Great British Energy Bill

Committee (1st Day)

15:56:00

Clause 1: Great British Energy

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “company” and insert “subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund” Member's explanatory statement This would probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund - formerly the UK Infrastructure Bank.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are present for this important debate, which deals with an essential topic for the future of our nation: our energy production, security and ownership. I will also speak to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name. Amendment 1 seeks to probe into the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund, which was formerly known as the UK Infra- structure Bank. Amendment 3 seeks to probe into the fact that Great British Energy may be designated a company only if it is wholly owned by the Crown. Amendment 5 would specify that Great British Energy would be owned by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to Great British Energy’s relationship with the UK Infrastructure Bank. We have not seen an explanation of how this body is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do the exact same thing that Great British Energy claims it will do. In fact, Great British Energy is almost a duplicate of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was established to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, funded by £22 billion of taxpayers’ money. Great British Energy seeks to do something extremely similar, or so it claims, but the Bill gives far greater powers to the Secretary of State. I must ask why this is and why taxpayers should be burdened twice. The UK Infrastructure Bank Bill had important accountability and reporting measures which have been removed from this Bill. It had a clear and structured framework for accountability and transparency. It was governed by rules to ensure that taxpayers’ money was used efficiently and was subject to rigorous annual reporting, providing the public with the necessary details on its investments and performance.

16:00:00

Given all of this, why, then, has Great British Energy been set up to replicate so much of what the UK Infrastructure Bank is already doing? The two institutions overlap in many areas, from providing funding for green energy projects to ensuring that infrastructure investments are scaled up to meet net-zero targets. If we are to create another institution with overlapping responsibilities, we should ask what the real added value is here.

As I said, the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up with specific checks and balances to prevent the misuse of funds and ensure that the public has visibility into its operations. Great British Energy hands over far greater powers to the Secretary of State, yet there is no explanation of why such sweeping authority is necessary, nor are there are any safeguards to ensure that these powers are not abused or left unchecked. The Secretary of State will therefore have the power to make key decisions without sufficient scrutiny. Again, we must ask: what accountability will there be for the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money being handed over? The Bill seems to grant too much discretion without the proper frameworks to hold this body to account.

If we are to create a new company with such significant powers and such an enormous financial commitment from taxpayers, we must ensure that there are clear and enforceable accountability measures. Otherwise, how can we trust that the British taxpayer will get value for money if we are not putting in place the necessary safeguards and reporting structures to ensure transparency and greater governance?

I have outlined the similarities between the UK Infrastructure Bank and Great British Energy, and I have highlighted that the UK Infrastructure Bank has far more accountability and reporting measures. Amendment 1 in my name will therefore ensure that Great British Energy is a subsidiary of the UK Infrastructure Bank.

I will now speak briefly to Amendments 3 and 5 in my name. In Clause 1, page 1, lines 2 to 6, the Bill states that Great British Energy may be designated a company only if it

“is wholly owned by the Crown”.

However, this brings to light issues surrounding equity. If Great British Energy were to raise equity, as suggested in Clause 4, “Financial assistance”, it will no longer be wholly owned by the Crown as required by the Bill. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not be able to designate a company as Great British Energy. These two clauses do not align with each other, and the Bill therefore cannot be read as a coherent draft piece of legislation. I hope that the Minister will recognise this confusion that I seek to address in Amendment 3 in my name. Therefore, I look to the Minister to clarify how these two clauses work cohesively alongside each other, and to confirm whether the ownership of Great British Energy, as outlined in Clause 1, is an issue in the drafting of this legislation.

If the Government’s intention is indeed for Great British Energy to be wholly owned by the Crown, Amendment 5 in my name will specify that Great British Energy will be owned by the Secretary of State in a professional capacity. This amendment seeks to add clarity to the ownership of Great British Energy and will result in both the designation and ownership of Great British Energy to fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

I am pleased to be able to open this group and look forward to the corresponding debate over the course of today. The designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of the company are central to the Bill and, as such, they should be central to the deliberations of our debate in this place. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 4, 6 and 7 in my name. I start by reminding the Committee of my interests as a micro-generator of hydroelectricity. Amendments 4, 6 and 7 are designed to probe—a bit like Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord—whether it might be desirable to allow Great British Energy to accept minority equity finance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his support on this. As these are simply probing amendments, I will try to be brief. As the Bill is currently drafted, Great British Energy can be designated as such only if it is wholly owned by the Crown and will lose its designation automatically if that changes. It follows, therefore, that none of its shares can be owned by another party, and therefore no equity finance could be raised, at least at the Great British Energy level, from parties other than the Crown. I can imagine situations where being able to introduce external capital into GBE could be a good thing. Clearly, I can understand why the Government would wish to retain control, which is why in my amendments I have set a required level of ownership of at least 75% of the issued share capital. Shareholders with more than 25% have the right to block special resolutions; so as long as the Crown controls 75% or more, it would still have full control of the company. In that aspect, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 are more restrictive than Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, although they are probing the same question. Can the Minister explain why the Government feel that they need GBE to be wholly owned and why they would not want the flexibility to raise external equity finance in future, while retaining control? I am also interested to hear the answers to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on his Amendment 1 on the relationship with the former UK Infrastructure Bank, now called the National Wealth Fund. I see from the letter that the Minister kindly sent us after Second Reading that the activities of GBE will in fact be carried out, at least initially, by the National Wealth Fund, “in line with the NWF’s investment and operating principles”. The letter goes on to say: “This will enable GBE to invest quickly and draw on the NWF’s experience and existing pipeline of projects”. That raises a serious question as to why we really need GBE at all. If the National Wealth Fund’s investment and operating principles and its existing experience already cover what GBE is being set up for, as the Minister’s letter confirms, and if it already has an existing pipeline of projects, would it not make more sense simply to provide the National Wealth Fund with the additional finance and resources to carry out the activities that are envisaged for Great British Energy—whatever those are, given the lack of detail in the Bill—and to leverage the experience and scale already built up in the National Wealth Fund? Are we in danger of duplicating responsibilities and adding another unnecessary layer of cost and bureaucracy with the Bill? We could go further. The Bill carves out an area of activity that is currently already covered by the National Wealth Fund’s objectives and activities—again, as confirmed by the Minister’s letter—and puts that into a vehicle that has substantially less clarity on the way it will behave and substantially less accountability for what it does, as both your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, have pointed out. One wonders what the Minister would have said if the previous Government had tried to do that—I suspect we know. While Amendment 1 is a probing amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, might have hit on a very neat solution in proposing to make GBE a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund, where it would be subject to the accountability regime that already exists, which has already been accepted by Parliament. It would not in any way prevent Great British Energy meeting its objectives, but it would solve a lot of the issues that will come up later around accountability and transparency, as well as reducing the possibilities of cost duplication and ensuring that the expertise already built up in the National Wealth Fund is fully utilised. It would streamline the way the two organisations work together, removing the potential for future conflicts. There is no reason why the subsidiary could not still be separately located in Aberdeen as planned. In fact, ownership by the National Wealth Fund would not stand in the way of any of the plans that the Government say they have for Great British Energy. The more I think about it, the more it seems that a simple change of ownership from direct to indirect would solve a lot of the issues that we will debate as this Committee goes forward, with no obvious downside for the Government or their plans for Great British Energy. I strongly encourage the Minister to give Amendment 1 serious consideration.

My Lords, I support what both my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, have said about the confusing overlap between what is now the National Fund Wealth and Great British Energy. I am one of those sad people who look at annual reports and accounts, and I was anxiously waiting for the UK Infrastructure Bank’s reports and accounts, which finally dropped last Monday. Through that, I discovered that it had legally changed its name to the National Wealth Fund two or three weeks ago, although no announcement seems to have been made about that at the time. I agree that Amendment 1 is a very neat way of tucking Great British Energy into a more satisfactory set of governance and oversight arrangements, which we wrestled with when the UK Infrastructure Bank was set up. But my main reason for speaking today is in connection with Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel and Amendments 4, 6 and 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I do not support these amendments, because I think the concept of minority stakes in government-controlled companies is a complete nonsense. Over the whole history of nationalised industries and publicly owned corporations and companies, there are relatively few examples of entities in which minorities held equity stakes. The exceptions are normally accidents of history—such as in the case of RBS/NatWest—rather than acts of conscious design. I cannot think of a single good reason to encourage the Government to seek private capital in Great British Energy, as opposed to seeking to leverage private capital alongside public investment in projects that need public involvement to help to de-risk them. Equity is always more expensive than debt, and minority holdings in illiquid shares are even more expensive. The Government do not need to pay that premium. They can borrow money, to the extent that GBE needs it, by issuing government debt. That will be much cheaper than raising equity for GBE, even after the post-Budget bond yield increases. Equity costs more to raise than debt because it carries more risk than debt. It is the first bit of the capital stack to be wiped out in liquidation—at least, that is what happens in the private sector. But does anybody believe that minority holders would be wiped out if the state decided to liquidate an insolvent Great British Energy? The Secretary of State has so many powers over Great British Energy that in practical terms the Government will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to escape underwriting all the liabilities of Great British Energy, and that includes its minority holdings. If the Government did try to wipe out the minority holdings in a liquidation, I predict a decade or more of shareholder litigation. Having minority holdings can also engage a lot of unnecessary legal problems around protections for minorities that are built into our company law to prevent minorities being treated unfairly. It can raise issues about dividends, which are not normally part of the regime for state-owned enterprises since retained earnings, if there are any—and history tells us that there are not usually any—are generally kept within the public corporation. I am not a fan of state-owned activity, but we should accept it for what it is, which is taxpayer or debt-funded activity, and not try to mimic the real world where equity investors genuinely do take on risk.

My Lords, I added my name to my noble friend Lord Vaux’s Amendments 4, 6 and 7. This was largely because when the Bill went through its stages in the other place, the Government made frequent references to the fact that an essential quality of Great British Energy was that it would be flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot. These are all good qualities to allow this new company to take advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, maybe even sudden ones when, say, an international investor is looking to throw its weight behind a tidal initiative or a new hydrogen production plant but is looking for a commitment from the UK Government in the form of some investment from GBE. What happens in these circumstances if the Treasury reduces its annual funding for GBE in future or if GBE’s annual budget has already been spent and there is a danger of this vital project going overseas unless GBE invests? Will the opportunity just get missed or, as my thinking goes, should GBE be truly flexible, vibrant, resilient and fleet of foot and be able to go out into the financial marketplace and draw in sufficient funds to promote and thus enable this one-off opportunity? I recognise that, to be effective, GBE must be part of government and yet not part of government. That is why the figure of 75% government ownership is crucial; 24% of outside investment would not prevent the Government remaining in total control and, more importantly, being seen to be in total control, but it could also mean that the private sector could help contribute to the success of GBE. Your Lordships may ask why the private sector cannot just invest in the proposed investment itself. The answer is that by investing in the parent company, GBE, the private sector would be hedging its bets by spreading its risk across the renewable sector generally rather than just putting its money into, say, a hydrogen project or whatever. Furthermore, allowing GBE to attract some outside investment would be a good way of taking some of the risk away from the Treasury. There may of course be other ways of doing this, such as issuing class A shares with a different standing from ordinary shares, but I do not believe they would ever be as attractive as the solution in our Amendments 4, 6 and 7. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are keen to see GBE succeed, but we think it needs the greater flexibility of being able to attract some investment from outside government.

16:15:00

My Lords, I approach this amendment, and many others that are coming, broadly with sympathy and understanding about the enormous complexities of what we are dealing with. Obviously, I also wish to see us succeed, in the sense that a nation with a bad, interrupted or poor energy supply will be a nation drained of blood. It will be an absolute catastrophe if we do not somehow get all this right; whether in five, 10, 15 or 28 years remains to be seen, but right we must get it, because the dangers are overwhelming. I also declare my interests in the register as connected to energy-related firms. Also, at one stage in the not very distant past, I attempted to do the same two jobs as the Minister is trying to do now, which is, first, in his department, to begin to piece together in very precarious and dangerous world conditions all the necessary equipment and organisations for energy policy success and, secondly, to explain it all to the House of Lords. That is a double job, which I am sure he will try to do with all his abilities, but this is very tough going in a very dangerous area. We now come also to a third vast task that lies behind these amendments in particular, which is: do we need entirely new relations, far away from the old polarities of left and right in politics, between the state, with all its overload and difficulties in the digital age, and the role of the markets and the private corporations in achieving the energy transition that we somehow have to achieve? That question hangs in the air. One can see these questions about the relationship between GBE and other bodies and whether it should collaborate and have minority stakes, and so on, as the shower of questions that come out of that task. I hope that somewhere, in government and indeed in the politics of all parties, that is being worked on. We have to develop a whole new generation of co-operation, particularly in the energy field and in infrastructure, to replace the difficulties and problems that we and Labour ran into with PFI 10 or 15 years ago, which was a good idea but it did not work, and unless we understand why it did not work, we will not get it right this time. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are of course probing but are very interesting. I beg the Labour Government of today, who want a national reset, a renaissance and all that, not to fall for the old socialist Adam, which is that you can solve problems by creating more and more institutions, bodies and bureaucracies. That is not the way—we have to be cleverer than that. That is the old socialisation pattern, which always goes too far and never works. So I am in considerable sympathy with these amendments and I hope that, when the Minister answers, he will show some sympathy for the importance of flexibility and the importance in the energy field of not making too many rigid definitions and delineations. The trouble, as we will find as we debate, is that everything is connected to everything else. We are trying to rule out nuclear in debates on later amendments, but in fact you cannot—nuclear is intimately connected with all other public investment decisions. We are trying to work out about the National Wealth Fund, which is very interesting. It is having a show here in Parliament tomorrow and I am looking forward to hearing its views in detail on its relationship with GBE. We had the famous letter from the Minister, describing some of the connections and linkages that he wants to see developing, telling us how all these things are going to be linked together. He lists straight off six or seven organisations that have to work together: the National Wealth Fund, Great British Nuclear, the Crown Estate, the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee—and of course there are dozens of others beyond those. There is the office of energy resilience; there are regional co-operation planning organisations—dozens of them. I can hardly read my writing, but there is a list that practically goes off the page of organisations that think they are in the business of investing in either the supply chains or the actual projects related to energy transition. This is the biggest thing since—in fact, it is far bigger than—the Industrial Revolution. It is the most enormous project ever undertaken in the modern world and certainly in this nation. There is a huge amount of co-ordination and tidying up to do before we have even started. Yet, in examining this one further new organisation, far from tidying up, we are tidying down—we are untidying—the pattern of the future. So these are very important amendments and I look forward very much to some clear answers on how we can go forward towards a greater effectiveness and focus in this whole area, rather than scattering assignments, arrangements and responsibilities in every direction, always with great complications and always at great cost.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Offord in his amendment but, funnily enough, not for the same reasons that he does. He says that Great British Energy should become a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund. I am very worried—I do not know whether anybody else is—about the enormous powers that Great British Energy will give to the Secretary of State. It strikes me that we are right back to Ministers choosing winners, when on the whole the role of government in choosing winners has been pretty abysmal. I am old enough—I am reluctant to admit how old I am in case somebody suggests I should retire—to remember Ted Heath, who started out as being the “Selsdon Man”, supposed to believe in free trade and free enterprise, and then bailed out Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. I do not think he did that because he thought he was choosing a winner—I think he knew he was choosing a loser—but he was, of course, faced by critical political embarrassment at the fact that this shipbuilding company was going bust, and he had the thought that he would use taxpayers’ money to try to bail it out. I have been reading that the fund will be have £8.5 billion of taxpayers’ money put into it and it will be sitting there and there will be the temptation for Government Ministers to say, “Oh well, we’ll bail out this or that company, or we’ll take a punt on the fact that we do not have a battery maker” and perhaps the reason for that is that the market will not support that; or, with electric cars, for instance, we are having great difficulty making enough of them. So we will see taxpayers’ money being put into ventures which the private sector would never support. But it will be done for good political reasons. No doubt, rather like DeLorean, we will find that the enterprise will be pitched in some part of the country where there is high unemployment and not enough activity and the Government might think that they will be able to buy themselves a few votes in those areas or whatever. But, for all the wrong commercial reasons, we will end up using taxpayers’ money on ventures that will never succeed and would have been picked up by the private sector if they were profitable. This is what worries me about energy generally. We rather fancy that people who put up wind turbines are really concerned with renewable energy. I have to tell your Lordships that they are not; they are financiers. What they do, long before they put up any wind turbine, is put up an experimental one to find out how much wind is blowing over a long period, and then they work the feed-in tariffs and, by the time they have done all that, they then have a cash flow on which they can then borrow money and put up the wind turbines. So it is a financial venture which is basically controlled by government in terms of all the criteria that matter and I do not really see that venture capital using taxpayers’ money has any great role to play in this. So I support my noble friend’s amendment and hope that he puts it to a vote.

