. I recognise that these things are being negotiated with the devolved authorities. My last amendment is really an attempt to try to find a solution to these issues, and my hope is very much that a solution can be found. I hope that the Minister can say something on that solution today and maybe, after further consideration prior to Report, give at least the heads of terms of the kind of things that will be in the strategic priorities. On that, I think we can progress. My worry is that it otherwise feels, from our point of view, a bit like we are signing a blank cheque on these matters. That being said, those are my amendments. I turn to the three other amendments in this group. Amendment 125, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, is on the publication of a financial framework document and calls for that document to be published before the Act is passed. From my personal point of view, I would like to see some progress on the financial document and what it might contain. I am not certain that I would refuse to pass the Act if it were not published prior to then. Amendment 126 is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. This amendment says that the Act cannot come into force until its impact “on the number of jobs in Aberdeen” has been published. We do not feel that we would support that amendment. The development of offshore renewable energy will help to create jobs, and GB Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen. The exact manner of how that happens is to be seen, but green energy and green jobs are good for our future and the Bill is good for our energy security. We have had a few conversations about the cost of this Bill and GB Energy. I kindly remind the Conservatives that they spent over £40 billion subsidising energy bills as a result of the war in Ukraine. While that money was useful to those who were suffering in fuel poverty, in the longer term it did absolutely nothing to generate energy security for our country and our future. The biggest cost is doing nothing. To continue to do nothing is not an option that remains open to us, either in terms of preserving our future or of looking after bill payers. In the main, therefore, we welcome the Bill. I turn, finally, to Amendment 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, which calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report on the cost and viability of the Government’s net-zero strategy. That is not necessary before the Bill is passed, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is not in his place. It is important that the Government are clear on figures, and those figures should be updated. However, when we have these conversations on cost, they are, unfortunately, very one-sided. The cost is always on one side of the equals sign and not on the other. There is a huge cost in doing nothing. We have seen LA go up in flames, and there are huge predicted costs to the global economy and our future. The Government, to my mind, must do more in continuing to look at reforming the electricity market mechanism. The Government’s projected direction of travel is for us to electrify, and it is important that we continue to look at the cost of electricity and that the Government continue to work on providing social tariffs and making sure that those in need can afford to heat their homes. With that, I beg to move.

My Lords, it is disappointing that no financial framework details were included in the Bill, as they should have been. Amendment 125, which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Offord, would ensure that the Bill cannot come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament, together with a Motion for resolution in each House, a revised financial framework document. This would improve transparency and accountability, which are in short supply in this Bill, as has been noted by many noble Lords. I have also added my name to Amendments 126 and 127 in this group, which would essentially require the Government to explain the impact of their proposals on the number of jobs in Aberdeen and would require a report on the cost and viability of their net-zero targets. I fear that the negative approach to the oil and gas industry based in Aberdeen will lead to more job losses than will be created by the location of GBE in that city. I am also not at all sure that the type of people being made redundant by oil and gas enterprises being forced to destroy economically beneficial businesses are the same type of people GBE will wish to recruit. It is clear that the Government’s decision to locate in Aberdeen was intended to mitigate the damage to that city’s economy, but I am not at all sure that that will be the case. I support my noble friend Lord Hamilton in calling the Government to account on these matters through tabling these two amendments. As I said at Second Reading, we cannot rely on renewables to continue to decarbonise the grid, or even begin to replace our much larger industrial energy consumption, which is still dependent largely on oil and gas. My noble friend Lord Frost explained on 14 November, and again today, how serious a problem the intermittency of renewables is. It is essential that the Government think again before confirming the premature ending of oil and gas, at least until more serious attention has been paid to the possibilities that nuclear may offer. In this regard, we should be a little bit more like France.

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—

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.

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.

I was listening to what the noble Lord was saying, and the truth is that North Sea oil is declining by 7% a year—which will not change—and that we have the third-best wind resources in the world. North Sea oil will never meet our energy needs and, if we do not find alternative forms of energy, we will be dependent on the international markets, which will mean huge variability, no security and huge cost to our bill payers. Surely the best thing to do is use the third-best renewable resources in the world that we have to back that up with a system that works.

I find that an interesting comment because, at the end of the day, wind energy is totally dependent on the feed-in tariffs that end up on everybody’s electricity bills. That is one reason why we are paying such enormous sums of money for electricity at the moment. The idea that wind is somehow a cheap option does not seem to be quite working out. The broad point is that anybody who looks at the energy demands of this country knows that we will go on needing oil for quite some time to come. It seems extraordinary that we then depend on imports of oil from around the world, with all the CO₂ emissions that go with that, rather than producing our own. I can see no logic in that at all. The production of oil in the North Sea may be declining, but that does not mean that we should not, therefore, give licences to produce more oil from the North Sea if we actually need it in this country. That seems inexplicable when we are importing it from elsewhere.

17:45:00

The other amendment that I have put my name to is to do with the question, which we have dealt with before, of net-zero targets. They are important because, as we discussed, putting up wind turbines is not a free lunch. You have to create vast quantities of steel to do it, which means that somebody has to create massive CO₂ emissions. We should have an audit that tells us how much CO₂ we produce when we do these sorts of things. At the end of the day, we are carrying on because the production of wind, when it blows, is renewable. It is a cheap source at that stage, but a lot of expense has gone into putting up the wind turbines in the beginning. Surely we should be talking about having an audit that shows how much CO₂ we are producing; otherwise, we would be in the rather ridiculous position of saying that we are doing all this to produce clean energy, which may not be as clean as we make it out to be. We may actually be creating CO₂, which is the one thing that we are trying to control.

This brings us back to the argument that I was making earlier in Committee about the use, for instance, of oil-seed rape to produce aviation fuel, where CO₂ is involved all the way along. There is growing concern about the Drax power station, which sits there belching out smoke all the time, polluting the atmosphere and producing CO2 emissions—all in the name of renewable energy. We have to think seriously about this in the future, because it makes no sense to talk about renewables when, at the same time, we are polluting the atmosphere and producing the CO₂ emissions that we are trying to control.

My Lords, I wish briefly to comment on and support the intent of Amendments 122, 123 and 124 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the basic problem with the Bill is that it includes absolutely nothing about what GBE will actually do. Yes, there are the objects in Clause 3 but, as we debated at some length previously, they set out only what GBE is allowed to do, not what it is intended to do. What it is intended to do—its objectives, if you like —will be set out in the statement of strategic priorities in Clause 5. We have not seen those and it would appear that we will not see them for a while—certainly not before the Bill passes. As the Constitution Committee pointed out, that key document will not be subject to any parliamentary scrutiny—in fact, the Constitution Committee referred to it as “disguised legislation”—nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent GBE starting its activities before that statement has been published. As I say, we have had several debates on this, so I will try not to repeat myself. There are a number of ways to do this: the new amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, may or may not be the right way and we have had other amendments previously. However we do it, it is critical that at least some substantive level of parliamentary scrutiny should be available on how GBE intends to spend its £8.3 billion before it starts to spend significant amounts of money.

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.

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.

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”.

18:00:00

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.

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.

Amendment 122 withdrawn.

Amendments 123 to 131 not moved.

Clause 8 agreed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Committee adjourned at 6.04 pm.