Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 October 2024 - (8 Oct 2024)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast—Big Brother, so watch your words. Date Time Witness Tuesday 8 October Until no later than 9.50 am Juergen Maier CBE Until no later than 10.20 am Trades Union Congress; Prospect Until no later than 11.00 am Green Alliance; Nesta; Aurora Energy Research Until no later than 11.25 am RenewableUK; Energy UK Until no later than 2.30 pm SSE plc; EDF Renewables Until no later than 2.50 pm The Crown Estate Until no later than 3.10 pm Flint Global Until no later than 3.50 pm The Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA); Scottish Renewables; Net Zero Technology Centre Until no later than 4.10 pm Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) Until no later than 4.30 pm GMB Union Until no later than 5.00 pm Michael Shanks MP, Minister for Energy, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero
I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about divvying up the questions before we get into the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take such matters formally, without debate. I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion, which stands in his name and was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 8 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 October;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 October;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 October;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 15 October.—(Michael Shanks.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Michael Shanks.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence will be made available on the desk in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Michael Shanks.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, does any Member wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
My husband is company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community energy project in Sheffield that generates energy.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
This is registered, but I have been told to say it out loud: I am a member of the GMB, which is appearing before us later, and before the election I was the deputy general secretary of Prospect, which is also speaking to us this morning.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am also a member of the GMB.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am also a member of the GMB.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I am also a member of the GMB.
The Chair
For full transparency, I am a member of Unison.
Examination of Witness
Juergen Maier gave evidence.
The Chair
We will begin by hearing oral evidence from Mr Juergen Maier, chair of Great British Energy and of Digital Catapult. Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that all questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. It is a short and quite a narrow Bill, and if you stray I will tell you off, so do not stray in the first place. We must stick to the timings; for the first evidence session we have until 9.50 am.
Will the witness introduce himself for the record?
Juergen Maier: Good morning, everybody. It is a pleasure to be here. I am the start-up chair of Great British Energy. I am in the process of stepping down from Digital Catapult; we are just looking for the new chair to replace me, so that I can focus on this role.
Andrew Bowie
Q
It was announced with great fanfare at the Labour party conference that the new headquarters of Great British Energy would be in Aberdeen. What does that actually mean? What will the HQ actually do? How many people will be employed at the HQ?
Juergen Maier: The HQ is where we will centre all our operations. That means that all the key staff will be there, including the chief executive when we get around to appointing one. We will probably start with an interim chief executive who might not be located there, but eventually that is our plan.
There will be other locations. We would also like a location in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow, in particular to help on innovation and maybe financial services. I see the main role in Aberdeen as being particularly around operational engineering jobs. Ultimately, those are the jobs that are in abundance in Aberdeen; they are the well-paid jobs and the ones that are in greater quantity.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Juergen Maier: There are two very simple answers. The first is how many renewable energy and clean energy projects Great British Energy has been a part of, as a co-investor, an investor or an enabler, and how much more renewable energy we have thereby managed to get on the grid. The second is how many jobs and how much prosperity we have created as a result, making sure that as much of the supply chain is Scottish/British, rather than overseas.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Q
Juergen Maier: Community energy is definitely a priority for Great British Energy. If you want to point specifically to the Bill, clause 3, “Objects”, refers in subsection (2)(a) to
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.
I see community energy as a core part of that. As Great British Energy, we definitely want to support the schemes that you have been talking about, whether those are in Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. We will definitely be doing that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
Juergen Maier: Indeed. You are right that I did not answer your first question directly. The reason, obviously, is that we have not been able to put a direct number on it yet. It will be in the hundreds; it may eventually be 1,000 or more in the HQ. You will now say, “That is not going to help manage the energy transition,” but the reason is that the large numbers of people we will be helping to employ will be in the supply chain. If we look at some of the numbers already, by the end of the decade 100,000 people will be employed in offshore wind. I hope that many more of those will be in floating offshore wind, and floating offshore wind will happen off the coast of Aberdeen and indeed the whole east coast of the United Kingdom.
The jobs will be the sort that work with supply chains and the private sector to determine how we will enable floating offshore wind. What is the technology? What are the innovation challenges? What about project-managing the schemes, helping them to get through planning permission and making sure that they get on the grid? There will be all those sorts of questions. I very much see the role of Great British Energy as that of an enabler to get such new technologies on to the grid, and as that of an investor and co-investor. It will take quite a team of people and skills to achieve that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Juergen Maier: The only way to get energy bills down and to get greater energy security is to get more renewable energy on the grid. We have to keep reminding people that the reason why energy bills went up was not renewable energy; it was a global oil and gas price crisis. Every megawatt and gigawatt of renewable energy that we put on the grid will help to bring bills and prices down. The exact mechanism by which that happens is, of course, a matter of policy—how you decide to bring those bills to the consumer. That is not the scope of Great British Energy; it is not the scope of the Bill, either.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Juergen Maier: Thank you for the question. We have laid out the five key priorities of Great British Energy. One is to invest and co-invest; another is to enable and help to accelerate development; the third is very much about the local community energy that your colleague talked about earlier. That will be through community energy schemes. The reason we are so keen on that is that it is where community engagement really comes in. That will not be the gigawatts of renewable energy— the gigawatts will be in floating offshore wind—but I passionately believe that by engaging with local communities, whether that is with local solar, with onshore wind or with tidal-type schemes, you can really get that community engagement and community acceptance. Indeed, you can really deliver the local social benefit that those schemes can deliver.
Torcuil Crichton
And economic benefit too, we hope.
Juergen Maier: Of course.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
Juergen Maier: Certainly the enabling part of what we do will be pre-CfDs, as you say. That is also where our partnership with the Crown Estate comes in. This is where we will be doing a lot of the early consenting and engaging on the willingness to co-invest and give confidence, but we will also be there past the CfDs. As and when the schemes get developed, there may be opportunities to come in and be a co-investor. We would also be supporting that.
The Chair
Order. Is this within the scope of the Bill? Our last question will be at 9.47 am, and four more Members have indicated that they wish to come in.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Juergen Maier: There will be two things. The Bill clearly sets out the structure of how we will set up Great British Energy and the key areas of focus. Obviously there will then be a business plan and a framework agreement between us and the Secretary of State, in which we will have to clarify exactly those questions and where Great British Energy and the UKIB take their role. Those are things that will need to be clarified, but I do not think that putting them in the Bill would particularly help us to do that.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
“The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
Do you have any idea of when we can expect that statement to be laid before Parliament?
Juergen Maier: I am not sure of the exact timings. Maybe when you get evidence from the Minister he will be able to put a time on that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
Juergen Maier: Indeed. The earlier question was pointed at the north-east and Aberdeen, hence my response, but you are right. As a matter of fact, the two key areas where floating offshore wind will be developed are in the north-east and in the Celtic sea. From a logistics point of view, you could not put them further apart, so it is not exactly ideal—
The Chair
Order. We are moving outside the scope of the Bill.
Juergen Maier: Anyway, the answer to your question is the same answer that I gave for Aberdeen. There will be an HQ, a lot of the activities, project management, knowledge and engineering, but obviously when it gets to installation and port-type infrastructure work, there will be significant opportunity in Cornwall and anywhere serving the Celtic sea.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
“sources other than fossil fuels”.