My Lords, I rise very briefly. I thank noble Lords for bringing forward these amendments. These are really important issues that are worth examining in Committee. However, on these Benches we do not feel that any of these amendments really provide proper solutions to some of the problems that are contained within this Bill. We feel that GB Energy is separate and distinct from the National Wealth Fund; as GB Energy grows and develops over time, that will become clearer. We welcome the setting up of GB Energy, and we think it is absolutely essential that Britain has a chance to own and manage part of its energy resources and that we are investing in having our energy security and independence. I read recently on the old Government’s website a press brief from No. 10 during the Sunak Government, which proudly proclaimed that they had spent £40 billion subsidising home owners and businesses through the energy price crisis that we had in the last few years. Obviously, that cannot continue, and our bill payers are suffering, which is not good for us. We do not really feel that having minority equity stakes is the answer to these problems either. There are problems in this Bill: the Government have chosen to have a very short Bill; the strategic priorities are not written up and are not ready; Clauses 5 and 6 give more control than the Government should have without adequate parliamentary scrutiny—I recognise that this has been picked up by reports in this House. Those are all matters we can discuss and work constructively with the Government to find solutions to them. Ultimately, this is a useful conversation, but we do not see the answers within these amendments; we see the answers within other amendments that are yet to come.

My Lords, we have started our proceedings in Committee with a very interesting discussion about the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Offord, on the importance of our debates on energy and net zero more generally and with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the complexities of our energy system and the challenges that we have undoubtedly set ourselves. The recent report by NESO, the National Energy System Operator, sets out those challenges, but gives us some confidence that we can achieve them. Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, seeks to require that Great British Energy must be a subsidiary of the National Wealth Fund. Clearly, he indicated he wanted to explore in more detail the relationship between the two organisations. I should say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we are certainly not creating organisations for the sake of it. As someone who has spent most of my life dealing with NHS structures and restructuring, I have learnt over the painful years that simply creating new organisations and merging other ones very rarely leads to a successful outcome. We believe that Great British Energy is a key component of our energy and net-zero strategy; that is why it was a manifesto commitment and why we are determined to plough on with this proposal. On the relationship and the difference between the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy, the Government have stated very clearly that we see the National Wealth Fund as the state-owned investment bank and wealth fund. It will invest across clean energy sectors, including green hydrogen, green steel, gigafactories and ports, as well as other sectors central to delivering our industrial strategy. On the other hand, Great British Energy will be the UK’s state-owned energy company. It will own, manage and operate key energy projects across the country, including making investments across the clean energy sector and supporting the development of clean energy technologies. It will also support local power and community energy projects as well as supply chains. This is a distinct role, which is why GBE should be a stand-alone company focused on its important mission.

16:30:00

I always enjoy the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. He said that Ministers should not be attempting to pick winners. I sympathise with that, but Ministers will not be attempting to pick winners. We will have an expert company—GBE—working under the framework of the Secretary of State’s strategies, as referred to in Clause 5. We have appointed a chair of great calibre.

Is it not the case that the Secretary of State can override the chair of Great British Energy?

The noble Lord is referring to a power of direction. We are coming on to relevant amendments later in the Bill, but let me make it clear that this power is often contained in legislation, although we believe it will be used very rarely indeed. I certainly would not expect it to be used. I think the noble Lord is suggesting that the Secretary of State will attempt to micromanage Great British Energy through the power of direction. I simply do not believe that this will happen under any Secretary of State. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about duplication. At the beginning, we think it is sensible for GBE to use the National Wealth Fund’s expertise. He suggested that this is duplication; I think it is a pragmatic, sensible approach. We have certain expertise within the National Wealth Fund that can help as we establish GBE, but they are complementary functions. Having listened to the debate, I can assure noble Lords that my department will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other, and set out how this relationship will evolve in time. I turn to Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron. There was an interesting discussion about whether GBE could or should be allowed to raise equity through the sale of shares while it remained majority-owned by the Crown. Amendment 3 proposes enabling external equity ownership of Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Similarly, Amendments 4, 6 and 7 specify enabling third-party ownership of up to 25% of the shares in Great British Energy without its losing its status as a Crown-owned company. Amendment 5 seeks to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State, rather than by the Crown. We do not think that it is necessary for Great British Energy to sell its own shares to bring in external equity funding, or any funding, for its projects. In the case of the example which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave, it would, though, be possible for Great British Energy to encourage private sector investment into the scheme to which he referred, or to co-invest with external partners, each taking an equity stake in a project that Great British Energy wished to support. I understand that the model has been used successfully by similar bodies, such as the former Green Investment Bank. Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to Great British Energy. This is so it can take action to meet its objectives. To be clear, our intention is for Great British Energy to become financially self-sufficient in the long term. It will invest in projects that expect a return on investments, but it would be prudent to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to provide further financial support, if required. Just as private sector companies would rely on the financial strength of their corporate group to raise funds, that could be the case for providing GBE with further financial support for specific projects in the future. However, we believe that any such financial assistance should be provided by the Secretary of State and, as such, be subject to the usual governance and control principles applicable to public sector bodies, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s Managing Public Money. It is also unnecessary to specify that Great British Energy is owned by the Secretary of State rather than the Crown. The Bill simply follows normal legislative practice in its drafting. For instance, Section 317 of the Energy Act 2023, which the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, took through, expresses the ownership requirement for Great British Nuclear in the same way. Other legislation, including Section 6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, uses the same formulation. Clause 1(6) of the Bill explains that “wholly owned by the Crown” means that each share is held by a Minister of the Crown, which includes the Secretary of State, or a company wholly owned by the Crown, or a nominee of either of those categories. We also think that it is entirely appropriate for the Secretary of State to be the sole shareholder in Great British Energy. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on this. Introducing minority third party ownership, whether held by one minority shareholder or several, would add unnecessary complexity to its governance. A shareholder agreement or agreements would need to be put in place. They would need to cover elements relating to the control of Great British Energy, setting out which matters required approval of a simple majority of shareholders and which might require unanimous consent. For an organisation such as Great British Energy, playing such a key part in our mission to deploy clean energy—I take note of what noble Lords have said about parliamentary accountability—is it not surely right that Ministers both are accountable for their actions and can exercise full shareholder rights? This has been an interesting debate. I am aware of noble Lords’ issues around the role of Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund and its ability to draw in private sector investments, but we think—and it was a manifesto commitment—that this is a very important body that should stand alone. We are grateful that the National Wealth Fund is able to provide some support at the moment, but we think that this is the right way forward.

I thank noble Lords for their insightful contributions on the designation of a company as Great British Energy and the ownership of such a company. I welcome the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Cameron—Amendments 4, 6 and 7. They were designed to probe the benefits of having flexibility to allow minority external equity ownership of Great British Energy. However, I cannot disagree with anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about introducing private equity into what is, in effect, government-underwritten risk, which means that it really should be debt. The fact we are debating this indicates that there is no clarity about the substance and purpose of the Bill or about the exact ownership of Great British Energy. Given that we are debating £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, and that there is no limitation on how that financial assistance can be given or structured, we have a concern that will continue through Committee. The experience of the House was brought into the debate by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Hamilton, who looked back over previous generations to instances of how overarching powers given to Secretaries of State can be used if not abused, sometimes with the best of intentions. Again, it speaks to how there could be more clarity in the Bill about how those powers will be allocated. We believe that accounting and reporting measures are absent from the Bill and that we need further detail and clarity on the priorities and plans of Great British Energy. I expect that we will return to those matters on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert “, in order to advance the objectives set out in subsection (1A). (1A) The objectives which the Secretary of State must seek to advance in designating a company as Great British Energy are—(a) reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way, and(b) promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security.”

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 2 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lord Offord for his Front-Bench support for it. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, and I note my regret that I could not be here for Second Reading. The purpose of my amendment is to establish why the Government are creating Great British Energy and what its underlining objectives and purposes are. Ideally, this would be clear from the Bill or the related documentation, but it is such a thin Bill that calling it a “skeleton” Bill really does not do it justice. Its rather evanescent, wraith-like provisions provide no solidity other than giving a fig leaf of cover to the willed actions of the Secretary of State. I think that we as legislators and the British people are owed a bit more than that from the Bill. Before I come to the detail, I note that the Bill includes a requirement for the articles of association to contain a statement of “objects”. Of course, objects are not the same as objectives, and what is now Clause 3(2) bears that out. The objects there described are process requirements on the company and limits on where it may spend its very generous taxpayer funding: production of energy, reduction of carbon emissions, energy efficiency, security of supply and so on. They are a “what”; they not the “why”. The Bill also includes a requirement, in Clause 5, for Great British Energy to have strategic priorities and plans but, again, there is absolutely no constraint on the Secretary of State as to what those strategic priorities may be. Really, this is not good enough for a vehicle for £8 billion of taxpayers’ cash. It is important to have a clear idea of why Great British Energy exists and what its purposes are. That is what my amendment is there to secure and why it is written as it is. My amendment sets out two objectives for Great British Energy: “reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way” and “promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security”. In putting those two objectives forward, I am not inserting my own view to substitute for that of the Government. Rather, I am ventriloquising into the Bill, looking at the political statements, spoken and in writing, of the Government and the party opposite and trying to use them to ascertain why they feel this Bill and this company are necessary. I will briefly take noble Lords through this. I look first, of course, at the Labour Party manifesto— a document whose probative status has been quite significantly weakened in recent months, one might say, but it is all that we have. Number four of the six priorities of the party says: “Set up Great British Energy, a publicly-owned clean power company, to cut bills for good and boost energy security”. Those are the two purposes set out in my amendment. Similarly, the launch document for Great British Energy, which was published on 25 July, says that: “In an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect billpayers permanently is to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels”, et cetera. At Second Reading in the Commons on 5 September, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would “protect family finances”. The Energy Minister said that it would “guarantee our energy security and protect bill payers”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 529.] once again. It seems a fair reading to see these as the underlying purposes of Great British Energy and to see them reflected in the Bill. If the Minister, speaking for the Government, thinks differently on this, then perhaps in winding up he could explain what the Government see as the objectives of Great British Energy instead and why they should be different from those in this amendment. Noble Lords may ask why, if those purposes are understood by all concerned to be the objectives of Great British Energy, they need to be reflected explicitly in the Bill. There are a few reasons. The first, which I have touched on, is simple transparency. The hard-pressed British taxpayer needs to know why they are being asked to stump up over £8 billion.

16:45:00

The second reason is that the Government seem to be doing a classic baptists and bootleggers operation with the Bill. The Government, having justified the creation of Great British Energy on the grounds I have just set out, have said a lot this autumn about energy security, however feebly justified, but rather less about protecting bill payers. Indeed, it is hard to avoid the sense that the Government are now trying to sidestep their commitment to cut bills, having repeatedly promised that Great British Energy would cut household energy bills by an average of £300. I could give many examples of where people who are now Ministers have commented on this. To give just one, Rachel Reeves, now the Chancellor, said on 19 June:

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300”.

It is a very clear commitment, but the Government are now reluctant to repeat this pledge and, indeed, defeated an amendment on this point in the Commons last month.

The £300 commitment has been replaced, sidestepped, shifted to one side and replaced by what the Energy Minister described in the Commons as a commitment to

“protect bill payers in the long term”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/24; col. 528.]

Who knows when that will be? One might even think the Government are no longer confident that this vast expenditure of taxpayers’ money will reduce bills at all. Could the Minister tell us, in winding up, how much he thinks energy bills are likely to fall by 2030 once Great British Energy is up and running?

That brings me to my third point. Many observers, in which I include myself, are sceptical that the planned operations of Great British Energy are, in reality, likely to achieve what they purport. They are unlikely to fulfil either of the objectives in my amendment. After all, subsidies to renewables already stand at about £12 billion a year. That is a fact—it is in the Government’s accounts. The OBR estimates that this number will go up to £15 billion by the end of the Parliament.

This is not the place to review all the arguments on this point—we debated them on 14 November and I am sure we will discuss them again—but many of us are doubtful that public money funnelled into renewable energy that delivers power only when the wind blows and the sun shines is likely to increase our energy security. Many of us doubt that renewables are likely to reduce household energy costs. We look at the persistent increase in electricity prices since the renewables programme began in 2004—now giving us the highest prices in Europe—and wonder when the benefits are to come.

I take one view on this. No doubt Ministers and other noble Lords in the Committee take a different view. Reality will tell us who was right, but to be confident when we test what reality tells us we need to know what we are measuring against. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne noted in speaking on the railways Bill last month that the purpose clause he advocated was needed as a

“barometer setting out exactly what this Bill is seeking to do and what should be the Secretary of State’s overriding concern when making a decision”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1506.]

The same is true in this case. When the Secretary of State sets the strategic priorities in Clause 5, what are they supposed to be strategic about? When we reach 2030, whoever is in government at that point, we will need to know whether Great British Energy has succeeded against the tests it set itself—not whether it has fulfilled its objects or gone through the right processes, but whether it has succeeded against objectives connected to its underlying raison d’être.

