Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)

My Lords, I shall move Amendment 94 and speak to the amendments in this group, which, once again, address the review, scrutiny and governance of a publicly owned company. It is alarming that so many in this House have had to table so many amendments to ensure that GB Energy undergoes proper independent review and governance. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position in which provisions to ensure the thorough review and governance of GB Energy are missing from the drafting of the legislation. This is rather strange. Why should publicly owned companies, funded by billions of pounds, not be subject to reviews by independent bodies or have to report on their successes or failures? The incoming chair himself has stated that “independently run” will mean “excellent governance” and that he will ensure that this is the case, but how? Although the Minister claims that these amendments, which would indeed ensure excellent governance, do not need to be included in the Bill, I strongly disagree. He claims that there will be many opportunities for review by the Secretary of State and, ultimately, for the usual sort of public scrutiny, but how will this be the case when the Bill does not include a single measure that requires GB Energy to be reviewed or allows for public scrutiny? I am not alone in questioning the lack of governance to which GB Energy is presently subject. Marc Hedin, head of UK and Ireland research at Aurora Energy Research, also asked: “what are the governance arrangements to ensure that Great British Energy carries out its duties and focuses on its remit? ”.—[Official Report, Commons, Great British Energy Bill Committee, 8/10/24; cols. 20-21.] Amendment 94 in my name seeks to address this shortcoming. It requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to review the effectiveness of GBE in delivering its objects, meeting its strategic priorities and complying with its directions. The amendment is closely aligned with Amendment 103, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. While demanding an independent review of the success or failure of GB Energy in achieving its objects, the amendment neatly requires a review of the company’s impact on private investment. I draw your Lordships’ attention to Section 9 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act, entitled, “Reviews of the Bank’s effectiveness and impact”. Under that section, “The Chancellor of the Exchequer must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of … the effectiveness of the Bank in delivering its objectives”, and the results must be laid before Parliament. If the UK Infrastructure Bank—now known as the National Wealth Fund—has to undergo an independent review of its performance, why should GBE not face the same? It does not make sense. The Great British Energy Bill is almost a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act but with one glaring difference: provisions to ensure sufficient governance. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns I have raised and will be receptive to the worries other noble Lords will undoubtedly raise on this issue. I beg to move.