Where is the cut-off? With things like blue hydrogen, there is a crossover: fossil fuels are involved, but the product is not necessarily what you would call a fossil fuel. Where does GB Energy come in?
Juergen Maier: Our core focus will be on renewable energy that is not derived from fossil fuels, to be clear. However, there are obviously energy sources that are part of the transition, and the Bill so allows. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to
“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,”
which would include blue hydrogen, for example. I believe that blue hydrogen is necessary as part of the transition, because you just cannot produce enough green hydrogen to get us going from the get-go, so you need a transitional way of getting there, as long as the clear purpose is to see it as a transition to ensure that the future is all green hydrogen.
Harriet Cross
In that respect, we would still need fossil fuels—oil and gas—going forward to help the transition.
Juergen Maier: Of course, yes.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Juergen Maier: It certainly gives me a very clear direction, along with the framework document that we will develop together with the Secretary of State and the Minister. The short answer to your question is that it is pretty clear. The purpose is clear, and that is the most important thing: the purpose, at the end of the day, is that we will accelerate the amount of clean renewable energy that we put on the grid, and that we will create as much prosperity and as many jobs through it as possible.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Q
Juergen Maier: We are seeing pretty good evidence of that right now, aren’t we? At the end of the day, this is now a pretty well-established model for being absolutely state-owned and independently run. “Independently run” means excellent governance, and obviously as start-up chair I am going to ensure that that is the case. That does not all need to be in the Bill, because we know what it means. We have the Companies Act 2006 and numerous Acts about how good governance works. We will ensure through our board and our non-executives that there is proper governance, and of course there will be many opportunities for reviews by the Secretary of State and ultimately for the usual sort of public scrutiny.
The Chair
Order. That is the end of our first panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Mika Minio-Paluello and Mike Clancy gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Mika Minio-Paluello, who is the senior policy officer for industry and climate at the TUC, and Mike Clancy, who is the general secretary of the Prospect union. We have until 10.20 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce yourselves—and pronounce your name correctly, which I abjectly failed to do?
Mika Minio-Paluello: No worries; nobody ever gets it right. I am Mika Minio-Paluello and I co-lead on industry, climate and energy for the Trades Union Congress. Thanks for having me.
Mike Clancy: I am Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect trade union. We represent people across the range of public and private sectors, and we have 22,000-plus members in the energy sector.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: It is true that trade unions want to see good-quality jobs going forward, and that there are concerns about how we deliver a just transition, because we see the reality that transitions are not easy. To make that happen, we need some levers—some tools that can help to ensure that workers either have their existing jobs future-proofed or have transfers to new places. GB Energy is a tool that can help to make that possible that we currently do not really have in the UK. In France, Norway, Denmark and Germany there are a lot more institutions—the public sector effectively has a bigger stake—and we do not have that.
As Juergen said earlier, GB Energy can be part and parcel of enabling the supply chain growth that we have not seen in recent years, because CfDs have not delivered that as they are. It can also deliver the co-ordinated collective pathways for workforce, as well as upskilling, which does not really happen given the piecemeal way it is working at the moment. It can also play a role by ensuring that renewable jobs will be good jobs, both through procurement and through, in effect, ensuring a race to the top. That is all part of a plan, and what came out of our congress recently was that we need to see a plan. To have that plan, we need institutions like GB Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
The Chair
Order. I do not think there is anything in the Bill about jobs, shadow Minister, so I am being steered by the Clerk to get you off the subject. Let us go to Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake
Q
Mike Clancy: Following on from what Mika said, and as we are focusing on the content of the Bill, we welcome the creation of GB Energy but our concern is that for some time energy policy has been long on rhetoric but short on delivery. By that we mean that, in the context of a just transition, the losses of jobs—
The Chair
Order. The Whips are saying there is something wrong with the mics—nobody can hear me either. You need to speak into the mic because nobody can hear what anyone is saying.
Mike Clancy: It is unusual for a trade union official to be asked to increase their volume; none the less, I will run counter to type and try to do that.
We welcome the creation of GB Energy and we welcome the Bill, but the reality is that communities are facing job losses now. The promise of jobs tomorrow is where the challenge lies. As we are talking about the Bill, I should say that we certainly want to see GB Energy created as an exemplar in terms of social partnership, job creation and turning the promise of quality green jobs into a reality. That is the pathway that the Bill has to provide for communities that are directly affected by technological and other changes. I guess that in other questions we will bring out further things about organisational design, because we certainly have some views on whether the Bill leads to an organisational design that will enable that.
Mika Minio-Paluello: You asked, “Will it ensure?” We very much welcome the Bill, but will it, in itself, ensure a just transition? No. Does it provide a mechanism and a tool that the Secretary of State and the Government can then use to help to deliver that? Yes. We also think the Bill is good because it creates a basis for GB Energy to grow. Ultimately, if we are going to see that successful transition, and all the jobs and the prosperity that we need to see in the UK, GB Energy needs to be on a par with the equivalent companies that we see in other countries, such as Ørsted, Statoil or Equinor, Vattenfall, or EDF. That is a long-term process, and over time, it can be good for workers and it can make the whole country richer.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: I mean, you would not build an Ørsted in one, two or five years. ESB, the Irish state-owned company, moved into offshore wind gradually, step by step. It took it about four or five years to get well inthere. We think we should aim to get there by 2040 or 2045. You start somewhere, so you start with the capitalisation. We can all talk about whether the Government could access more borrowing, and the fiscal heritage, but you can start with that. It will not be on that scale by 2030, but it can put in place the mechanisms and a plan so that by 2040 or 2045, we are a more powerful and richer country because we are finally on a par with our peers.
Mike Clancy: We have made some commentary about the treatment of public debt and this space in relation to GB Energy, and whether the debt rules, which are subject to current debate, should be adjusted so that public investment companies are appropriately excluded because they will provide a return to the Exchequer. We are also interested in the structure of GBE arising from the Bill in this regard. Clearly it is going to be a public investment vehicle, but if it is going to be an operator like Ørsted and so on—obviously we heard Juergen talk about the nature of the assets that it may bring under its control—these are significant engineering assets and propositions. If you are going to build a company in that respect, you had better start now, and you had better think about the labour markets in which you are going to obtain the skills, which are very competitive. I could keep you all morning talking about how that will not happen if it is constrained by public sector pay constraints.
A serious point is that there is more than one pathway for this entity, and if it is going to have a dual pathway, it needs to be thought through pretty early. That is because realising the floating offshore wind proposition—whatever sea it may be in—is a very significant endeavour, requiring an operational, management, engineering, construction, planning, and indeed operating capacity that need to be thought about right now, at the Bill stage.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Mike Clancy: Andrew, you are absolutely right. There are various things that need to be brought together that the Bill itself probably needs to consider, in terms of the skills profile generally and other forms of generation that are within this space. There is going to be an office of nuclear jobs developed by the Secretary of State, and so on. Our view is that it comes down to the extent to which the Bill can specify that GB Energy should be an exemplar company, and that it sets objectives for its board in relation to not only its community engagement, but how it conducts its processes to ensure that the short-termism that sometimes emerges from the private sector form of energy ownership is not characterised by a public company, which should be an absolute champion in these areas.