That is why I submit that there needs to be a clear set of objectives in the Bill—for purpose, guidance, and to enable a judgment about success or failure. That is why Amendment 2 is necessary. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reactions and the contributions from all noble Lords. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing forward this amendment. It crystalised in my mind that the Bill is a solution in search of a problem. It does not have a clear statement of what it is trying to achieve. Without that, it is likely that Great British Energy will end up with a set of activities that lack proper cohesion. Like my noble friend Lord Frost, I have been searching back through what the Government have been saying, from the manifesto through to the “founding statement” and the Bill. The Government have been quite clear that they regard energy security and keeping bills low as important objectives of their Great British Energy project. Being able to specify overarching objectives is logically separate from what we have in Clause 3: the objects of the company. These objects are designed to constrain Great British Energy to doing particular things that in turn will, in theory, deliver the objectives. If the objective is to deliver energy security, that can be delivered in a number of ways. Some could argue that having more oil and gas would be one way of giving us greater energy security. That is not the way that the Government have chosen, so through Clause 3 they restrict what Great British Energy will do to clean energy. As my noble friend Lord Frost said, after a number of years we should be able to judge whether they have achieved energy security through the way they have chosen to set up Great British Energy and the specific objects that it has been given. My noble friend Lord Frost has outlined the way that the sands seem to be shifting on whether bills will be reduced. I heard on the radio this morning that the Prime Minister will reiterate his £300 promise this week. We look forward to hearing what he will say. Reducing bills and holding them down is clearly something that the Government have been promising for a good number of months by way of Great British Energy, and they need to be judged on whether they achieve that. They are choosing to do it through clean energy, as proposed in the Bill. We will need to look in due course at whether that objective has been achieved. I have just a couple of drafting quibbles with my noble friend’s amendment. First, and most importantly, I do not think that the objective relating to bills should be confined to household energy bills. We know that the energy bills borne by British industries are ruinously high—much higher than those of all our competitors. Energy bills should be reduced for all energy consumers, not just households. My second quibble is that the second objective in my noble friend’s amendment refers to “promoting” the UK’s energy security. I do not think it is good enough for this organisation to promote energy security; it should achieve energy security. I hope that, if my noble friend brings this amendment back at a later stage, he will bring a somewhat tougher version. However, these are minor quibbles with the drafting and do not detract from the fact that his amendment is very good.

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment because we have to judge this Bill on what it achieves, rather than on the processes it goes through. I have a slight problem, because it seems to me that if you want lower energy prices, you want to recognise the advances made by technology and have lower feed-in prices paid by the consumer. That is the way you get energy prices down; but, of course, if Great British Energy is investing in the companies, it wants the feed-in prices to be as high as possible, so the companies make profits. It seems to me that there is a conflict here, with government standing on both sides of the commercial argument. Let us face it, my noble friend Lady Noakes is right: the price industry is paying for energy as a result of this extraordinary pursuit of net zero is making us extremely uncompetitive in world marketplaces and makes the reindustrialisation of this country something we can only dream about. No company is going to locate in Britain to start a business here if it is paying much higher energy prices than in the rest of Europe, as my noble friend Lord Frost has reminded us. The Government have to be much clearer in their own mind on what they are trying to achieve with Great British Energy. Just saying that it is going to lower energy prices is not quite good enough, really; you have to say how it is going to lower energy prices. That is something we all want to see, but it is very difficult to attain. Perhaps the Minister can explain how all this is going to be done.

My Lords, I just wish to make one submission on this amendment, in support of my noble friend Lord Frost. Clause 1(1A)(a), proposed by the amendment, contains the phrase “reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way”. The great merit of this is that “sustainable” has two meanings in this context: first, that the low prices are sustained over a long period, which is clearly a good thing; and secondly, that they are sustainable in the sense that they are good for the environment. It is a very well-drafted purpose clause and I commend it to the Committee.

I rise to speak to Amendment 2, in the name of my noble friend Lord Frost and my own. This amendment brings critical clarity to the purposes of the Great British Energy Bill. It clearly outlines the two primary objectives the Secretary of State must pursue when designating a company as Great British Energy: first, reducing household energy costs in a sustainable manner; and secondly, promoting the UK’s energy security. I should add that I would not in any way quibble with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to both those provisions. These objectives reflect the values of economic responsibility, national sovereignty and long-term sustainability. In the face of rising energy prices and global uncertainty, ensuring that energy remains affordable for British households and businesses is paramount. Reducing costs while maintaining a focus on sustainability means we can protect consumers without compromising the environment. Moreover, energy security has never been more important. The UK’s reliance on foreign energy sources leaves us vulnerable to geopolitical instability—today we still import 40% of our energy. By emphasising energy security in this amendment, we are prioritising the resilience of our national energy infrastructure. A secure energy supply is not just a matter of economic policy; it is a matter of national security. This amendment provides the framework for a holistic energy strategy that benefits consumers, supports industry and strengthens our nation. As Conservatives, we on these Benches believe that the Government’s role is not to overregulate or restrict but to create the conditions for growth and sustainability. Therefore, Great British Energy must not be a mere title, but an institution, if at all, that advances these vital objectives of lowering energy costs and ensuring energy independence for future generations. It is imperative that we recognise the significance of Amendment 2, not only in the context of the Bill but as a cornerstone of sound legislative practice. Providing a clear statement of purpose ensures that any future actions taken under this Bill align with the objectives of affordability and energy security. Without such a guiding clause, we risk leaving the interpretation of the company’s aims open to ambiguity or to shifting priorities over time. Does the Minister not agree that a purpose clause of this nature would greatly improve the clarity of the legislation? If he does not agree to support this clause, could he outline on what grounds that decision has been taken? This amendment would also serve to reassure the British public and industry stakeholders that Great British Energy will not deviate into activities that may undermine these core objectives. We have seen in the past how well-meaning initiatives can become overly bureaucratic or lose sight of their founding principles. A purpose clause acts as a safeguard, compelling policymakers and administrators to remain true to the Bill’s intent.

17:00:00

To those who may argue that such specificity is unnecessary, I suggest that clarity fosters confidence. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, transparency in our legislative process matters. A purpose clause does not bind the hands of future Governments unduly; rather, it provides a clear framework within which they can operate and, indeed, innovate.

Let us not forget the broader geopolitical and economic context within which we are legislating. As we have seen with energy crises across Europe, over-reliance on foreign imports can leave nations exposed to sudden shocks. This amendment would equip Great British Energy with the mandate to bolster domestic resilience, reducing our exposure to such vulnerabilities. It also aligns with our broader net-zero commitments, as energy independence and sustainability often go hand in hand. By investing in clean, home-grown energy sources, we would reduce costs for consumers in the long term while cutting emissions. Is that not the win-win for households, industry and the environment that we all want to achieve by 2050?

Finally, I return to the principles we should be prioritising: prudent economic stewardship, self-reliance and forward-looking governance. This amendment is an opportunity to embed these principles in the DNA of Great British Energy at its birth. I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of a more explicit legislative framework and to recognise that this amendment is not an imposition but merely a refinement of the Bill’s ambitions. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would ensure that Great British Energy is both practical and purposeful, with clear measurable goals that would directly benefit the British people and our economy.

My Lords, that was an interesting debate, led by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, proposing an addition to Clause 1 which would set Great British Energy’s objectives as “reducing household energy costs in a sustainable way, and … promoting the United Kingdom’s energy security”. The noble Lord asked why we are doing this. He then, to be fair, referred to the—I think three—debates we have had on energy policy in the last few weeks, in which we clearly set out our aims and drive towards clean power and net zero. We see Great British Energy, with the provision of financial assistance from the Secretary of State, as being at the heart of our clean power mission. It will speed up the deployment of mature and new technologies, as well as local energy projects. It will support the Government’s aim of decarbonising our electricity system by 2030, while ensuring we can meet future demand as we further decarbonise the economy. I noted the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and I thought I detected some scepticism about net zero. I remind him that his party, over 14 years, has made various statements in support of net zero. I note that Mrs Thatcher, at the UN General-Assembly in November 1989, said: “the environmental challenge which confronts the whole world”—

I thank the noble Lord for giving way again. I think he will be the first to acknowledge that two wrongs do not make a right.

My Lords, it was more than two. I can quote Prime Minister May, and I acknowledge her leadership in this country being the first to enshrine the 2050 net-zero carbon target. Prime Minister Johnson only recently addressed COP 26 in Glasgow; I think we all acknowledge the leadership the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, showed there. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, announced to the UN the £11.6 billion in international climate finance for the period 2021-22. Although we are having this friendly discussion about future energy policy, there is still some consensus on the need to decarbonise our energy supply, and Great British Energy is part of the way we are going to do it. The key thing in the structure of the Bill is the objectives set in Clause 3. They will be informed by the statement of strategic priorities that Great British Energy will operate in, making sure that it will be aligned with the Government’s priorities. We have been clear that the first statement, which will be published in 2025—after due consultation and discussion with the devolved Governments and with Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy—will ensure that GBE is focused on driving clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. Of course, the issue of energy bills is very important. We are relying strongly on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is probably not a great fan—but none the less, over 14 years his party listened to it. The committee said that a clean energy future is the best way to make Britain energy independent, protecting bill payers, creating good jobs and tackling the climate crisis. The independent National Energy System Operator confirmed a few weeks ago that our 2030 clean power goal is achievable and can create a cheaper, more secure energy system. More broadly, the OBR—another body to which the previous Government paid great attention; they ran into trouble when they did not—highlighted that delayed action on reaching net zero will have significant negative fiscal and economic impacts. The Committee on Climate Change has said that the net costs of the transition, including upfront investment, ongoing running costs and costs of financing, will be less than 1% of GDP over the entirety of 2020 to 2050—lower, it said, than it concluded in its 2019 Net Zero report. I have already said that we will publish the statement of priorities in 2025. How will GBE be judged? It will be judged on its performance against the statement of priorities within the context of the objectives set by Clause 3.

The Minister has said again that the objectives of the company are set out in Clause 3. I am afraid that is not correct. The objects of the company are set out in Clause 3. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, those objects restrict the activities—they do not set out the objectives. Nowhere in the Bill are the objectives of the company—what it is trying to achieve—laid out. I have not yet heard an argument from the Minister as to why that is.

I really do not read Clause 3 in that way. Subsection (2) says: “The statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating, encouraging and participating in”. One way to read that is that Great British Energy’s objects are around the following four paragraphs, informed by the strategic priorities and plans that the Secretary of State will prepare over the next few months.

There is only one way to read the words the “objects are restricted to”. That is what the clause says.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may not be as familiar with company law as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The object of a company, which is what the clause refers to, is a constitution document, and it restricts what a company can do. That is what company law sets up for it. The Minister is trying to read “objects” in a broader sense. It is very clear that the clause refers to the legal documentation that will surround the full legal implementation of Great British Energy as a company. It does not have any other meaning.

My Lords, it is always helpful to have that kind of clarification, because I certainly was not intending to mislead the Committee in any way. From what I see in Clause 3, I am clear that GBE can participate in, encourage and facilitate the production, distribution, et cetera—informed, as I say, by the strategic plans and priorities. But I will obviously look at that and, if I have got myself confused, I will certainly reflect on it.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response and to all those who contributed to our discussion, including the mini-discussion at the end about the difference between objectives and objects, which is important and I am sure we will return to it. I do not want to detain noble Lords long but, as the Minister repeated the words of Lady Thatcher on this subject, I cannot forbear repeating her words in her final work on it: “By the end of my time as Prime Minister I was also becoming seriously concerned about the anti-capitalist arguments which the campaigners against global warming were deploying”. She—rightly, in my view—added: “We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas. We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of commonsense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else”. Those wise words are worth bearing in mind today when we discuss this issue. I am not sure that we have entirely got to the bottom of this issue, and I suspect that we will have to return to it in some form on Report, because it is so fundamental to what the Bill is about. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendments 3 to 7 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Crown status

Debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, I tabled the Clause 2 stand part notice to probe the reasons why Clause 2 rules out Crown status for Great British Energy, but I also tabled it to explore further one of the topics we have already discussed: the relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. As we debated at Second Reading, the Bill is a partial cut-and-paste job on the UK Infrastructure Bank Act. The main difference is that some important chunks did not get all the way over to the paste bit of the instruction. One way in which this Bill and that Act differ is that Clause 2, which deals with Crown status, has no counterpart in the 2023 Act. I do not know why the 2023 Act was silent on this, and I do not think we debated it when we went through the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, as it then was. But, since the National Wealth Fund is fairly closely controlled by the Treasury, it may well have Crown status. As we have discussed, the precise relationship between Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund is something of a mystery, and I have to say that it remains so after the Minister’s letter to noble Lords after Second Reading. The Minister told us in that letter that the Government will set out the relationship in detail “as Great British Energy scales up”— I think that is code for saying, “We will make it up as we go along”. The Minister said, as has been referred to, that in the early days Great British Energy investments will be made by the National Wealth Fund. This is another plea for him to explain how the interaction between the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will work in the context of one possibly having Crown status and the other very definitely not.

17:15:00

We have had almost no details on the much-trumpeted “partnership arrangement” with the Crown Estate and do not know how it will work in practice. However, for the purpose of this stand part debate, will the Minister explain how Crown status, which presumably attaches to the Crown Estate but not to Great British Energy, will affect activities under their partnership? Will the partnership itself have Crown status? That seems unclear.

I am no expert in constitutional law, but my understanding is that Crown status carries with it some exemptions from planning law and immunity from some prosecutions. I am not arguing for Great British Energy to have Crown status, because I think it should have as few freedoms as possible, but I seek in this short debate to find out the practical effect of not having Crown status, given that two of the closest partners that appear critical to the early success of Great British Energy have, or may well have, Crown status.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Noakes. We cannot let this clause float by with a nod of the head, because it omits vital developments—as our debates have done—in the whole pattern of energy supply and energy-environmental compatibility across the planet. They are developing fast in other countries but get no mention here, confirming that this piece of legislation, while sounding fine and fitting into the jigsaw of the past, is already out of date and being bypassed by major developments in the global politics of energy and the environment. I will give the Committee two examples. The first is zonality. The thinking in many circles, certainly in America and increasingly here, is that energy security, which we discussed in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, will have to be considered in zonal rather than national terms; in other words, national, centralised organisations, even National Grid, do not fit into the pattern of a future that will deliver security, clean energy and affordability. If one applies a zonal lens to this scene—I listened to senior officials from the National Energy System Operator talking strongly about this the other night—many of the arguments we are having around Clause 1 fall to bits. Secondly, US corporations, big corporations in other countries and some in this country are beginning to recognise that grid thinking and the centralised patterns of energy delivery compatible with net zero and our other objectives are never going to happen. We will have increased climate violence and it is too late to prevent the growth in carbon emissions which is going on now and continuing faster than ever. Methane, which is 80 times as lethal as carbon dioxide, is also growing very fast, according to the latest figures. Despite all our efforts, climate violence is coming and many feel that it is here already. Big corporations in America and some here are losing faith in the capacity of our system—a transformed, completely renovated grid system of transmission of power and a necessary pattern of generation which is reliable and does not stop when the wind stops—to supply their needs. Such corporations are investing, or planning to invest, and finding out from National Grid that they have to wait 15 years to get any electricity, to adjust from gas to electricity, or whatever it is, and, in doing so, realising that they are on a futile course unless they can get their own assured, dedicated source of electricity. That is why we are reading in the papers about ideas for converting old coal stations to mini-nuclear power stations, and other technologies. All these things are racing ahead but none is mentioned in Clause 2. It is, in fact, if we are frank with ourselves, a completely unrelated and irrelevant clause. Therefore, one’s inclination is to shrug one’s shoulders. I hope that when we come back to these things in detail at a later stage, we will have a rather more focused image of what is really happening in the world of energy supply, carbon dioxide and methane growth, climate violence, or anything else of which there is not much of a sign in this clause.