It comes down to governance and to the objectives and how they are set for a public company, and knitting them into the other parts of the skills landscape. That is why I also make the point—not in a usual trade union way, may I say—that we have to think about the labour markets in which GBE is going to play because they are very tight and very demanding, and there is a whole range of infrastructure that this country needs to invest in to deliver the growth mission.
Mika Minio-Paluello: There is good practice to learn from other countries: from Ørsted, Statoil—now Equinor —and Statkraft. They took a proactive role and identified where they thought the country needed to be in 10 years —not just where they might need to be from a minimalist, reactive position, but where the country needed to be—and then how to invest for the long run in those skills.
The Chair
Order. The Clerk is saying that we are straying from the scope of the Bill. We are okay for time because we have until 10.20 am, but it is getting a bit hypothetical about what will happen on top of the Bill, which, I am being told, is not really allowed.
Harriet Cross
Q
Mike Clancy: I am not sure. As extensive as the powers of Parliament are, I am not sure a Bill in itself can give any of those guarantees. I am not trying to avoid an answer; the reality is that the Bill will set up a company with certain objectives, and those objectives should address directly the generation of employment. You have already heard and asked questions about how many jobs there will be in Aberdeen, what that will scale up to, and what it will mean in terms of the supply chain.
We are seeing a lot of very considerable numbers in a lot of different energy spaces: potentially great demand and very high-quality jobs in both the public space and the private ownership of utilities. But it is all promise. Some of the numbers are so significant in aggregate that you have to wonder where they are going to come from, because there is pressure on different parts of the infrastructure. There are lots of synergies between this sector and others—the skills are the same in aviation, defence and so on—and the basic throughput of science, technology, engineering and maths skills in this country is a long-term inhibitor to our productivity and our delivery. In terms of the narrow focus of the Bill, this organisation needs to be the stimulus for that supply chain, with good employment conditions throughout.
One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact.
Mika Minio-Paluello: The easiest solution is to keep someone working in their current workplace, precisely because, as Mike explained, there is a significant risk that, in shifting across, you end up with more precarious work. A lot of the onshore supply chain for offshore oil and gas has been struggling; we have seen a big decline over the past 14 years both within the supply chain and directly. Chunks of that supply chain can be future-proofed to support offshore wind and other parts, and GB Energy has a significant role to play in supporting those supply chain sites. Whether it is Shepherd Offshore, Smulders or cable manufacturers, GB Energy should say, “We will be purchasing from you, and not just from China.” There is a big risk of China coming to dominate the offshore wind supply chain. We could end up in a situation with offshore wind like the one with solar at the moment, where if you buy a solar panel, it is 97% made in China. GB Energy can play a role in making sure the offshore wind supply chain is situated here, and that is part of the protection.
The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment.
We have also suggested an amendment on protection, particularly given that a lot of the job creation and economic impact will be in Wales and Scotland, so the Bill will play an important role for those nations. That means that those nations should probably have a say, through their devolved Governments, on what happens down the line to GB Energy. Let us say that down the line a future Government goes, “Well, actually we are going to privatise it,” or, “We are going to instruct it to dispose of a lot of assets,” Scotland and Wales should be able to have a say and go, “Well actually, this is about our economy here and we think that shouldn’t happen.” We suggest doing that through an amendment but you could explore different mechanisms, including golden shares for those devolved Governments that specifically say that.
The Chair
Order. Sorry, but I did tell off the shadow Minister for talking about jobs when they are not in the Bill. I think we are straying quite a fair distance away. We are meant to stick within the scope of the contents of the Bill. With that in mind, a brilliant example will be Josh MacAlister.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Mike Clancy: We are always dealing with very long-term propositions when it comes to energy assets. Whether it is public or private, you need stable investment conditions so that the entity can build confidence and recruit the staff it needs to deliver its mission. I will keep coming back to this: it is an extremely challenging space if you create uncertainty, and even more so for a public entity, in terms of whether high-calibre people wish to commit their energies and talents in what is a globally competitive environment for their skills.
The most important thing we can do is create that stable investment circumstance. For Government, that means accepting the different challenges there are fiscally and in terms of spending. We would say that there can be no successful transition without a nuclear component, and we are obviously advocates of that. Therefore, we are strong advocates of Great British Nuclear. It will need to have—shall we say—that ability to operate within its own circumstances. Nuclear is particular; it has to be done to time and cost, and that is the big issue. The most important thing that the Bill can do is ensure that you have that stable investment and that you make the commitment.
I have been around for a little while. I have probably been involved in more nuclear and energy renaissances than anyone else in the room put together, and I think we need to get to the actual renaissance and get building. If you can give that stability, people will come to this because they are mission-driven, committed individuals who will want to be part of that renaissance.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Mike Clancy: The simple answer is yes. The longer there is a concept phase, albeit a positive concept phase, the more that we are talking about a multiplier effect from GBE in many respects. If GBE is delivered, starts to operate and gives confidence to the direction of energy policy, other investors will see this as a serious proposition and therefore we will be engaging in this huge process of energy transition.
As I said just a moment ago, it also means that talented people can see a future. We want to be part of that. So, within the process of parliamentary drafting, the more that we have a clear set of objectives—actually differentiating it as a public entity and setting the tone for what you want from energy assets in the future—the better, because that will give that confidence. That also has a knock-on effect for the confidence of private investors in other parts of the energy environment.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: There is a lot of demand at the moment, and a part of the challenge is a significant lack of supply. Part of the reason for that lack of supply is that there is a lack of investment. We as a country have not invested into our workforce sufficiently over time, which is why you get into a situation where different sectors effectively end up poaching people who are most in demand.
GB Energy provides a mechanism as part of solving that. It will not solve it as a whole—the Government have other plans as well to try put that investment in— but it can have a significant role in going, “Yes, here, we are going to provide that long-term investment directly.” Also, clearly, GB Energy will be partnering with the private sector. In that co-operation, it can then say, through its procurement powers, “Okay, in our joint project on this big offshore wind farm, we are going to require the supply chain across the board to be investing into apprenticeships, whether that is one, two or three tiers down,” so that we get that overall growth. It therefore can play a significant role there.
Mike Clancy: I have already touched on this. It might sound strange, but we probably have a bit of a mission at present because of the constraints applied by the previous Administration to remove our members in technical occupations in the energy field from the public sphere, because the labour markets that they operate in reward better in the private sector. The private sector is in a war for talent in this area because, in this country, over the many decades, we have not valued STEM skills and engineering. I speak as a humanities graduate who is always in awe of people who actually go to institutions and learn things that matter and are then applied for the health of the nation.
We have to start with valuing STEM—valuing it on a diverse basis, ensuring that the workforce reflects our diversity objectives more generally—and having a clear understanding that, even within Government, there can be an element of robbing one to pay for the other, such as with defence and aviation. Lots of areas need these STEM skills, which are then easily transferable into digital skills, and there are better salaries for some of those elsewhere.
If you want to deliver that promise about high-quality jobs, you really have to think and have a labour-market strategy for GB Energy that works in this competitive context at all levels—from apprenticeship, through to technical, through to engineering and even through to doctoral level. Again, in terms of the direction and objectives of the Bill, it is about being an exemplar for the entire energy sector in relation to the skills matrix, with how people are employed and the diversity objectives that any public company should have. That is what the Bill should try to address in sufficient detail.
The Chair
Order. Just a reminder again that we are talking about what is in the Bill—not blue-sky thinking about what GB Energy might do and that kind of stuff.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”
should include nuclear energy—very important to your members, Mr Clancy. But to build on the point from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, I think there is a lack of clarity in the Bill at the minute over the operational independence and the autonomy of Great British Nuclear. Are you seeking that from the Government? Is it something that we should seek to have in the Bill as it moves through Committee?
Mike Clancy: That is not just in terms of the Bill, I think; the actual future of Great British Nuclear has a degree of uncertainty around it, per se, because, again—I am in danger of repeating myself—we have been here before. I used to be a member of the Nuclear Industry Council some moons ago, and we are rightly evangelists for our members, who deliver nuclear energy. We recognise that there are lots of controversies down the back end, in terms of decommissioning, but nuclear is an essential part of the future energy mix and the achievement of our climate goals. Therefore, there has to be a range of certainties in response—that is not a glib remark at all—and, in the GB Energy area, it is about companies knowing that they can invest and get the return. The Bill needs to be consistent with that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: My understanding is that it is not currently in there, but it will be contained in the statement of strategic priorities. There are questions about how much should be added in. We understand that the logic is that the Bill will create an enabling vehicle—it will enable GB Energy to act and do things—so is it useful to put in many, many limitations? Probably not, because adding in too much detail will slow it down. Is it, on the other hand, useful to put in a clause that says that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard to a just transition and job creation? That could be a consideration.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mika Minio-Paluello: Bringing energy bills down is a complicated process that depends on lots of things, including—
Stephen Flynn
Q
Mike Clancy: I suppose my response would be, “How could it be within the Bill?”
Mika Minio-Paluello: Theoretically, the Bill could say, “We will cap energy bills at a certain level,” but it would not be part of GB Energy’s role to cap energy.
Mike Clancy: You cannot divorce this from the fact that GB Energy will operate in a still-privatised energy asset environment, and consequently there are much broader questions about how bills are composed, the energy mix and so on. Those issues are not in the Bill, and I am sure the Chair would stop me going down that path. But I was the field official in energy, so if anyone wants to talk about that we can spend hours on it and the construction of the energy sector. I understand why you asked the question, but GB Energy is one entity within a much broader firmament of energy assets, owned in different ways.
Mika Minio-Paluello: Does the Bill enable the creation of a company that can, over time, grow to be something like EDF, Ørsted or Vattenfall? EDF brought bills down significantly during the energy crisis, when we had soaring bills. Does the Bill create the capacity to do that? Yes.
Mike Clancy: Often the focus in energy policy is on retail, because it affects domestic consumers more than wholesale when things are going a certain way. The biggest thing for us—we represent engineering and science staff—is where the generation is going to come from, what is going down the pipes and how we ensure that consistently and for the long term so that we have energy security and energy down those lines at a competitive price. Clearly, a public sector champion in that regard can be a significant contributor to changing the trajectory of energy prices and giving us indigenous energy security.
The Chair
Well, we are not going to fill the time for the sake of it. If you have a genuine question—
Stephen Flynn
Q
For full clarity, you have clarified that it is possible for these things to happen—I do not think anyone would disagree with that—but as it stands the Bill does not provide any certainty about any of those points.
The Chair
Order. Is this a repeat of the previous question? I think—[Interruption.] Okay, there is a minute left. Go on.
Stephen Flynn
Again, just for clarity—because you pushed back and said that EDF brought down bills—there is nothing in this Bill, unless you tell me otherwise, that says that GB Energy will do likewise. Is that correct?
Mika Minio-Paluello: I do not think it forces GB Energy to do likewise, but I doubt the legislation that set up EDF forced it to do that. I think it probably set up EDF as a company to operate and gave it freedom to act. The question for Members is: “What do we do to enable the UK to finally be on a par with our peers elsewhere?” Does this create a basis for that? Yes. Then, yes, can you please push and hold the Government to account—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask this section of questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Shaun Spiers, Ravi Gurumurthy and Marc Hedin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from our third panel. We have Shaun Spiers, executive director of Green Alliance, Ravi Gurumurthy, chief executive officer of Nesta, and Marc Hedin, head of UK and Ireland research at Aurora Energy Research. We have until 11 am for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Shaun Spiers: I am Shaun Spiers, executive director of Green Alliance, a think-tank and charity committed to environmental leadership.
Marc Hedin: I am Marc Hedin, head of research for UK and Ireland at Aurora Energy Research. We are a power market analytics company.
Ravi Gurumurthy: I am Ravi Gurumurthy. I am the CEO of Nesta and the behavioural insights team. Nesta designs, tests and scales solutions to big societal problems, including sustainability.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Marc Hedin: I think we can reflect a little bit on the role of Great British Energy here. One of the areas for innovation is around investments in less mature technologies. It is one of the roles that was highlighted in the founding statement, published in July earlier this year. There is a role for that, but I would argue that there is also a possibility for dedicated schemes to deploy capital in less mature technologies. For instance, with regards to long-duration energy storage, we had a consultation earlier this year, generally welcomed by the industry, which looked into implementing a sort of capital flow regime to promote investment into long-duration energy storage. There is a role for GB Energy here, but there are also alternative routes that are potentially less capital-intensive.
The second aspect, touched on earlier, is around supply chain. There is huge scope here for Great British Energy, where, out of all its potential roles, it may provide the best value for money. In GB, the domestic supply chain has not generally benefited that much from the high level of renewable build-out that we have seen in the past decade or so. There is a role for providing visibility to the supply chain, and implementing innovation into the supply chain more generally in the energy sector.
Ravi Gurumurthy: If you think about different barriers to innovation, I think three stand out. One is co-ordination challenges; second is the provision of certain public goods, such as ports infrastructure, which are critical to investment; and third is risk appetite. I think GB Energy can potentially address all those in different ways.
On the risk side, co-investing—particularly in the novel technologies that Marc mentioned—can accelerate that innovation. Secondly, on things such as ports infrastructure, having a body that is trying to do whatever it takes to solve some of the co-ordination issues and the dependencies on public inputs can drive that innovation.
One other thing I would mention is that Government have a role, and have increasingly played a more co-ordinated role, in driving directed R&D through the net zero panel. I think Government can be better at that, if they are more informed, and one of the things I think GB Energy will do is to give a stronger insight into the constraints and opportunities in the market, and therefore potentially inform Government’s ability to drive innovation in a smarter way.
Shaun Spiers: I obviously agree with all that. The really difficult thing about clean power by 2030 is the last 10% or 20%. It is clear that the market on its own, at the moment, will not provide that, and just adding renewables and grid will not provide it. What GB Energy provides is the potential to invest in things like pump hydropower, compressed air and new technologies that we are going to need. That is going to be essential to achieving the 2030 power decarbonisation.