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my noble friend Lady Noakes’s stand part notice. This clause deals with the Crown status—or more accurately, the lack of Crown status—of Great British Energy, and it is imperative that we probe the Government’s reasoning and consider the implications of this approach. Clause 2 states clearly: “Great British Energy is not to be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown”. Additionally, it specifies that the property of Great British Energy “is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown”. Let us pause and consider what this means. Great British Energy is envisaged as a significant player in the energy sector, with the Government making it central to our net-zero ambitions and national energy security. It may well handle substantial public funds, represent the UK’s interests domestically and internationally, and carry out critical projects on behalf of the Government. Yet the Government have deliberately chosen to sever this body from the legal, financial and symbolic framework provided by Crown status. I pose the question: why? Why has this decision been taken, and what are the potential consequences? There are three areas of concern I wish to highlight; the first is accountability and oversight. Without Crown status, Great British Energy sits outside the constitutional framework that traditionally governs Crown bodies. Will this weaken Parliament’s ability to scrutinise its actions? Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General have clear access to audit its books? In an age of heightened public interest in corporate governance and transparency, these questions should be considered. Secondly, on legal implications, by denying Crown status, Great British Energy forfeits the legal immunities and privileges that might ordinarily protect a public body in its dealings. Does this leave it more vulnerable to litigation? Could it become ensnared in disputes that detract from its primary mission? Thirdly, this is a public body intended to work for the public good. Denying it Crown status might send a message—rightly or wrongly—that it is not fully embedded within the public sector, raising questions about its mission and accountability to the public interest. I do not suggest that Crown status is a necessity in all circumstances. Indeed, there may be good reasons for taking this route, such as granting Great British Energy greater operational flexibility or shielding the Government from certain liabilities—but these reasons have not been clearly articulated by the Government, and they deserve to be. As we face unprecedented challenges in energy policy, the creation of Great British Energy is a momentous step. Its structure and status must instil public confidence, ensure robust accountability, and align seamlessly with the broader aims of our national strategy. Clause 2, as it stands, leaves too many unanswered questions.

My Lords, we think Clause 2 is very important. It ensures that Great British Energy will serve the public as an independent company and operate in the same way as other UK companies. Before I come on to the main body of the argument, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he had some interesting points to make about the role of advanced nuclear reactors tied into industrial processes and data centres. We are watching very carefully what is happening in the US and we are in discussion with some of the companies themselves. I very much take his point about that. The clause ensures that Great British Energy will not have any special status, immunity or privilege normally associated with the Crown, nor will its property be seen as the property of the Crown. It will also be subject to the same legal requirements as other companies. This is in line with the vision we have had for Great British Energy from the beginning: that it should be an operationally independent and agile market player, and we want to ensure it remains that way. If we were to leave out the clause, either Great British Energy would be regarded as a servant or agent of the Crown and have the immunity or privilege associated with that status; or, at least, there would be ambiguity as to whether it has that status. I understand that the courts in recent years have been faced with questions about whether certain persons or bodies had Crown immunity, and the issue was not clear in the legislation—for example, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and the Commissioners of Prisons. The clause avoids that ambiguity and the possibility of any litigation arising regarding Great British Energy’s status. Examples of how this might arise in the context of Great British Energy, are, first, that Crown bodies are generally not covered by the requirements of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; and, secondly, that parts of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 do not bind the Crown. We would not want Great British Energy to be exempt from that legislation or for it to be unclear whether it is bound by such legislation. As I mentioned earlier in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, we expect Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund to work well together. It is while Great British Energy is being established that it will utilise the National Wealth Fund’s existing expertise, which I think has been widely acknowledged. This is work in progress, and I cannot say very much more than that at the moment. We are not making it up as we are going along. There are earnest discussions between ourselves, His Majesty’s Treasury and Jürgen Maier, the chair of Great British Energy, and we will work closely with His Majesty’s Treasury to provide clarity to the market on how the two institutions will complement each other and how their relationship will evolve over time. I also acknowledge that the partnership with the Crown Estate will be hugely valuable. On the question of the Crown Estate’s own position, I will have to seek further advice and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because I do not have the answer at the moment.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3: Objects

Amendment 8

Moved by

8: Clause 3, page 2, line 13, after “encouraging” insert “investing in”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, I will also speak to Amendments 9, 12, 13, 14, 31 and 32 in my name. They are focused on Clause 3, “Objects”, and they arise from a key part of the energy world that has problems with those objects as they exist in the Bill. I will refer particularly to the hydrogen industry; all my remarks will be on that industry’s reading of the Bill as currently drafted. I have had discussions with the leading and largest trade association, Madano, which has 120 members across the value chain for Hydrogen UK. It is concerned that the current definition of clean energy in the Great British Energy Bill lacks clarity and could unintentionally hinder the growth of the UK hydrogen sector. That is why I am seeking to amend the definition in the Bill. The proposed amendments aim to provide an inclusive definition of clean energy that includes CCUS-enabled hydrogen. The amendments are supported by Hydrogen UK and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association to address the concerns they have about limiting sector growth and investment. The UK’s unique twin-track approach to hydrogen production that supports the use of CCUS-enabled hydrogen and electrolytic hydrogen is, in my judgment, a major strength that can help kick-start the UK hydrogen industry. Excluding critical CCUS-enabled hydrogen production technology at this early stage would harm the UK hydrogen industry.

17:30:00

So, how will the amendments that I have put forward support the UK hydrogen industry? First, they give confidence. They will secure investment, because a narrow definition of clean energy will limit investment in sustainable energy resources, slowing the growth of green industries such as hydrogen. And hydrogen presents the UK with a massive opportunity for economic growth, due to its natural geological and geographical advantages, supply-chain support and existing industrial skill set. A clear definition of clean energy will allow GB Energy to build confidence and bring in investment. This will create jobs. Hydrogen UK’s most recent economic impact assessment estimates that the hydrogen sector in the UK could support approximately 30,000 direct jobs by 2030, but that will happen only if CCUS- enabled hydrogen projects reach FID.

It will help to achieve net zero. GB Energy is the flagship policy of this Government’s plans to reach net zero by 2050, and I support that. Hydrogen has a wide range of uses, from local transport to aviation to industrial decarbonisation, and is essential for decarbonising hard-to-reach sectors of business. It would show good global leadership. That is really thanks to the healthy pipeline of projects, a supportive policy environment and existing energy expertise. The UK is well positioned to become a global hydrogen leader and build robust supply chains here. But, above all, it supplies energy security. CCUS-enabled hydrogen has a critical role to play in protecting the UK’s energy security, because hydrogen can store energy to balance offshore wind and solar. When the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining, hydrogen is there to give us the future energy security that we need as a nation. I believe that what this industry has done and is doing is vital to enhance this Bill and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

My Lords, I rise to speak to five amendments in this group, so I apologise that I will be a few minutes—but at least they are not in five different groups. I start with two amendments on heat pump technology. They both seek to explore how Great British Energy could have a greater and more useful and productive role in helping with the uptake of heat pumps. Amendment 16 would set an objective for GB Energy to ensure the uptake and use of heat pumps. Amendment 17 would set an objective for GB Energy to ensure the uptake and use of heat pumps, including by leading efforts to develop a mortgage opt-in financing scheme, where payments for heat pumps could be included in mortgages on an opt-in basis. Helping people to decarbonise home heating has been a long-running and difficult issue. Very little progress has been made in these areas, which are responsible for a quarter of our total CO₂ emissions. We all need to recognise and work together to ensure that policies and plans are put forward to bring people with us on the journey to net zero, and that means ensuring that vulnerable and low-income households are supported through the transition. Heat pumps are up to four times more energy-efficient than gas boilers and they are a crucial element of the Government’s plans to decarbonise home heating. I welcome a lot of the measures that have recently been announced by the Government as part of the warm homes plan, including boosting the budget for the boiler upgrade scheme, supporting more households to switch to a heat pump and removing unnecessary planning restrictions which were a blockage to people taking up and installing heat pumps. While I recognise that these measures are useful and help to remove some barriers, my worry remains that they are still not enough to get us back on track to meet our heat-pump targets. To meet the UK’s climate change target, the Government need to install 600,000 low-carbon heat pumps annually by 2028. The 2024 progress report to Parliament from the Climate Change Committee identified heat-pump installations and the training of heat-pump installers as being “significantly off track”. In 2023, less than half the number of heat pumps were installed to keep us on track for these goals. While figures have improved a little this year, it has not been dramatic enough to make progress. The marketplace faces continued resistance from many of the gas boiler companies; there is still a prevalence of disinformation and cost barriers and a lack of installers necessary to get these heat pumps installed. So I wish to explore with the Minister and with the House whether it is worthwhile giving GB Energy a role in this space, to help progress with the installation of heat pumps and to help us meet these challenging targets. To be frank, I do not see much of another plan from the Government that is going to get us anywhere near where we need to be in time. Furthermore, has any consideration been given to bringing the warm homes plan and the associated budget within the control of GB Energy? Turning to Amendment 17, I wish to acknowledge from the outset that this is not my idea; this is an idea I read about and it originates from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. It made sense to me. This would be a way of helping people who own a house and have a mortgage to overcome the cost barrier to the installation of heat pumps. I think it is sensible and possibly worth pursuing further. So, I wanted to ask the Minister and to explore with the House whether GB Energy could act as a facilitator and a broker to help make this happen. There are significant government grants available—£7,500 for installing a heat pump—but that still leaves over half the cost with the householder. That is still a significant amount of money and it is a barrier to people taking this up. However, if the total cost of the heat pumps that was left over could be put on a mortgage, that could spread over a longer term and the process would become inherently much more affordable. So I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on whether that is something that GB Energy might have a role in helping to facilitate. I will now move on to Amendment 23. To be clear, this is a probing amendment. Sorry, that was not written in the amendment. The amendment prevents GB Energy facilitating, encouraging and participating in carbon capture and storage, as the Government have already allocated a budget for CCS to be spent elsewhere. I tabled this amendment so that the whole House could gain a better understanding of the proposed role for GB Energy in the CCS sector and in this space. I want to hear from the Minister what the objectives are. What value will GB Energy add here, why are they investing in it and what are the proposed outcomes that will flow from that investment? I understand from the Minister that the Government do not want to put a list in the Bill and that they are keen to maintain flexibility for GB Energy. GB Energy is about investing in emerging technologies, helping them to get off the ground and taking on some of the risk that needs to be taken to help create new markets. It is about crowding in and not crowding out private capital. Those are clear objectives. It is a tightrope that needs to be walked, but there is a clear purpose there. I am not against GB Energy having a role in CCS, but I wish to understand a little better what that role is, what is planned and what percentage of GBE’s proposed budget might be spent in this area. Against that background, I am concerned about the availability of budget and government resources for GB Energy. I know that government discussions around budget resources are ongoing, that £100 million has so far been pledged over the first two years, and that a total of £8 billion over the five years of this Parliament is proposed, but that is not a huge budget resource and there is a growing list of priorities and possible areas for GBE to invest in. Eventually, we could end up in a position where the cake is cut so small that each slice begins to have a very diminishing value. Of course we need to set up the organisation, but only £100 million-worth of investment will be available to GBE for the year 2025-26, other than what might come from the National Wealth Fund. Time is running out for GB Energy to make these investments, because the ambition here is obviously to decarbonise our energy by 2030. If you are 25 or 26 making these investments, once you have made them they need to create real things that make a real difference. We are running out of time. I speak also to Amendment 24, which is similar to Amendment 23 but looks at GB Energy’s role in nuclear and at the relationship between GB Energy and GBN. I do not have time to go through it all, but basically I want to explore all the points I made on CCS in relation to GBN. I note the Minister said in the letter he wrote to us that the detail is being worked through and that considerations are being given to how GBN’s functions could be best aligned with GBE. Briefly, can he confirm that there are no plans for GBN to become part of GBE, and that the plan is that they will always be separate organisations but will have close working relationships with each other? Again, I assume that that is about initial investment and risk-taking in new nuclear technology. My worry these amendments address is that, without proper strategic priorities, the ever-growing areas that GB Energy could invest in will leave it with inadequate resources to do the core job that I want to see, which is renewable energy. The Government have made £200 billion available for carbon capture and storage, so I do not quite see why GBE also needs to be involved in it. Amendment 25, to which I have added my name, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce. Unfortunately, he cannot be here, so I will speak to his amendment, which would require GBE to have consideration “to measures that ensure oil and gas supply chains contribute to … the development of renewable technology during transition to net zero … the decarbonisation of remaining oil and gas production, and … the reduction of oil and gas production consistent with net zero”. I pay tribute to my noble friend and his years of experience in Aberdeen and the North Sea oil and gas sectors, and his very real concern to ensure the transition is indeed just. These processes are extremely difficult even in the best of times and with the best will, so it is important to ensure oil and gas workers are protected and treated fairly, that adequate support is given to them, and that they are able to transition into the green energy and technologies of the future. We need these people and their skills, and we need these industries to ensure we can deliver the green technology that we need. However, these processes can be bumpy. It is in all our interests to ensure that their rights and futures are protected, and that these British industries continue to be supported and flourish, and are able to transition. All projections to and through net zero envisage oil and gas as part of the plan, so this will continue to be part of our energy mix even in net zero. The oil and gas sector currently accounts for £25 billion of UK GDP and supports around 200,000 jobs. The plans are that even more people will be employed in the green sectors. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the decline of the oil and gas supply chain does not proceed faster than the expansion of the renewable sector. If we get the balance right, the UK can deliver net zero at home and help develop it abroad; if we get it wrong, we could depress one successful if declining sector before the new sector arrives to take it forward. Just before I finish, I give my support to Amendment 18, which will no doubt be spoken to very well by my noble friend Lady Grender. It calls for GB Energy to support an emergency home insulation programme. This is one of the key amendments to the Bill from my party. The best energy of all is the energy we never need to burn, use and consume. More must be done on energy efficiency to support our home owners and bill payers to make sure that they can afford to keep their homes warm and safe. Finally, I lend my support to Amendment 91 on tidal barrages. With that, I think I have run out of time.