Perran Moon
Q
Shaun Spiers: It is really quite hard to see how the UK will be able to decarbonise power generation, certainly by 2030. By 2035 was really ambitious and by 2030 is even more ambitious, so you do need a vehicle of this sort to crowd in investment and to give a really clear sense of direction to overseas investors and other investors who are looking for places to put their money. This gives a huge impetus to that mission. It is easy to set targets, but unless you have a vehicle to deliver them, they are going to be impossible to achieve. GB Energy is the key vehicle. I would say it is essential.
Ravi Gurumurthy: Nesta and Boehringer co-authored a report that I was part of, which included some of the time and cost savings that we think GB Energy can deliver—for instance, the role of GB Energy as what we call the pre-developer, where the Crown Estate takes on this role of basically preparing the sites, doing the planning consents, doing the grid connection and doing the environmental surveys before having potentially a single auction process rather than the current dual auction process. We thought that would reduce the time of getting offshore wind built by two to four years. We also produced some cost savings from doing that, including some reduction in rents. We think this institution can deliver genuine improvements in terms of time and cost.
I would not just stop at the vantage point of 2030, because although I think this will make some impact on 2030, remember that we have to double electricity capacity in this country if we are going to electrify heating and transport, so the 10 years beyond 2030 are just as important. I think GB Energy is an institution for the long term, not just for the next five years.
The Chair
I am being reminded again that we should focus on what is in the Bill; I know we can extrapolate what might happen. Next we go to Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake
Q
Shaun Spiers: We have concerns about the huge powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill. Clause 5(2) says:
“The Secretary of State may revise or replace the statement.”
A subsequent Secretary of State could significantly revise the aims of GB Energy. We think that the statement should be consulted on. We would propose an addition or amendment to say that the Secretary of State must consult anybody likely to be affected by the statement, or such bodies as considered appropriate by the Secretary of State— something like that, just to say that there should be more scrutiny so that the Secretary of State cannot simply change the aims of GB Energy in the way it is currently set out.
Ravi Gurumurthy: I run an innovation organisation, and the hallmark of good innovation, or of good companies, is that they pivot and adapt. I know that it is sometimes challenging to set up an institution like GB Energy and not lock down all the parameters, but actually that is critical. There are issues and barriers that we do not even know yet, and I think it is important that this organisation can do whatever it takes to achieve the mission, even if we cannot right now identify exactly every single aspect of its role.
Marc Hedin: I would echo that message that the role of Great British Energy is very broad and is being defined as we speak. That is what we in this room, but also the people working for Great British Energy, are doing at the moment. It could also change in the future as the challenges of energy administration evolve. I therefore think it makes sense for the Bill to provide present and future flexibility in scope.
That being said, there are two points or questions that should potentially be answered. First, what are the governance arrangements to ensure that Great British Energy carries out its duties and focuses on its remit? Part of the answer could be that it should be ensured that Great British Energy provides additionality and works with stakeholders, which is what Shaun Spiers mentioned. Secondly, since Great British Energy’s role is primarily to fill gaps in the market, it would be useful to assess its effectiveness there. Clause 7 only mentions an annual rendition of financial accounts, and there is no mention of effectiveness or impact. Reflecting on the possible roles of Great British Energy, some, such as speeding up project delivery, will lead to value added for the whole system but not necessarily additional revenues for Great British Energy. Financial accounts may only tell part of the story, and there is a need for more comprehensive reporting, in my view.
Shaun Spiers: If I may, just quickly: to require consultation on the strategic priorities if they are going to change radically should not be too onerous.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Can you explain a little more your concerns? First, given that innovation needs to pivot, but also given that we are being asked to allow for the objects to be so broad to allow for flexibility within them, Shaun, can you explain a little more why you think there should be consultation on such broad objects? Secondly, can you discuss any concerns you may have around environmental requirements for what GB Energy is going to do? That is also absent at the moment from the objects of the Bill.
Shaun Spiers: On the concern about the ability of subsequent Secretaries of State simply to change the strategic direction of the organisation, you can look at recent history to know that there can be radical changes. It does not seem to me to be too demanding; it is just good governance to suggest that that should be consulted on, and that you do not give absolute powers to a Secretary of State to do that. I do not see that as a particular constraint on innovation; I just think of that as good governance.
The Chair is keen that we do not lever in lots of other things on the Bill, but there is a concern. Clearly, 2030 power decarbonisation is an imperative and we need to achieve net zero, but we also have a nature crisis and there are concerns about whether GB Energy will seek to enhance nature or whether nature will take second place. Both the Secretary of State and Chris Stark, the head of mission control, have emphasised that there will be a role for considerations of nature in energy planning. But, again, that is not in the Bill, and it would be nice to see it there or to see some statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box to ensure that it is central to how GB Energy will behave. There are lots of public companies that do not prioritise nature—they prioritise bills or the delivery of their main objective—and we see the consequence of that, for instance, in the water industry.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Ravi Gurumurthy: It is a very challenging question. As you know, good intentions in this area often do not translate. You can mandate and say you want to operate with risk appetite, but it does not really translate into behaviour. What do I think are some of the components? The capitalisation of GB Energy is really important, because that gives it some degree of resource to take risks. I am quite interested in whether, as well as investing in novel technologies with a high-risk appetite, GB Energy can either take cashless equity stakes or invest in more established technologies, because if you have a more balanced portfolio, it might give you the ability to take risks in some aspects.
That gets you into a conversation about the fiscal rules. The one thing I would say about this area is that if you compare offshore wind and other established energy technologies with roads or hospitals, the big difference in my mind is that for offshore wind we will build those wind farms whether the state invests or not, and we will pay as consumers, whereas roads and hospitals will not get built if the state does not. The point is that we are going to pay for it, and we will pay more through private sector borrowing than we will through the state.
The second big difference is that unlike a road or a hospital, there was a guaranteed revenue stream through a contract for difference, so there is a really good rationale for why we should not have fiscal rules that bias us towards 100% private sector borrowing, rather than the state either taking a cashless equity stake via this development process or actually investing. If you do that, it will give GB Energy the ability to then take risks on the much more novel aspects of the portfolio and have failures. If GB Energy does not have failures, it will not be doing its job.
Harriet Cross
Q
Marc Hedin: I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but there is a slight risk if a public company were to invest in a utility scale project. At the moment in GB, we manage to attract quite a lot of capital to deploy renewable projects, for instance. There is also a risk of perceived unfair competition that would be detrimental to future capital attractiveness, so I would add that to the global reflection around this topic.
Ravi Gurumurthy: To come in on that, it is very common in other countries for the state to co-invest. I have spoken to a lot of other organisations, and we need to attract £350 billion to £500 billion of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. I think it is perfectly possible for the state to play a role in that. Everything that GB Energy is trying to do is to reduce the risk and increase the predictability of the investment environment. If you take the developer role, at the moment the private sector, when it bids in for a seabed lease, has to have the uncertainty of whether that project will ever get commissioned and the long delay in planning and consenting, grid connection and environmental surveys. If we can actually have the state do some of that and de-risk it, I think it is more likely to get that private sector investment. That is what happens in the Netherlands and it is what the Danes are moving towards, and it is also partly what happens in Germany. There is a good track record of these sorts of environments working well to attract private sector investment.