17:45:00

My Lords, I rise on the final note of the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on those amendments to speak to my Amendment 91, which he just mentioned. It is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff and the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Woodley. I know it enjoys support from all parts of your Lordships’ House. It would insert the following new clause after Clause 7: “Within six months of a designation under section 1(1) coming into effect, Great British Energy must publish an assessment of the potential use of tidal barrage projects to support decarbonisation of the energy sector”. That sits comfortably with the other amendments in this group. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said about the use of hydrogen, what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about heat pumps, and what I think my noble friend Lady Boycott will say about biomass. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with whom I have already had one meeting—he promised that at Second Reading and I am grateful to him for it. It is partly about whether we can reduce reliance on forms of energy that come with a price tag connected to slave labour in places such as Xinjiang. If one is to stop using sources that have a human rights dimension, we have to find alternatives. In a way, that is what these amendments seek to do: to look at what some of the other alternatives may be. I also know that the Minister has kindly agreed to meet with me and the metro mayor for Merseyside, Steve Rotheram, along with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, in due course, so we can talk further about the Mersey barrage, which I will come back to in the course of my remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, talked about security and diversity—very important concepts that have come out in all the previous groups we have talked about. We should make sure that we are not so dependent on any one source that anyone else can then hold us to ransom. I would add to security and diversity the need for more reliance in the United Kingdom on ourselves and a reduction in dependency on countries such as the People’s Republic of China or Russia. I think all of us were horrified to see the dependency that Germany had at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, and we must learn the lessons of that. Why tidal energy? I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for producing some notes on this for me. However, I have been interested in this issue since the 1980s, when I served in another place on the Environment Select Committee, but also because I founded the Mersey Barrage All-Party Parliamentary Group. This idea had not come out of the blue. In fact, tidal barrages have been around for many years. The first was thought of by the French in 1921. It did not come to pass until 1966, when the La Rance barrage, quite close to Saint-Malo in Brittany, opened. So this is not a fantasy or something out of dystopian fiction; they have been done and here are decades of experience. Tidal energy could be a crucial pillar for delivering the objectives of the energy Bill. It would strengthen the UK’s renewable energy mix, complement intermittent sources such as wind and solar, drive the green industrial strategy by fostering innovation, create jobs and support regional economic growth. The United Kingdom is uniquely positioned to be a global leader in tidal energy. We can learn from projects such as the La Rance estuary barrage in France, but we can also learn—I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will be particularly interested in this—from the experience of South Korea, where the largest operating tidal power station is based: the Sihwa Lake project, which produces 254 megawatts of energy. It is a 43.8 kilometre artificial lake constructed as a land reclamation project in 1994. It used a 12.7 kilometre seawall at Gyeonggi Bay and, after some false starts, if you look at its history, nevertheless, construction led to 552.7 gigawatts of electricity generated by the tides. I asked what that really means to a layman like me, and I was told that it is the equivalent of 862,000 barrels of oil, or 315,000 tonnes of CO₂, equivalent to the amount produced by 100,000 cars annually. It has 10 water turbine generators, enough to support the domestic needs of a city with a population of about half a million. After some false starts initially, as I said, it led to some very positive developments in the ecosystem there as well. That neatly takes me to the Mersey barrage, an idea that, as I said, has been around for over 30 years now. There has recently been a new public consultation, which closed last month. I know that when the Metro mayor comes to meet the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, there will be an opportunity to discuss the findings of that. None of these things, whatever energy we produce, comes with no downside—we all accept that—but there are surprisingly few downsides to the use of tidal barrages. Merseyside would argue that the green industrial revolution could be started off there, and Britain’s renewable energy coast could be there, on the River Mersey and in the Irish Sea. It would power hundreds of thousands of homes and create many jobs. I visited Cammell Laird a few weeks ago to see the wonderful renaissance that has taken place there, alongside the extraordinary renaissance of the Port of Liverpool; these are big success stories that need to be understood and learned more widely. Listen to what the mayor himself says: “There is a strong strategic case for taking forward a Mersey tidal power project and we are developing detailed plans for how it could be made a reality. I also believe there is a strong moral case for it too—our planet’s future depends on it.” As people such as the noble Lord, Lord West, will confirm, the Mersey has a huge tidal range—green energy to power every home in the city region for more than 100 years. Surely that is something worth giving serious consideration to. It is predictable, so it complements offshore wind and solar energy; but it is predictable in a way that they are not always. It should be a key part of the diversity that we heard about earlier. It is a well-established technology with minimal decommissioning needs. I would also point the Minister to other experience, not just overseas. The Orbital O2 project in Orkney is the world’s most powerful underwater turbine: 2,000 homes there receive their energy from it, and more than 2,200 tonnes of carbon are cancelled as a result of the work of the project. Then, of course, there is the Severn barrage project, which has been around a long time and has had many advocates, not least on the Official Opposition Benches over the years. I know that some noble Lords, one of whom cannot be here today, are great supporters of it, as are some of my noble friends. This is an issue that has captivated the party of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who is in his place, and others. The idea was dropped back in 2010, but it was resurrected in 2024, with New Civil Engineer reporting that a new independent commission had been established. It estimates that 7% of the United Kingdom’s electricity could be generated, and challenges such as cost, risk and environmental impacts, which have previously halted major barrage projects, are believed to be capable of being overcome by the use of new technologies. The UK could be in a position to be a global leader. I certainly think this is worthy of exploration, and that is all the amendment commits us to doing. This should not be seen as some sort of science fiction, as some projects undoubtedly appear to be from time to time. It is not unrealistic, and there are already very good examples, which I have cited. It is worth looking at further, and if the Minister cannot support the amendment, I hope he feels that the principle of delving further into the potential of barrages should be part of what Great British Energy seeks to achieve.

My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said about tidal power. I have followed what has happened on the Severn, and it is terrific to see that it is now coming back into play. Tides are probably our most reliable power source in the UK. There will always be a tide, when there might not be some wind. I support pretty much all the amendments in this group which look at diversifying the sources of energy—all of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. I shall speak specifically to Amendments 30 and 33, which would exclude biomass from the definition of clean energy, and there are many reasons for this. Over the past few years, it has become completely clear to me and, I think, to many other noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is not in his place, and who spoke about this issue during a Question of mine a couple of weeks ago—that while biomass is okay on paper, in theory, and on a very small scale in practice, it is not at all okay on the big scale at which we practise it. We cannot go on using it to reach net zero. I do not know whether noble Lords saw the “Dispatches” and “Panorama” programmes; also, an Ofgem investigation has found that biomass energy generators in the UK have “misreported”—that is not my word—the data on where they get their wood from. In other words, it is not waste wood. The idea was that offcuts and waste wood were used and burnt. That in itself was a fallacy, because the burning of wood releases so much carbon, but the story gets worse. As the Wildlife and Countryside Link put it: “Bioenergy which burns woody biomass actively harms nature restoration efforts and will not contribute to GB Energy’s goals of clean energy, energy independence, nor cheaper energy bills.” This is before you get to the negative health impacts of sourcing and burning biomass, the damage it is doing to the renewable energy brand, or, importantly, habitat destruction, which so often gets missed in the race towards net zero. I want to raise a couple of wider bioenergy issues. I am really worried by the idea of BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, which the Government seem intent on believing is an inherently negative emission technology. Let us look a little further. The assumption is based on the idea that all biomass inputs are waste—which not even our sustainability requirements require—or are balanced out by regrowth. If it was entirely the former, let us be clear that burning waste wood releases more emissions than natural degradation, through which carbon is absorbed by the soil—and that is before you get to all the other environmental benefits of leaving forestry residue in the forest where it belongs. If we assume the latter to be true, it is only the case after several decades and, again, only if the trees are actually replanted. In short, there is no way to verify that biomass is carbon neutral at any point. I feel that this has gone so far that it would even be worth the department itself sending someone out to where these pellets are apparently sourced from—in North America and in the province of British Columbia. Perhaps there is something that DESNZ or its predecessor, BEIS, has already done, which I have heard rumours about. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell me if this has happened or is planned. Biomass is not carbon negative. I understand that the Minister’s department baked BECCS into our carbon budgets over a decade ago and that they are ongoing in future carbon budgets, but the logic is flawed and, at its worst, truly deceitful. Just because we classify something as renewable or carbon negative does not mean that it is. We do not have time to grow the trees to absorb the carbon we are pushing into the atmosphere. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we are cutting trees down in North America and Canada, turning them into wood pellets, shipping them by various means back across Canada and the Atlantic, often to a power plant in Yorkshire where they are belting out carbon into the atmosphere, and we are calling this clean and renewable. My Lords, it is not. My question for the Minister—apart from whether he is on this mission to find out the extent of this—is whether he will rule GBE out of involving itself with biomass power generation, and will he come back to me on what investigations his department has done in the past few years? Can we be honest at this point and remove the absurd assumption that biomass is inherently carbon-neutral at the point of use?

18:00:00

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 18, not Amendment 28— to be clear. I regret that I was unable to be here for Second Reading. This amendment inserts two additional objects for GBE. The first is to implement “an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes”. The second is to have as a clear object “the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology”. I also support many of the amendments in this group, particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. Most of my comments will address his Amendments 16 and 17, which, alongside the spirit of my own amendment, seek to promote an eco-friendly and affordable way to heat homes. On these Benches we would argue that these amendments are essential if the welcome aims of the Bill are to be fulfilled; namely, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, drive down costs for individual households and ensure long-term security of supply. Failure to give these two issues due prominence, especially when it comes to insulation, would be like running a hot bath with the plug missing. My amendment focuses on getting GBE to support and innovate on behalf of its customers, because GBE, like any other part of our society or any other organisation, should be working towards and contributing to net zero. The UK has one of the worst records in western Europe when it comes to losing heat from homes—three times faster than neighbouring countries—resulting in exorbitant costs, poor health and a level of wastage which is breathtaking. The greatest impact of our older, damper, leakier housing stock is on those who can least afford it; and it particularly impacts on people who live in the private rented sector. While residents might be able to access help with insulation from their local authorities at present, that is not what this amendment attempts to achieve. It is about the rollout of a proper emergency home insulation programme—yes, for this winter but, above all, as a long-term measure to improve living conditions and drive down costs. I ask that the Minister particularly addresses our aim for an emergency scheme. The benefit is obvious and has been laid out by the Climate Change Committee in the past. Demand for energy can reduce if we deal urgently with the energy which is lost and seeping out of homes that are not insulated and are leaking heat. The potential savings are significant. The New Economics Foundation estimates that £2 billion alone could be saved for the NHS from reducing cold and damp in current housing. In addition, home energy efficiency is highly necessary to get us to the net-zero target. Regrettably, according to the previous Conservative Government’s own Climate Change Committee, while the UK over recent years should have installed nearly 3 million individual measures in energy efficiency, the last Government achieved just under 16% of that target. This was such a wasted opportunity to help those who need it most, in the leakiest of homes. The worst part of this historical record is the abandonment of targets for energy efficiency and insulation in 2015, allowing houses to be built without energy-efficiency measures at all. We urge this new Government to make this record of lost opportunities a thing of the past, and to adopt an emergency programme of insulation through the scheme proposed to support those on low incomes. While we are of course aware that the Government’s warm homes plan is due next year, if this Bill is intended to champion the consumer alongside the objective of energy efficiency, which is one of the best ways to help them, it should be included within this legislation, particularly given how far these programmes have, tragically, lagged behind and how much progress and catch-up now need to be made. I ask that the Minister responds in the context of the warnings from Age UK and Disability Rights UK about the urgent and imminent impact of the changes to the winter fuel allowances. This is something that could be reduced as an impact, crisis and concern right now, if countless vulnerable pensioners were lifted out of fuel poverty with the emergency programme we have described. Leading the way in previous years, my noble friend Lady Pinnock introduced an amazing scheme that I urge the Minister to look at called the Kirklees Warm Zone scheme—noble Lords may have heard her reference it once or twice in the past—that offers over 170,000 households support with an insulation programme, regardless of the tenure of the property. It was an award-winning programme over a three-year period, and the largest domestic insulation scheme in the UK. It is estimated that approximately 55,000 tonnes of CO₂ were saved in that period, and it helped to dramatically reduce fuel poverty and won many awards for sustainability. In October, Wokingham Borough Council launched a new home decarbonisation advice service aimed at supporting residents who want to make their homes more energy efficient and reduce their energy bills. Eastleigh, as part of a much wider consortium of local authorities, secured home upgrade grants to help vulnerable households. I have given the Minister those three local government examples where there is such a strong appetite for the emergency action that we are trying to bake into this legislation. The second part of the amendment would also reinvigorate an ambition that has fallen away in recent years for the UK; namely, to be a global leader in development and expansion of renewable energy, which many noble Lords have talked about in this group. This is an ambition, sadly, that the Conservative Government dropped like a wet, cold potato when they ditched—according to the Sun, not me—the “green crap”. This new ambition today should be baked into primary legislation. We should immediately remove the last Government’s restrictions on new solar and wind power. When it comes to renewables, we should be innovating and proudly leading. From insulation and heat pumps to wind, wave and solar, the UK is uniquely able to lead in this, in part because of the geography. We are ambitious for what this Bill can achieve and, as a result, what the UK can achieve. We believe that investing in renewable power now will ensure that 90% of the UK’s electricity is generated from renewables by 2030. Innovation that is referred to in this amendment would include things such as a rooftop solar revolution, with strong incentives and a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back into the grid, for instance. Finally, this part of the amendment is connected to jobs that can be created in this area. I think everyone would agree that one of the best examples of that over a few years now is Hull, where the new blade factory with a recent contract worth £1 billion is yet another example of how growth in jobs can be generated through great innovation in this area. That is why the amendment refers to expansion and development: it is with these schemes in mind. Our ambition as a nation must be to be a leader in this, and it should have no limits. I hope noble Lords and the Minister will support this amendment, its intentions and the spirit of the other amendments as the Bill progresses through Committee.

My Lords, I do not believe that the Bill should be too specific on the investment targets of GBE. As I said in an earlier group, I believe that GBE should remain flexible and fleet of foot, adapting itself over the years to the development of science and changes in the marketplace. Nevertheless, there is no harm in us discussing where we think some of the current opportunities lie. In that context, and in the context of the amendments in this group, I will touch on both heat pumps and tidal energy. Unfortunately, it was not clear from reading the script that the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, referred to hydrogen. Had I known this, I would definitely have been supporting his amendments, because I am very keen on hydrogen. It has a crucial part to play in our energy infrastructure, as a storage of intermittent power—as the noble Lord himself mentioned—as well as in the making of steel and in transport. Hydrogen fuel cell cars have a range of more than 1,000 miles. Hydrogen is a really important part of our infrastructure. As I said at Second Reading, I hope that GBE will support the hydrogen industry. I turn now to heat pumps. Heating and hot water make up around 40% of the UK’s energy consumption and nearly one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. I see a role for GBE not so much in individual domestic heat pumps but in community heat pumps—particularly where, to coin a phrase, we can use the heat under our feet. Many major population centres in the UK are above, or adjacent to, hot, sedimentary aquifers at, say, 500 to 2,000 metres depth, with temperatures ranging from 25 to 60 degrees and higher. These, combined with an at-scale community heat pump, have huge potential to produce heat for hundreds of thousands of homes, factories, hospitals and greenhouses. In Holland, they hope to meet 23% of their heat demand by 2050 using geothermal heat. We have geothermal resources in the UK; we have the heat beneath our feet. We also have the drilling skills left over from oil and gas explorations to use in this nascent industry. The industry is poised to deliver growth, renewable heat and employment. It just needs a small amount of government focus and pump priming. I turn to tidal energy and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I strongly believe that it is imperative for the UK to play to its strengths in the whole energy field. One of its real strengths is its range of tides. While in Gibraltar, for instance, the tidal range is only about one metre, in the Solway Firth it can be eight metres or, in the Bristol Channel, 15 metres- plus. We also have tidal races around our shores and between our islands which flow at great speed and with considerable power. Of course, tidal power is classed as intermittent, but it is guaranteed and predictable. We know now how much power we can produce from a given site between the hours of 6 pm and 7 pm on today’s date in 2124 because, if we build, say, a tidal lagoon now, we know it will still be producing electricity almost for free in more than 100 years’ time. We have tidal races in our firths and between our islands but, to me, the most compelling solution for harnessing our tidal power are large, offshore tidal lagoons. Any site with a depth of between five and 10 metres, and a tidal range in excess of five metres, can produce guaranteed power. They are better than a barrage across a bay because you can have turbines all round, not just on one side. This means they are almost half the price per output of power. They can be any shape, with curves in any direction that can follow the required underwater contours to produce maximum return on investment. There are about 20 ideal sites around the UK coastline. I come from southern England, as compared to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the other side of the channel from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. If noble Lords look up, they might be able to imagine a wall of water the height of this Chamber and several miles long. This is the sort of power that the Severn Estuary can produce four times a day. One lagoon in Bridgwater Bay alone—right next door to Hinkley Point, with its connections to the grid—could produce 1,900 megawatts. These lagoons do not have to be shut down for repairs. If a turbine—one of 20 or 30—needs servicing, it is lifted out for maintenance, while the rest just keep on turning. As opposed to a barrage across an estuary, these lagoons do not upset shipping traffic in any serious way, because they sit at the side of shipping channels in the shallow waters. Furthermore, their environmental effect makes only peripheral difference to the course of the tide, migratory fish, wading birds and so on. They have the support of most environmental NGOs. There are numerous sites for these lagoons, from the north to the south of the UK. There is a seven-hour tidal difference between Bristol and Solway. If the tides are used on both flood and ebb, this gives an almost consistent baseload of power for England—and that is before we tap into some of the Scottish tidal ranges. Tidal lagoons as a whole could provide three times the capacity of Hinkley Point. We must play to our strengths. Tidal power is our natural advantage and I believe it would be well worth the focus of GBE.

18:15:00

My Lords, I apologise for coming in late. I am here at the behest of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who apologises to the Committee that she cannot be here to speak in support of Amendment 91, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I very much support the points that he made. The noble Baroness has asked me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I wholeheartedly agree with the points she has asked me to raise. These relate mainly to the importance of tidal power in both its devices, which we heard analysed a moment ago. Tidal range is one part of the possibility of creating tidal power; tidal stream is the other. Tidal stream has not yet been well developed and that could be something for the future, but tidal range most certainly has been. There is a predictability about it which gives it a tremendous advantage. Tidal range devices use water height. The differential between high and low levels in the Severn, for example, is an enormously important factor. Using the same principles, there are locations suitable for lagoons as well—certainly around the coastline of Wales, in Swansea Bay and up around Anglesey. I understand that the Marine Energy Council recommends reaching a gigawatt of tidal stream capacity by 2035. This would be an enormous contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about the possibility that 7% of the UK’s electricity needs could come from the Severn Barrage. That would have the advantage of providing very important construction work, which could make a massive contribution to the south-east Wales economy. Given what has happened recently to the steelworks in Port Talbot, those jobs are very much needed. I hope that the Government will look seriously at this. The case for this type of electricity generation is overwhelming. I hope the Government will give it the attention it deserves.

My Lords, I rise very briefly, first to declare my interest and secondly to comment on some of the amendments in this group. I have sat in the Minister’s chair, so I understand that he will not want to add a long list of exclusions or inclusions to the objects of the Bill. Even with that in mind, I hope that he will have listened carefully to the issues that have been raised. They are important and there is a theme to them. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Two issues have come out of the debate for me. The case for energy efficiency, insulation and heat pumps was made very powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is important that GB Energy looks to how it can provide a long-term, consistent environment for the policies that each Government pick up and put down. Industry, which has to be a key partner, finds this so frustrating and retrenches from investing in the skills training and expansion that are needed if we are effectively to retrofit the millions of homes in this country. As we said in the debate on a Question earlier today, this is important not only for carbon reduction. We saw what happened from 2014: emissions from buildings fell by two-thirds after the change in policy. It is therefore really important that someone is boosting this and making sure that it is there for the long term to provide that stable environment. GBE will be in a position to do that, particularly if it is tied in with what we discussed in the Question earlier about the planning framework, again providing a clear and consistent road map for those who will need to invest in this. The other thing that came out of the debate was that we have to be innovative, look to our strengths and be open-minded about sources of renewable energy. We have to understand that some of those sums that we had in our heads 20 years ago, about the cost of wave power, tidal power or whatever, have changed. They have changed financially but also in other dimensions, such as energy security and our priorities in energy. It is important that GBE is in there supporting those things. I absolutely support Amendment 17. It may not be for the Bill but, as part of the innovative thinking we need from GBE, we need to look at such things as financial instruments. When we know that solar panels or heat pumps will pay off over the years but people are not going forward with them simply because they cannot afford the capital expenditure, it is important that we look not only at upping the government grant—helpful though that is in some instances. Houses can have mortgages on them for 10, 20 or 30 years. The costs of that investment can be spread in other and innovative ways, so I hope that the Minister can respond supportively to that amendment.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for introducing his thoughtful and technical amendments, which no doubt would improve the quality of the Bill should they pass. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Each amendment contributes meaningfully to the Bill’s ultimate aim by ensuring that governance reflects accountability, fairness and long-term sustainability. I will limit my remarks to Amendments 8, 9, 12 and 13. Amendment 8 proposes the addition of “investing in” alongside “encouraging”. This is quite important, because it seeks a balance between fostering enterprise and ensuring strategic government investment to safeguard our national energy. We want a partnership between government and the private sector. By explicitly including “investing in”, the amendment aligns with our commitment to a dynamic and sustainable energy sector. Amendment 9, by adding “one or more of”, would bring clarity and flexibility to the Government’s strategic objectives in advancing energy policies. It would ensure that the Government could prioritise specific energy initiatives based on strategic needs without being overburdened by one limiting obligation. It reflects the core principles of pragmatism and efficiency, ensuring that resources can be allocated where they can deliver the greatest impact. We know that energy security and innovation in this area—referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell as bigger perhaps than the Industrial Revolution—require adaptability. Whether we are investing in offshore wind, nuclear power or emerging technologies, the amendment would allow for a tailored approach that maximised value for taxpayers’ money and strengthened our energy independence. I urge colleagues to support it to make sure that we have smart, effective and flexible governance in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 12 is again quite technical. It seeks to insert the phrase “directly or indirectly” into Clause 3, which would again enhance the Bill by acknowledging the interconnected nature of emissions reductions and energy initiatives. This addition would ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing climate goals. Emissions reductions often involve complex supply chains and secondary impacts. Recognising these indirect contributions reflects our understanding of the broader economic and technological dynamics that drive innovation and decarbonisation. For example, investments in nuclear power or advanced grid infrastructure may not lower emissions immediately but they create the conditions for sustainable reductions in the long term, towards 2050 net zero. The amendment therefore provides the flexibility needed to pursue bold initiatives while holding true to the principle of cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. By adopting it, we would make the Bill more robust, practical and reflective of real-world energy systems. I urge my colleagues to support it. Finally, my noble friend Lord Naseby’s Amendment 13 proposes the substitution of the word “produced” with “derived” in Clause 3. Again, this is a technical and seemingly small change, but it holds significant importance for our energy policy. “Derived” more accurately captures the diverse and evolving sources of energy in our transition to a low-carbon future. Energy comes increasingly from various integrated systems, including renewable sources, nuclear, tidal—as we have heard in great detail—and hydrogen. The term “produced” can be limiting, whereas “derived” acknowledges the broader, more dynamic approach needed to secure our energy future. The amendment provides the flexibility to encompass a wide range of energy sources and technologies, ensuring that our energy policies remain adaptable and forward thinking. It should reflect our commitment not only to reduce emissions but to foster innovation and maintain energy security in the face of global challenges.

My Lords, this was a very interesting group. It clearly refers to a range of technologies in which Great British Energy could invest. I should start by saying that we intend GBE to be operationally independent and it is not for us to rigidly define what it should do or in which technologies it should invest. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, of course anticipated my list argument because she has used it herself a number of times, but I take her point about ensuring long-term certainty and a stable environment for some of these crucial sectors. I recognise that GBE has great potential so to do, particularly in sectors where investment from the private sector may initially be difficult. I also take her point about how this has to be aligned with planning reform, enhanced grid connections and infrastructure. Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 23, 31 and 32, in essence, relate to technologies specific to GBE’s objects in Clause 3. Amendment 23 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would prevent Great British Energy being involved in CCUS projects, whereas the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would ensure that both carbon capture and storage and hydrogen fell within the scope of the Bill. The Government view both hydrogen and CCUS as vital to our drive towards net zero and to ensuring a just transition for industries based in the North Sea.

18:30:00

As part of our transition to home-grown clean energy, we see hydrogen and CCUS as safeguarding our energy security, and we are focused on deploying CCUS technologies to ensure that CCUS-enabled blue hydrogen can serve as a critical enabler in the transition to a net-zero energy system. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that the Climate Change Committee described CCUS as a necessity, not an option, for maintaining our climate commitments. His enthusiasm for hydrogen was very clear. I can confirm that we do not think his amendments are required, because we believe that CCUS and blue hydrogen are within the scope of the Bill. The Bill defines clean energy as energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels, as defined by the Climate Change Committee. The fact that blue hydrogen does not meet the definition does not at all prevent its production or use falling within Great British Energy’s other objectives in Clause 3. This clause allows GBE to facilitate, encourage or participate in projects, such as CCUS or CCUS-enabled hydrogen, that would contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases from energies produced from fossil fuels. I have made clear that the Government support both technologies. The Bill is drafted to reflect this, and it is further demonstrated—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, remarked—by the recent announcement in relation to CCUS of £21.7 billion funding over the next 25 years.

On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we are very wary. In a sense, this is coming from two points: on the one hand, noble Lords are concerned about too much interference from Ministers in the day-to-day operations of GBE, and, on the other, there is a temptation to try to specify here what it ought to be doing. I understand that quite fully, because noble Lords have some important issues to raise about certain clean power technologies, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is right: we really need to resist the temptation to say how GBE will divide its resources.

The budget for 2025 is relatively modest, of course. The promise is £8.3 billion in the lifetime of the Parliament. I accept the issue of speed, but we also have the multi- year spending review to come over the next few months.

Amendments 16 to 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, are on heat pumps and home insulation, which are clearly very important matters. They are major challenges to which we in Government are giving urgent consideration. We are also working across government on new requirements for new homes. We debated that only last week in relation to solar energy. I think we are making good progress on solar, and we are setting up a task force to give us added momentum.

Amendment 16 proposes the addition of an object relating to uptake and use of heat pumps. Amendment 17 would do the same but include efforts to develop financing options for heat pumps—we find that interesting, and I will certainly draw the remarks made to my department’s attention. Obviously, I am clear that the Bill enables Great British Energy to undertake these activities. I certainly agree that ensuring the uptake of heat pumps, including exploring ways to spread the cost, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from gas boilers and would contribute to energy efficiency. There is no question but that home insulation and an expansion and development of renewable energy are also within scope of the Bill.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on the subject of vulnerable households, that we have kick-started delivery of our ambitious warm homes plan. This will help people find ways to cut energy bills and deliver warmer, cleaner-to-heat homes, with up to 300,000 homes to benefit from upgrades next year. We will continue to refine the warm homes plan. It was very interesting that she mentioned a number of local authorities and initiatives that they have taken. When I was a councillor in Birmingham in the 1980s, we had a scheme in the inner city called enveloping, which essentially took whole streets, put completely new roofs on and made other developments. If you go there now, you will still see the benefits. I very much take this whole-community approach that she mentioned.

On nuclear power, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Budget provided additional funding for Sizewell C for the next financial year, and we are engaged in the final investment decision over the next few months. We have the SMR programme—money has been allocated to Great British Nuclear—and then potentially AMRs ahead. Clearly, that is an identified spending stream for the future. It would be unnecessarily constraining to say that GBE could not go into the nuclear field at all, but I take the point he raised about CCUS and nuclear energy. I would not want to preclude GBE from going there if it thought that was a wise thing to do.

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again—the Minister has been very patient—but can we be very clear on what he just said? Is he saying that GBE can involve itself and will be involved one way or another in part of the nuclear sector or not? This is very important: we need about 500 SMRs or AMRs to have the slightest hope of getting anywhere near net zero. At the moment we are plodding along, not very fast at all, and it requires all hands to the helm. So far, I understand that GBE is supposed to stand quite clear of nuclear. That does not make sense, because it is all one ball of wax, frankly. We have to get nuclear right, and only then will we get any hope of net zero.

Yes, I want to be absolutely clear: nuclear clearly falls within the definition of clean power, so it would be within the competence of Great British Energy to invest and do the other things in the Bill in relation to nuclear. However, we have Great British Nuclear, which I believe will continue. We are still finalising discussions, but GBN is focusing at the moment on small modular reactors. The department is involved in major funding of the nuclear developments, but GBE could also invest in nuclear energy. I hope that is clear. I turn to oil and gas. Amendment 25 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who was not able to be present—would require Great British Energy to consider oil and gas supply chains and a reduction in and decarbonisation of oil and gas production. I say to the noble Earl that I understand the need for a just transition and acknowledge the skills of people working in oil and gas in the North Sea. The Bill is focused on making the minimum necessary provisions to enable the establishment of this operationally independent company. Clause 3 provides the framework for Great British Energy’s functions and limits the areas where it can act, but it does not say how Great British Energy should deliver its functions or objectives. One of the worries about the noble Earl’s amendment is that it would widen the intention of this clause, perhaps unnecessarily. I say to him that, as we invest in the UK’s energy potential, we want to rebuild supply chains at home, of course. In relation to oil and gas, we want to help the transition and use the skilled workers in the most effective way possible. Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be with us for decades to come, so we want to manage the North Sea in a way that ensures continued support for that sector but enables some of the workers there to transition to other sectors, particularly in energy where they have such expertise. Amendments 30 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, wish the Government to confirm or state that biomass is not included in the definition of clean energy in the Bill. Although I understand that many noble Lords share her viewpoint, as was clear from the Oral Question we had a few weeks ago, the Government believe that biomass plays a role in balancing the energy grid when intermittent renewables are not available. It is well evidenced that sustainably sourced biomass can provide a low-carbon and renewable energy source. That view is supported by both the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee. Biomass sourced in line with strict sustainability criteria can be used as a low-carbon source of energy. Woody biomass that is sustainably sourced from well-managed forests is a renewable, low-carbon source of energy, as carbon dioxide emissions released during combustion are absorbed continuously by new forest growth. The noble Baroness mentioned the Ofgem investigation, which she will know was about incorrect data being provided. It would be fair to say that Ofgem did not find the process at fault; it was the data provided. She asked me what visits officials in my department had made to the US. Officials have been in contact with US regulators but I would be happy to provide her with more details on what we have been doing. The noble Baroness also mentioned BECCS, as it is known, or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Again, the Committee on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency recognise that BECCS can play a significant role in supporting net-zero targets through the delivery of negative carbon emissions with the co-benefit of producing low-carbon energy. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently and passionately to Amendment 91 on tidal barrages. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, too, who suggested that tidal barrage and, in particular, lagoons play to the UK’s strength. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also spoke. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—is leading a network innovation allowance project aimed at establishing a holistic knowledge base on the potential development and impacts of tidal barrage in Great Britain within the context of grid operability. That is a very important development that I hope picks up the point that noble Lords have raised—the situation may have changed over the past 10 or 20 years. I look forward to discussing the Mersey barrage with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. When I did this job at the Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, I chaired a forum that we established on the Severn estuary potential, so I would certainly be interested in taking discussions forward on the Mersey barrage. I hope that I have reassured most noble Lords that the energy technologies they wish to see supported can be covered in the Bill, but Great British Energy must be allowed to make its own decisions within the context of the objectives and strategic priorities the Secretary of State will set.