Shaun Spiers: That is right. You cannot dictate the culture of a company in a Bill. There was a criticism of the Green Investment Bank, for instance, that it invested in rather established technologies and had an insufficiently high appetite for risk. It will be important that GB Energy does pump-prime private investment and not replace it.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Shaun Spiers: Ravi has written the report on it.
Ravi Gurumurthy: Your question is: what can it do to drive private sector investment?
Torcuil Crichton
Yes, what can the Bill and GB Energy itself do?
Ravi Gurumurthy: I have already articulated what it can do on the development side to get rid of some of the risks to do with planning, consenting, grid connection and so on. On the more novel technologies—small modular reactors, floating wind, tidal range and so on—I think we have also talked about how if the state is co-investing in some way, it signals a degree of commitment and insulates companies slightly from the risks. In both the investor and developer roles, GB Energy can play a role in accelerating things. The biggest way in which the state can de-risk investment and increase private sector contribution is through the National Energy System Operator, providing a clear, strategic plan and forward visibility of what is happening in terms of technology and location. That is how I think we will get the investment—not just in the assets, but in the supply chain as well.
Shaun Spiers: On clean, flexible power, what Green Alliance has proposed is a sort of vaccine taskforce-style operation to crowd in all potential technologies for this. It is not clear who would fund it, if GB Energy did not. That is a really important part of 2030 power decarbonisation. There is also the local power plan. The previous Government had a plan—I think it was in 2014—to power 1 million homes by community energy, which was abandoned four years later with about 67,000 homes powered. There is a clear remit here for making community energy economically viable and getting local investment in community energy.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Shaun Spiers: I think a nature recovery or nature protection duty in the Bill would be helpful in reassuring communities. The investment in community energy, where people really have a stake in the energy, will take some of the sting out of the opposition to renewables, but I would not overload the Bill with things that are better dealt with in the planning system. This is a Bill to enable a lot of investment in achieving a decarbonised power system and long-term energy security. To try to overload it with things that are best dealt with in other parts of government, or other legislation, would be a mistake.
Wera Hobhouse
So the Bill is sufficient in protecting communities?
Shaun Spiers: I would like to see a nature recovery duty in the Bill.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Shaun Spiers: One thing that is necessary to say is that this is a major part of the transition and a priority of the Government. That was the case for periods during the coalition, when there was a really vibrant community energy movement and a sense in which people were coming around to supporting renewable energy—which otherwise they would have opposed—because they could see they had a financial stake in it but had also been engaged in developing it. What snuffed that out had more to do with planning issues than with investment, but there are ways in which GB Energy can pump-prime some of the investment.
I am trying to think back to the community energy manifesto we put together in 2018. I cannot think of any specific things, but I can write to the Committee, if that is helpful. There are specific financial incentives that would help get this off the ground. To be honest, though, communities across the country were really keen on community energy. It was a vibrant movement and could be again, with the right political framework as much as investment.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Ravi Gurumurthy: You have to think about this as a whole package. If you have absolute clarity and conviction around the 2030 decarbonisation target and the pathway beyond that, and if you translate that intent into a strategic plan—with clarity about the technologies and their location through the NESO—and if you then have an enabling, activating agency like GB Energy clearing away some of the barriers, then the combination of that overall ambition, that plan and GB Energy does I think hugely accelerate investments into the sector. But you have got to do all three.
Marc Hedin: I think that is right. I think there are two key components here. One is identifying gaps in the market, where Great British Energy can provide a lot of value and can reinforce confidence from investors, and thinking hard about where it makes sense for Great British Energy to invest. We have mentioned points like local power plans, innovative technologies. I think there is a range of areas in which it makes a lot of sense for the state to co-invest through Great British Energy to develop those industries. The last point is around supply chain, to really support the whole energy transition.
Shaun Spiers: I agree with that. This is a part of a bigger picture. We keep coming back to the scope of the Bill. The Bill, in its objects, talks about
“measures for ensuring the security of supply of energy”
One area that really has not been given sufficient attention is critical raw materials, where we import 100% and then we export 100% for recycling elsewhere. There are 37 lithium recycling factories in the EU but none in the UK. This is the sort of industry that Great British Energy could help pump-prime, if that is seen as within its scope.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Shaun Spiers: I think the more that can be done to set out the strategic priorities, the better. I do not think it necessarily needs to be in the Bill. The explanatory statement and the introductions and so on I think do give a reasonably good steer on what the strategic priorities are, but obviously this body is being set up at pace. The more clarity there is on what it is going to do, the better. I would not set unreasonable expectations of a body that is being set up really quickly, with a pretty clear short-term aim of 2030 power decarbonisation and of supporting that. However, in the longer term the priorities clearly need to be set out.
Ravi Gurumurthy: The NESO will be producing its plan in October, and you have then got the next carbon budget in February, so the actual pathway to 2030 and to 2050 will start to become even clearer in the coming months. It will need to be flexible, however. There will be technologies which emerge that shift our sense of what to focus on. You need priorities, but you do need quite a lot of flexibility in this system.
Marc Hedin: I made the point, I think, at the very beginning that we need a very flexible scope because there will be challenges to the energy transition. We need room to adapt. If this vehicle is to facilitate the energy transition, we need that scope to be relatively broad. I did mention a couple of safeguards, more like accountability, and I think that is still reasonable to ask. However, in terms of strategic priorities, I think the scope is broad enough and makes sense.
Perran Moon
Q
Shaun Spiers: By investing in it. It is more a question of the recycling, because there is a big recycling industry elsewhere. When the UK was the pioneer in offshore wind, it was easy to import critical raw materials and then not bother about reusing them and just import more. As the Foreign Secretary was talking about in his speech at Kew, there are now real concerns about the shortage of critical raw materials across the world. Because they are needed for so many technologies, and so many technologies that are essential to the transition, we need a plan for the transition that includes recycling plants. Lithium mining in Cornwall is great, but we also need not be exporting our critical raw materials to be repurposed elsewhere, and then reimporting the repurposed ones. There are 37 recycling plants in the EU, while in China there were 61 waste lithium battery recycling and processing companies two years ago, and it is a growing industry. It has not grown in the UK, it has not had attention, and I think that if GB Energy is committed to long-term energy security, which it is, then it could play a part in getting that industry going in the UK.
The Chair
We are straying quite far from the scope of the Bill. It is an interesting discussion, and it could carry on offline afterwards, but it is not within the scope of this Bill. Are there any more questions? If there are no further questions from Committee members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Dan McGrail and Adam Berman gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome to our fourth and final panel this morning. We will now hear oral evidence from Dan McGrail, CEO of RenewableUK, and Adam Berman, who is director of policy at Energy UK. For this session we have until 11.25 am. There are questions at 11.30 am in the Chamber—I have one myself.
The Chair
A few of us have. Okay, if we finish early, we have more time to leg it over there. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves.
Dan McGrail: Good morning everybody, my name is Dan McGrail, I am the chief executive of RenewableUK, which is a trade association representing the wind industry predominantly, but also the tidal energy sector and crucially, the supply chain that sits within that. We have about 500 member companies across the UK and we work closely with devolved Administrations and national Government.