I thank the Minister for his detailed response to all the amendments in this group. I want to follow up with a quick question. I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked the Minister whether any consideration will be given to rolling the warm homes plan into GB Energy. The answer might be that no consideration will be given, or that the Minister does not have an answer—though he could possibly have one in a minute. I am happy to take a written response or come back to it at a later stage.

My Lords, I am not aware of any intention. I will certainly write to him if I have got that wrong but I am not aware of any intention to do it. The whole issue of home insulation and heating is crucial to getting to net zero and we are giving it a huge amount of attention.

18:45:00

My Lords, I am grateful for the depth of the Minister’s answer. He may well be right that Amendments 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 are unnecessary. I would like to reflect on that. I am far less convinced on Amendments 31 and 32 and I reserve the right to come back on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9 not moved.

Amendment 10

Moved by

10: Clause 3, page 2, line 14, after “storage” insert “, trading” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would add energy trading to the allowed objects of Great British Energy.

My Lords, given the relevance of this amendment, I remind the Committee of my interests as a generator of small-scale hydro. Before I get on to the specifics of the amendment, I will try to clear up a confusion that crept into the debate on the previous group, at the risk of reopening the mini debate we had at the end of the second group. There is still confusion between “objective” and “object”, and the Minister is still guilty of falling into that trap. The objectives are what the company has to try to achieve. The “objects” in Clause 3 are what the company is restricted to being able to do. If it is not in the objects, the company cannot do it—it is not allowed to. If it is in the objects, the company is allowed to do it but does not have to. Therefore, putting something into Clause 3 does not mean, as the Minister has suggested, that we specify what GBE should be doing or making, or in any way restrict its ability to make its own decisions. That is a really important difference. I suspect that a number of noble Lords who tabled amendments to Clause 3 think that they are adding an objective. They are not. That said, my Amendment 10 is designed to allow GBE to do something, not to tell it to do it. Since the removal of the feed-in tariff system, of which I am a recipient, there has been only a very limited incentive for people to install greater domestic renewable generation capacity than the amount that covers their own usage. Own usage brings quite a substantial return because it replaces the cost of buying electricity from a main supplier plus the VAT, but the only way to be paid anything for any excess you send into the grid is the smart export guarantee, and the rules around that are simply that the amount has to be positive. That can be, and in many cases is, as low as a penny per kilowatt hour. That is not much of an incentive to add an extra couple of panels on to your roof, or whatever it might be beyond your own needs. There are now some higher smart export guarantee rates but they can be reduced at will by the electricity companies. There is no guarantee of them, so when you consider installing solar panels or any other renewable generation there is no incentive to install more than you want to use yourself. The cheapest and easiest way of increasing renewable generation—because you already have the scaffolding up and the builders—is to add two or three more panels, but you will do that only if there is a return from doing so. So would it not be a great thing if you were able to sell your excess to your neighbours, at a discount from the full retail price but at more than the smart export guarantee? That way, both the generator and the consumer would win. At the moment, the only way to achieve that is to hardwire your neighbours into your system, and that is an extremely expensive and not very practical thing to have to do. One potential solution to that problem is peer-to-peer trading, which would allow neighbours to buy your excess electricity over a trading platform. With trading via peer-to-peer networks, neighbourhoods, districts or entire towns can join forces and trade their self-produced electricity. This is not just a theoretical concept; there are projects all over the world investigating the possibilities of this approach in field trials. There are working examples as far afield as Spain, Switzerland, Bangladesh, the Netherlands and many more. There are also studies in the UK, such as the one by Repowering London, UK Power Networks and EDF in Brixton. The technology is available now. The huge advantage of peer-to-peer trading is that it can incentivise greater installation of solar and other technologies at no cost to the Government or to the consumer. GBE can take a role in this process as a trading hub, or it could support local trading hubs. The trading operations themselves could be financed by taking a fee for using the trading platform. It is also a great way to create community energy networks. There are wider advantages than the purely financial. Peer-to-peer networks can improve resilience, improve energy access and reduce losses from long-distance transmission. That links quite nicely, I think, to the Amendments 11 and 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would add community energy to the objects, and to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which looks at local energy planning. I would support both of those amendments, alongside Amendment 10, as I believe they are highly complementary. All that Amendment 10 does is add the trading of electricity to the allowed objects of GBE. This would allow it to create, manage or support peer-to-peer trading arrangements, for all the reasons that I have given. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look favourably on it. It would be odd and rather sad if this interesting and relatively new technological way of incentivising small-scale generation was not allowed under GBE’s objectives. I shall not comment on the other amendments in this group as the tablers have not yet spoken to them, but a number certainly appear to be very sensible and constructive suggestions. I look forward to hearing more detail. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to two amendments in this group: Amendments 11 and 15. Before I do so, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his amendments. They fit well with the amendments on community energy. I was thinking about this subject myself. It is an essential system that needs to be put into place as part of that broader community energy scheme so that people can trade their energy; that would be better for all of us. Amendments 11 and 15 both seek to include community energy in the objects of the Great British Energy company. It would be “restricted to facilitating, encouraging, and participating”. One of our key aims in debating this Bill is to work to ensure that community energy is both in the objectives for GB Energy and on the face of the Bill. The development of community energy has ground to a halt since the end of the feed-in tariff here in the UK. In Europe, by contrast, it is a very different story, where these systems are far wider, better understood and embedded in local societies. They are championed by their Governments and they are bringing great local benefits. Community energy accounts for only around 0.5% of the UK’s electricity, but it has been estimated by the Environmental Audit Committee and others that it has scope for exceptional growth and could generate up to 8 gigawatts in combination with local power networks. Power for People, which has been supporting these amendments, estimates that community energy could power 2.2 million homes, save 2.5 million tonnes of CO₂ and help to create some 30,000 jobs. Community energy programmes are good ways of providing local jobs and are a useful means of addressing local fuel poverty. This is a continuation of the work that was started by Pippa Heylings in the other place; I have promised her that I will continue that work here as the Bill progresses. Our view is quite simply that there is no Great British Energy without Great British community energy. Our vision for this Bill is that there should be an “out of the box” system, whereby every hamlet, local parish, town council and small village can pick up the phone and find an end-to-end system for creating a small-scale community energy programme. GB Energy is perfectly placed to provide this tailored service. It is a one-stop shop turning ideas into reality, helping with systems choices, design, planning, building, local grid connections, finance arrangements, shared part ownership, et cetera. GB Energy should crowd in finance and not crowd out private investment, and this is one area where development is well suited to that. The big players and big companies are not investing in community energy; this stuff will not get off the ground unless GB Energy does it. There is no other market here; there is no competition. Local community energy should be included in the energy transition, and communities should benefit from the local energy that they host or generate. We have tabled a forthcoming amendment on community benefit, which will be published shortly and debated in January when we come back for the second day of Committee. It seeks proposals for ensuring that local communities benefit from the renewable energy projects undertaken by Great British Energy. We can make the national grid more resilient; it saves wasting energy in unnecessary transmission. We are currently transmitting energy from far up north to down south, losing a third of it on the way. As has been said, a trading system should be established so that local communities can sell excess energy. These systems make the grid more resilient, more robust and more stable. They help our communities to prosper and to benefit from that which they host. The energy transition affects us all, in much the same ways that the Industrial Revolution did. We all need to make changes to the way we heat our homes, the way we travel and many other aspects of our daily lives. Such societal-level changes require broad and continuing levels of community engagement, participation and support if they are to be successfully enacted and carried through to completion, especially when the changes needed must take place at the speed and scale that is required here. My personal view is that too much of what has been done to date is overly centrally controlled; it is much more “done to” than “done with”. We need community buy-in. We need to provide ways and means for our local communities to both participate in and benefit locally from the changes that we require them to make. Without this sustained local support, the whole net-zero project is in danger of being derailed by a lack of common purpose and want of determination to be part of the change that is required. Community public support is the key factor for the success of the whole project. In some ways, this has been a strange task. There is broad cross-party support for the need for community energy. This was shown quite clearly in the other place, with many MPs supporting a Motion on this issue. There have been reassuring words of support in the other place, particularly from the right honourable Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, who said: “I know that many Members of the House are passionate about the issue of local power, so let me reassure them that the Government are committed to delivering the biggest expansion of support for community-owned energy in history”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/24; col. 776.] Equally, here in your Lordships’ House, the Minister responded positively at Second Reading to the issue of local community energy. He has already spoken about his involvement in Birmingham and I know that he is passionate about the work that he did. He knows the difference that this makes. The founding statement for GB Energy itself also has strong words of support for the principle and objectives of community energy, saying that “we will be investing in community-owned energy generation, reducing the pressures on the transmission grid while giving local people a stake in their transition to net zero”.

19:00:00

In preparing for today, I also had the opportunity to listen to Jürgen Maier, who recently appeared before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He also gave very strong statements and talked about an interesting concept of local community energy in a box, ready to go, ready to deploy anywhere in the country to get this stuff done. That brings me to the fundamental question: why are we debating this amendment if there is broad cross-party support for community energy? The answer is that despite the words and ambitions, we have actually made no progress on placing community energy, and a commitment to community energy, in the Bill.

The simple truth is that, even with the best will in the world, without having a clear and defined commitment in GB Energy’s objectives and getting this in the Bill, there are no guarantees that this stuff will happen, will happen in the future, and will happen under the next Government if the next Government are of a different political persuasion. GB Energy is an arm’s-length body and we call on the Committee and the Minister to support giving it a specific remit to support community- owned energy projects by including community energy in its objectives and in the statement of strategic priorities.

My Lords, I declare my energy interests in the register. I will speak to my Amendment 19 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her support of that amendment. This amendment is very straightforward and we have had some discussion already in the second group around cost and the importance of cost and reflecting that, but I will put a bit of a different slant on that. Noble Lords will be very familiar with the energy trilemma and balancing the competing demands of cost, sustainability and security. Any public organisation that has energy system responsibilities should be focusing on and balancing these objects. We look at NESO, for example. This was set up in the Energy Act 2023 with a cost, sustainability and security duty. Likewise, Ofgem has cost and security considered in its consumer duty and a sustainability duty was added as part of that 2023 Act as well. However, when I reviewed the objects—I was very grateful for the education provided by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the difference between objects and objectives and that is certainly something we need to come back to—cost was conspicuous by its absence. My first point is that we really should be considering system alignments and consistency across all those UK energy system organisations in terms of their objects and duties. Cost, sustainability and security should be running as a golden thread through all of them so that all those organisations are aiming at the same thing. Great British Energy is a central player in the energy system. It will be making significant investments of public money and aiming to crowd in private investment. Through these investments it will presumably be aiming to lower the cost of energy, which is a key government objective, as well as decarbonisation and security objectives. My second point is on the importance of cost. We have already heard about the UK having the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. They are now four times those in the US. This not only has the obvious impact on bills but is a real brake on growth. I have spoken to a number of industrial companies recently which want to set up in the UK but cannot make the numbers stack up in their business cases because of our high electricity prices so are taking their business elsewhere. For the Government to achieve their number one mission of economic growth, they need to have a laser focus on reducing electricity prices and I know the Minister and the Government are very focused on this area. I hope the Minister can consider this small change and come back with a government amendment on Report which would really help align GBE with the critical priorities of the Government. My Amendment 34 seeks to clarify the definition of security of supply. I look at Clause 3 and can see clear definitions for “clean energy”, “distribution”, “fossil fuel” and “greenhouse gas” but cannot see a definition for “security of supply”. Noble Lords have made the point in earlier debates about the importance of energy security. It is important to clarify this term: first, because the definition can be very broad; and, secondly, because it can mean different things to different people. I have some personal experience here in that I recently chaired an energy security task force for the Midlands region and we spent a fair bit of time debating what we really meant by energy security. It is not as straightforward as it first appears. Many when considering this term would jump straight to fuel security and having sovereign energy so that we are not dependent on foreign states and can avoid the energy price spikes that we saw following the invasion of Ukraine. Of course, there is also price predictability: we could have fuel security but volatile prices remain. System reliability is also key so that people can access energy when they need it. Cybersecurity and physical security are other important aspects. It is very important that in the primary legislation we are clear on what is meant by terms and help guide stakeholders, including business and industry, on how GBE will undertake its duties. I would welcome some further engagement with the Minister on how the Government would define this term and I again hope that he can consider this and come back with a government amendment on Report. Finally, my Amendment 20 relates to local area energy planning. Great British Energy could play a really important role in energy system governance and I have been encouraged to hear from the Government the renewed focus on local planning, with a potential role for GBE in local power plans and local area energy plans which could bring in the focus on community energy, spoken to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Given the role of GBE, the Government have an opportunity with the Bill to set out in more detail how energy system governance will work at a local level. The story of net zero so far has been a top-down one—in essence, central planning from the Government, which needs to be done—but that transition will not succeed unless this is matched by a bottom-up governance approach from local areas to regions to the national level. So much of the knowledge rests in those local areas; for example, the condition of housing stock relating to energy efficiency measures, and local energy infrastructure. Local area energy plans could be the foundation of how energy system governance is planned and undertaken at a local level. The issue we have seen over recent years with local area energy plans is their patchwork nature. We have many in place but with varying levels of quality and robustness in how they are set out within local authorities. I note that only 31% of local authorities are covered by local area energy plans. These plans need to be delivered to a consistent standard, with robust data and analysis, and consideration should also be given to how this can be aligned to meet the input requirements necessary for regional energy strategic planning to undertake that flow-up of governance. Three things are needed: guidance from government on what a local area energy plan is, as has already been set out in Wales; funding for stretched local authorities to develop these plans; and an oversight function to co-ordinate and ensure that those local plans are joined up. There is a really good opportunity here. If GBE is the organisation that is going to take on all or some of those roles, setting that out in the Bill would be an excellent step forward in firming up that crucial local governance function to stakeholders, and unlock local planning of energy. I would be grateful if the Minister could perhaps give us more detail on the role of Great British Energy in this area.

My Lords, I will just intervene very briefly indeed in support of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, with regard to Amendment 34 and the question of system reliability. In my previous incarnation I represented a constituency that had the Dinorwig pumped storage scheme. That scheme was brilliant in terms of being able to help guarantee the availability of electricity when it was needed. Half-time in the cup final was a traditional way of interpreting that, when there was a surge of demand. It had the capability of going from zero to full output in eight seconds. The economic benefit of that is obvious in having a system that does not need to match the total maximum demand. The peaks of that graph are cut off and equalised in a way that makes a lower capacity, and therefore lower total capital investment, a viable proposition. The point I put to the Minister is this: a number of pumped storage schemes are being developed at the moment. There is a significant number in Scotland, including some of the larger ones, but they are also in Wales. They have been waiting for years to get the necessary information on which to base investment decisions. There is one using an old slate quarry hole in Talysarn in my former constituency. It is raring to go but, until it gets the details of the prices that will apply, it obviously cannot make an investment decision. We are talking about tens of millions of pounds, possibly hundreds of millions, and a benefit to the overall system. In responding, can the Minister give any comfort by way of the timescale by when the framework for such decisions can be made? We really need to get on with it. I am quite sure that those in charge of Great British Energy will also need this information.

My Lords, I have always been a great supporter of small nuclear reactors, because it strikes me that they have the enormous advantage of supplying a locality and not getting involved, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, with massive transmission costs. That would be all cut down, which has enormous advantage. Of course, Rolls-Royce is making small nuclear reactors to go into submarines, so we are probably better on the technology than most other people might be. I have always had a worry that local people would react adversely to a planning application for a small nuclear reactor, because they would see it as devaluing their houses. Despite all-party support in Parliament, this will not stop local concerns raising their heads. I refer back to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said on that. I thought the answer was quite simply to offer people in the locality free electricity, and so immediately they would have an advantage. But from what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said when speaking to his amendment, that would not actually work. That is why I want to be absolutely clear about this. He seemed to say that wiring up all the local houses to the nuclear reactor—oh, he is shaking his head. Now I am confused. Could the noble Lord intervene and explain what he meant?

The nuclear reactor would just pump into the grid, which will be attached to everybody’s houses. The network I was talking about was one with the ability for house A, which has solar panels, to sell its excess electricity to house B, which does not. But a nuclear reactor would pump electricity into the grid and be available to all the houses.

That is enormously reassuring. I will support his amendment, even though that was a concern I had. I think the answer to getting small nuclear reactors planning permission is to offer free electricity to people in the locality. When they come to sell their houses, they will find that any depreciation in the price from being near to a nuclear reactor will be off-set by the fact that they have free electricity written into the sale of the house. That would balance things out. That is very reassuring, and I am glad we cleared it up. I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him. I very much support his amendment.

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in a past life I sat on the Front Bench where the Minister is and resisted amending legislation by making additions. I appreciate the Minister’s reluctance to accept amendments that might constrain Great British Energy once it is established, but Amendment 10 is in a different category. It does not constrain Great British Energy; it empowers it to facilitate, encourage or participate in community schemes that trade in excess energy locally if that is what GBE wishes to do.

My Lords, I start by underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said about the difference between objectives and objects. It really does repay all noble Lords taking part in debates on the Bill to understand the differences between them. That is why earlier I supported my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendment trying to set objectives for the Bill. It may or may not have been the right list of them, but it would have been an important addition to the Bill.

19:15:00

However, in Clause 3 we are saying what the Great British Energy company can do and, by implication, what it cannot. It is really important to be clear. Many speeches—including a moment ago from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who was the singing the praises of community energy—have ended up saying that must not lose the opportunity to make this happen through the Bill. But adding it as an object will not make it happen at all. It is important to understand that.

I added my name to Amendment 19 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, as he noted, because it mentions cost. In many of the debates we have about energy supply and the challenges of net zero, people forget about the importance of costs. My noble friend Lord Frost’s earlier amendment phrased the objective in terms of consumer bills. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is narrower because it deals with the cost of energy supply, which is one component of the bills for consumers. Nevertheless, it is well worth supporting as something to ensure that Great British Energy has the ability to carry out activities that can reduce the cost. That is very important.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his valuable contributions to this group. The amendments noted are crucial for ensuring that Great British Energy remains aligned with its goals of promoting energy security, affordability and sustainability. This fifth group of amendments focuses on the objectives and duties of Great British Energy. I begin with Amendment 10, which turns the focus on the trading element of GBE. By explicitly including trading, the amendment demonstrates a forward-thinking approach to GBE’s role. While market dynamics naturally encourage competition and efficiency, active participation in energy trading enables GBE to enhance price stability, bolster supply resilience and reduce market volatility. This strategic involvement not only fosters a more competitive energy landscape but empowers consumers by offering greater choice and flexibility. In doing so, it strengthens the UK’s energy security, ensuring the system remains adaptable to both domestic demands and global shifts, while at the same time promoting long-term sustainability and cost effectiveness free from overreliance on dominant energy providers. Furthermore, on Amendment 11 to Clause 3, the insertion of the line “including from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations” is important when addressing the need for a more inclusive energy system that empowers local communities. By specifically including community energy schemes, this amendment acknowledges the growing role of grass-roots initiatives in the energy transition. It ensures that GBE will actively support, facilitate and encourage energy generation models that are owned or part-owned by local and community organisations. This naturally leads us to Amendment 15 to Clause 3, which outlines measures to increase low-carbon and renewable energy schemes owned or part-owned by community organisations. This approach not only helps democratise energy production but empowers communities to take control of their energy future, fostering a more decentralised and resilient energy system. Community-led schemes have proven essential in driving local economic growth, creating jobs and promoting energy independence. By ensuring that GBE is aligned with these objectives, we not only advance environmental sustainability but cultivate a more equitable and diverse energy landscape, one that shifts power back into the hands of local communities. Amendment 19 proposes important “measures for reducing the cost of the supply of energy”. This is a critical step in aligning GBE with the Government’s key missions for this Parliament. The Labour Government committed not only to “make Britain a clean energy superpower” but to deliver cheaper bills for British households. The amendment is a fair and necessary step to ensure that the Government deliver on their promises. By incorporating the reduction of energy costs into Great British Energy’s legislated objectives, it would ensure that affordability, alongside security and sustainability, remained a core consideration in its operations. This leads us seamlessly to Amendment 34 to Clause 3, which would insert a definition of “security of the supply of energy” into the objects of GBE. The inclusion of system reliability, price predictability, fuel security and cybersecurity is vital to fully encompass the concept of energy security. This clear and detailed definition ensures that GBE’s mission is comprehensive and aligned with the broader goal of delivering a secure and sustainable energy future for all. Amendment 27 would ensure that GBE took no action that risked the sustainability of commercial shipping. This is a key consideration in the broader context of balancing the development of renewable energy sites with other vital sectors, such as fishing and shipping. As we know, 90% of goods in the UK are transported here by sea. Ports, often specialising in certain goods, are essential to our economy, and well-established shipping lanes must remain open to ensure the smooth operation of this vital sector. If we are to invest in offshore energy infrastructure, we must not overlook the potential risks posed to these critical maritime routes. The amendment draws a parallel with the Crown Estate amendments. It specifically aims to ensure that GBE does not take any action that could jeopardise the sustainability of commercial shipping. With offshore energy production, particularly offshore wind, continuing to grow, it is crucial that this growth is balanced with the needs of commercial shipping. If we are to meet our energy goals, we must not undermine the sector that is responsible for bringing nearly all the goods we rely on. While offshore wind is undoubtedly a critical part of the UK’s energy future, accounting for 17% of our electricity in 2023, up from 14% in 2022, we must recognise the impact that the siting of wind farms and other offshore developments could have on existing industries. GBE has a responsibility to ensure that the growth of sustainable energy does not come at the expense of shipping lanes, port operations or coastal communities. Amendments 20, 28 and 29 are designed to protect local communities. Amendment 20 would clarify the role of GBE in local area energy planning and governance, ensuring that decisions regarding energy infrastructure were made in collaboration with local authorities. As the energy landscape evolves, it is essential that local communities are not only kept informed but are actively involved in shaping their energy future. By explicitly requiring GBE to engage with local authorities, the amendment fosters a more inclusive and transparent approach to energy planning, enabling communities to have a say in how energy systems are developed, managed and integrated at the local level. Such involvement is critical for addressing region-specific needs, ensuring that energy solutions are tailored to the unique characteristics and priorities of different areas, from rural communities to urban centres. The amendment supports the broader goal of decentralising energy governance, empowering local authorities to take a more proactive role in shaping the energy systems that affect their residents. It would also ensure that local insights were considered in the development of energy infrastructure, from renewable energy projects to the distribution and storage of energy. Amendments 28 and 29 address the wider concerns that may be raised by local coastal communities. As we continue to develop renewable energy infrastructure, it is crucial that we consider the impact of such development on the very communities that depend on the seas for their livelihoods and way of life, including the tourism sector, which many coastal areas rely on. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that to achieve the Government’s 2030 renewable energy targets it is essential to balance the need for sustainable energy development with the preservation of those communities. Their voices must be heard; they are important working people, and their livelihoods must not be unduly impacted by offshore energy projects. The presence of offshore developments, particularly wind farms, can have significant consequences for local tourism, which is often a key economic driver for those communities. We must ensure that any developments do not disrupt the natural beauty or accessibility of those areas, which attract visitors year round. This is an additional consideration, not directly addressed by these amendments but worth highlighting. We may return to this on Report, as I believe that a review and/or an annual report might go some way to reassuring Parliament that GBE is making decisions that truly benefit all stakeholders. Such a mechanism would ensure that potential trade-offs were identified, quantified and fully considered, especially as we navigate the complexities of offshore energy and its impact on local communities. I trust that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised by all noble Lords and hope that the Government will consider improving the Bill to ensure that GBE properly considers the impacts of its activities on fishing, shipping, coastal communities and the environment. We must not lose sight of the importance of those local industries and the people whose livelihoods depend on them.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in relation to Clause 3. It does set statutory limits on Great British Energy’s objects, and these must be reflected in the company’s articles of association. However, the four objects in Clause 3 have been broadly drafted, so although they impose a restriction, it is very wide and intended to cover all the conceivable activities that Great British Energy may engage in. If I have confused the Committee by loose terms, I apologise. In Amendment 10, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, proposes adding “trading” to Clause 3(2)(a). I will resist this because, although trading is not explicitly referenced, the current objects in the Bill allow Great British Energy to facilitate or encourage the supply of clean energy. We see no reason why that activity could not include the encouragement or facilitation of a trade in clean energy. But, if the noble Lord has examples of schemes that are operating, we would be interested in the details.

19:30:00

I noted the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, on SMRs. In particular, he talked about community support. I will say two things. First, in surveys that we are doing, there has been growing public acceptance of the value of nuclear energy. This has clearly increased since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the issue of energy supply. None the less, we have a more positive picture of public support. Secondly, we are working on a new siting policy, which will bring greater flexibilities to where nuclear power stations can be sited in the future. I take the noble Lord’s point about the potential of small modular reactors.

Amendment 19 proposes to add to GBE’s objects measures for reducing the cost of the supply of energy. It does not provide anything that GBE cannot do already within the framework of its existing objects. Obviously, we have discussed in some detail the issue of energy prices and our belief that the long-term development of clean energy is the best way to secure long-term price stability.

The founding statement set out Great British Energy’s purpose, priorities and objectives, including its mission statement and five functions. The first statement of strategic priorities, which will be published in 2025, will ensure that GBE, as a publicly owned energy company, is focused on driving clean energy deployment to boost energy independence, create jobs and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, homegrown energy.

On local and community energy, the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would essentially include GBE support for community energy schemes in the Bill. Amendment 20 would add an additional object to Clause 3 specifically related to local area energy planning and the governance of the local energy system. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly said, I very much share in the support for community energy, and I assure him that it will be an integral part of Great British Energy’s local power plan. We believe that, through Clause 3, the Bill clearly allows GBE to support both community energy projects and local authority energy projects. I see great potential for partnerships here.

The production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy obviously extends from very large-scale offshore wind projects to local and community-driven projects that directly support local people. We believe that facilitating, encouraging or participating in low-carbon and renewable energy schemes owned by community organisations is clearly within the scope of the objects as drafted. The legislation does not restrict the size or type of clean energy projects supported by Great British Energy. I emphasise that local area energy plans led by local authorities can be created in collaboration with stakeholders in their areas, as in Greater Manchester.

We see local power plans as enhancing existing support for community energy by partnering with, and providing funding and support to, local and combined authorities and community energy groups; this fits with what the noble Earl said. Importantly, we also think that it will offer commercial, technical and other practical project assistance to help community energy groups with funding and establishing themselves perhaps across the UK. Finally, the local power plan will ensure coherence with other existing public sector advisory functions, funding and finance organisations operating in the local energy space. I will give great consideration to community energy between Committee and Report.

Amendments 27, 28 and 29, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, propose three additions to Clause 3 to prevent GBE taking action that will risk the sustainability of commercial shipping, coastal communities and tourism. The noble Earl raised some interesting points about this. Our understanding is that projects in which GBE is involved will be subject to all relevant regulations and statutory stakeholder engagement to understand the potential impacts of development on the matters covered by the noble Earl’s amendments. In line with other energy developers, GBE will have to consider the impact of its activities, and any associated risks, on commercial shipping, coastal communities and tourism, within the context of relevant planning and environmental protections.

On security of supply, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, proposes defining

“security of the supply of energy”

in Clause 3. Clause 3(2)(d) enables Great British Energy to respond to any potential future energy crisis and to deliver measures to support security of supply. The noble Lord will know that we think that the best way to guarantee energy security is to build homegrown energy, but I take the substance of what he said. He wanted to see a definition of “security of the supply” of energy. The problem with trying to define this is the list system: the issue is what is excluded from his very careful definition. That is why we resist the noble Lord’s amendment, but I assure him that we see security of supply as very important, and clearly, Great British Energy has the ability to take that into account.

This has been an interesting debate, and I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have responded appropriately.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response to my amendments. I wanted briefly to clarify something he said in responding to my Amendment 19. He essentially made a link between a clean energy system and price stability, therefore making the argument that “costs” was not required in the objects. But there are of course wide variations in the costs of a clean energy system: there are expensive clean energy systems, and cheaper ones. NESO is developing a wide range of scenarios here. So I argue that we cannot rely purely on making that link—the organisation needs to take costs into account more broadly as well.

I very much take that point. Clearly, my department is cognisant of costs. Much of our discussion with His Majesty’s Treasury on the resources made available obviously takes in those constraints. The point I made earlier is simply that we believe—and we are supported by NESO, the Committee on Climate Change and the OBR—that the best way to secure stable prices in the future is to charge on to clean power net zero.

Could the Minister give some comfort to those waiting to invest in pumped storage schemes about the timescale on which information will be available to enable them to do so?

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord chapter and verse today but will certainly write to him with what we can say in public.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting debate and the Minister for his fairly fulsome answer. On Amendment 10, I am not totally convinced that trading is covered by the objects as they stand but I will read his answer in Hansard to see whether I can convince myself that he is right. As he says, the issue is that if it is not in the objects, it is not allowed. I want to make sure that it is allowed—not that it has to happen—in the same way that he argued the other way around on the security definition. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendments 11 to 20 not moved.

House resumed.