Adam Berman: Good morning. My name is Adam Berman, I am director of policy and advocacy at Energy UK, which represents the whole of the energy sector really, short of upstream oil and gas extraction—everything from all the forms of generation, right through the networks and into household level. We represent the retail energy suppliers as well.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan McGrail: It is good to see you too, shadow Minister. First, I think there is a trade-off in legislation like this, between the focus you want to provide, and the guard rails put into the Bill, and giving the entrepreneurial freedom to the organisation to invest where opportunities arise. We believe, and the report we wrote prior to the release of this was quite clear, that focus is important, but is legislation the place to put the focus? Our view is that the business plan that is set up and put in place by the chief executive and their team, once appointed, is the place to put that focus. It will be much more predictable if it is developed by experts in the sector who have conducted a thorough analysis of where the opportunities are for investment, and where the real additionality is.
One additional point that is important to detail in the statement, when it comes, is how the investment priorities of GB Energy would be different from those of the private sector. Would GB Energy take a longer view on returns on investment? Would it have a different rate of return? That would help to clarify the role of GB Energy within the ecosystem of the sector and with other private investors so that there is understanding of where real partnership opportunities lie.
In short, the answer to your question is that it is important to have a focus, but do the focus in the plan rather than in the legislation.
Adam Berman: I certainly agree with Dan. My one reservation with the legislation is that GB Energy will face two distinct competing priorities: the first is making money, which would probably primarily come from established mature renewables, and the second is solving distinct problems within the energy system that are a result of market failures. There is some overlap—although not complete overlap— between those two priorities. The question is whether there should be more clarity in the legislation over which strategic objective GB Energy should be solving. That is not an issue for industry to resolve, but it is something that, without stronger guidance in the legislation, GB Energy may struggle to reconcile once it is formed.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Adam Berman: I do not think there is a deficit in terms of accountability, and I do not think there are 500 bodies that should be consulted before any decision is made by GB Energy; if you look at things like the planning system and statutory consultees, you can see how that is an issue. That being said, there is a list of organisations that any Secretary of State should consult, through their due diligence, which is everyone from the National Energy System Operator to the Climate Change Committee to industry to devolved Administrations. We would very much assume that the Secretary of State and the Department would do that due diligence themselves. However, I do not think shackling GB Energy through the legislation to having to do that to make every decision is necessarily the right approach.
Dan McGrail: I fully agree with that.
Olivia Blake
Q
Dan McGrail: From my perspective, the definition is probably good enough. It is quite tricky to go too narrow and say renewable energy only, because there are certain areas, such as long duration storage, where the sector would like GB Energy to participate in, or at least to have the freedom to participate in, which, if it is too narrowly constrained or defined, may prove problematic later down the line.
One thing I think would be advantageous in the definition, or in the objects, is to clearly set out the guard rails, such as ensuring the carbon budgets are referenced. If we reference the carbon budgets, future Secretaries of State would need to make sure that any investments that were made were in line with the delivery of the carbon budgets. That is comparable to what was done with the set-up of the Green Investment Bank, where there were specific references to what the Secretary of State would need to go back to primary legislation to change, and what would be foreseeable within secondary legislation—not directing the Green Investment Bank to invest in fossil fuels, for example, would have required a complete change of mandate. I think some similar thinking, therefore, would be helpful here.
Adam Berman: I do not completely agree. I do not think there is a big problem of definition, but I would say that we need to ensure it is consistent with the CCC’s existing language and with the technologies that it thinks are consistent with the sixth carbon budget. Clean energy may encapsulate all of them, but I think we would have to make sure that it includes established mature renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen, just to leave those options on the table. I do not disagree with Dan that there needs to be a focus, but GB Energy needs to at least be given the option to engage in the technologies where it thinks there may be additionality in terms of bringing in GBE’s involvement.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Adam Berman: Clearly I agree that they are of incredible importance when it comes to planning the energy system and that the dialogue with them about the local communities that they know better than anyone else is pivotal. The challenge is that for GB Energy, as far as I understand it, a major part of it is local power plans, which will already have involved close consultation with local authorities and communities in lots of different ways.
From an industry perspective, I would be hesitant about placing that as a condition on GB Energy’s investment. That is not to diminish its importance; it is just to ensure that we are allowing GB Energy to be successful and that we are not holding it back. There is a very good argument that that should be included in the legislation, and that the national energy system operator and the Climate Change Committee should be included in the legislation, but once we have gone through all those bodies, it starts to become prohibitive for the investment process, which we want to be free and fair for GB Energy. We are therefore slightly hesitant about saying that we necessarily have to look to any particular body for consultation.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Adam Berman: That is a really good point. I think that there could be something in the legislation to ensure that GB Energy’s investments are consistent not only with the local area energy planning, but with the strategic spatial energy planning that the energy system operator is doing.
Dan McGrail: There is a really important point here about how, to be successful in the market, GB Energy will need to engage with those processes anyway. There will be accountability around the company, but one nervousness I have is about trying to put too much into the Bill specifically on GB Energy. I agree that the point should be about complying with the things that we need to deal with, whether those are in law, in programmes such as the strategic spatial energy plan or in the work of the national system operator. Those are all interconnected and contiguous pieces of a system in which GB Energy needs to be able to operate effectively. The onus, if we put anything in legislation, is to be compliant with all that.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Dan McGrail: I firmly stand by the idea that GB Energy, at least in its initial phase, should do three or four things excellently, with some fundamental underpinning. It should champion the UK supply chain; it should act to promote skills; it should enable innovation. The market segments in which it operates should be focused on and defined early. Its budget of £8.3 billion is a lot of money, but to get value from that in the context of the energy sector, GB Energy needs to focus on two or three areas in which it can really deliver additionality. I think the place for that is in the business plan, rather than in the legislation. As the legislation is currently framed, it allows the team the space, when they begin the work of the company, to define those two or three areas; it does not narrow them down. My view is that the legislation as drafted gives it that space.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Dan McGrail: Occupying space where there is a highly liquid market for private capital is unlikely to bring much additionality. Offshore wind is one of those places —fixed-bottom offshore wind, to be precise. That is a mature market; there is capital that will flow to projects if the wider investment conditions of those projects are right, and that is more Government policy-related. However, there are other markets. For example, onshore wind in England has basically been under-invested in for the past decade. There will still be nervousness within the private sector: “Do I want to be the first developer to test local planning? What does the risk profile of that look like?”
I see a clear role for GB Energy to partner with the private sector to help to accelerate the return of investment in that market, or for example within the growth of the floating offshore wind market, where there are clear opportunities that go beyond just the energy sector and into transition, such as floating offshore wind in Scotland or in the Celtic sea, where we know that there is a much bigger economic growth story. Those are areas where I think we could see public and private capital working very comfortably together.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Adam Berman: A fundamental conundrum with GB Energy will be the extent to which, through legislation, you want to constrain its investment activities. Clearly, from an industry perspective, we are very keen that there be an emphasis on additionality, on complementing and not duplicating private sector capital that is already there.
Dan mentioned wind. The recent CfD allocation round 6 auction crowded in about £20 billion of private sector investment—that is one year and one auction. That is not to say that £8.3 billion capitalised over a Parliament is not a significant sum of money; it is to say that if we want the most bang for buck, it is absolutely about thinking about those areas where it can be complementary to the private sector. On the one hand I am saying that, yes, industry would be very happy for GB Energy to have that as a focus, but it is also fair to say that it would be a restriction in GB Energy’s activities if it were only to engage in a space that enabled additionality, because it would restrict some of the investment portfolio that it could end up with.
Dan McGrail: The private sector and the industry in general have been quite clear that we see a real benefit in the participation of GB Energy in emergent technology, such as tidal energy. However, even within the five founding statements, there is nothing specific about fostering UK home-grown innovation. I would err on the side of caution within legislation, or at least I would not put it as a boundary condition. It should not be the only thing, but if it were somewhere in the plan—either in the founding statements, if they get modified, or in the plans brought forward by the Secretary of State—that would be healthy.
Catherine Fookes
Q
My question is about tidal power. I represent a Welsh constituency, Monmouthshire. We have the River Severn in the south of the constituency, which is a tidal river, and we have the Celtic sea. What opportunities will the Bill give to generate more tidal power?
Dan McGrail: The Bill allows space for GB Energy to take quite an activist role in the sector. I am aware of tidal power companies that are already very keen to engage with GB Energy on specific proposals. One thing about tidal power is that we have seen the success of many projects through the CfD auctions. We need to see them come to investment decisions. The more we can see a state actor enabling companies to take decisions, the more it will help to scale up the industry and then the technologies. From the technologies, we can hopefully deliver the kind of supply chain growth and jobs in local communities to which we all aspire.
Perran Moon
Q
“prepare a statement of strategic priorities”.
I have been listening carefully to the priorities on skills and innovation from your perspective. Let me ask you both: if you were Secretary of State, what would be your key strategic priorities be for the Bill?
Adam Berman: The first is public value, which goes beyond the ability of GB Energy to create profits and return them to energy bills or whatever mechanism it might come up with. That is not to say that that is not important, but if this is new money—a significant amount of new capital—being made available by the Treasury, it is about how we, as a society and as an economy, can get the most out of those investments. So I would say public value, which is about not just financial returns but broader public benefits.
Secondly, it is about spreading economic activity and about how that links into the industrial strategy. That might be for the supply chain and also for GB Energy, but we should think not just about particular technologies but about particular regions.
A third priority would be the delivery of the UK’s legal objectives—its legally binding climate commitments.
A fourth priority would be the delivery of the National Energy System Operator’s priorities, which links to the strategic spatial energy plan that we have already been talking about, and ensuring that it helps to foster a workable decarbonised power sector. For example, we could see solutions such as GB Energy putting investment into wind or solar in areas with higher constraint costs or lower population centres with higher land use costs, which are not as attractive to private investors at the moment, but which with GB Energy’s lower cost of capital may well still be a profitable enterprise. It is about how we can have a win-win with NESO’s objectives.
Finally, impact on investment cannot be ignored. I recognise that it is not the Government’s intention at all that there be an impact on private sector investment, but we need to ensure, as a founding principle, that there is not a risk that any GB Energy investment could deter or crowd out private sector investment.
Dan McGrail: I would add one thing to that very good summary. There are a number of new institutions being set up at the same time—NESO, mission control, GB Energy. There are also a number of big initiatives such as strategic spatial energy plans and centralised network planning. It would be very helpful for the sector and for industry to understand the interaction of those with the national wealth fund. I almost see an organogram in my mind of how things flow. In my conversations with the sector, there have been questions about where the limit of GB Energy ends and where the National Wealth Fund begins, and so on and so forth. It would be enormously helpful for the sector and for other institutions such as the Scottish National Investment Bank and UKIB to understand how they fit within that matrix.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, may I thank the witnesses for their evidence?
That brings us to the end of our morning sitting. We have had four panels with eight witnesses—thanks, everyone. The Committee will meet again in this Committee Room at 2 o’clock, when I will have turned into Sir Roger Gale.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (Anna Turley.)
Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 8th October 2024
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 October 2024 - (8 Oct 2024)
The Chair
The Committee will now hear oral evidence from Alistair McGirr, group head of policy and advocacy at SSE, and Tristan Zipfel, director of strategy at EDF Renewables. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Will you be kind enough to introduce yourselves for the record, gentlemen?
Alistair McGirr: I am Alistair McGirr. I look after our cross-cutting policy and public affairs. I sit within our group structure, but SSE has interests across renewable energy, flexible capacity and electricity networks.
Tristan Zipfel: I am Tristan Zipfel, director of strategy, markets and investments for EDF Renewables. We are one of the leading renewable energy developers in the UK. We have about 1.5 GW in operation, with 600 people across the country in five different offices. It is a real pleasure to be able to share some evidence today.
The Chair
Mr Zipfel, one of the disadvantages of having a geriatric Chairman is that my hearing is not as good as it used to be. But for everybody’s benefit and, most particularly, for the Hansard reporters, it might be helpful for you to speak up a little and be very clearly on microphone. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Q
“objects are restricted to facilitating…the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”
and must include
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
SSE and EDF Renewables are involved in both those objects right now, so how do you see the Bill and the creation of this company as either assisting or facilitating you in your objectives?
Alistair McGirr: At SSE, we welcome GB Energy, and as a company that is headquartered in Scotland, we particularly welcome its location. We think that Scotland has a larger opportunity for investment across the clean energy transition. To answer your question directly, it depends on how the organisation is set up and on its governance, but if, as has been suggested, GB Energy will be focused on crowding in investment, there is an opportunity for it to help to accelerate that transition and, importantly, to capture some of the wider opportunities that can come from the transition.
Tristan Zipfel: You can probably tell from my accent that I come from a country where state-owned investment in energy assets is commonplace, so that is something that we at EDF are very comfortable with and see very positively. In fact, I would say that any initiative that leads to directing more investment, capital and effort into decarbonisation is a very good thing. As Alistair said, it will be important that GB Energy is set up in a way that triggers and supports investment in the sector and does not disrupt the competitive playing field that we currently have in it.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“The Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy.”
If you were the Secretary of State and were tasked with drawing up strategic priorities, what would they be?
Alistair McGirr: On the way that we think about the particular benefits from GB Energy, first, we look at it as a potential partner for some of our investments. We work with a number of commercial entities, some of which are state owned—for example, Equinor, which we work with on the Dogger Bank offshore wind farm and on our carbon capture and storage projects. We work with these parties on a commercial basis and we would be open to working with GB Energy on projects that would help to accelerate the transition. So co-investment is one area. We would be keen to see that targeted at areas where there may be a bit of policy risk. With things like hydrogen storage, hydro-pump storage or CCS, there may be an opportunity for GB Energy to take some of the policy risks that private companies perhaps cannot.
Offshore wind is an area where there has been lots of debates, and there was some nervousness relating to the initial discussion about the Crown Estate tie-up. However, we think that with the principle they were trying to achieve, which is the acceleration of that environmental consenting process, there is an opportunity to accelerate projects and, importantly, reduce the cost of bringing those projects to fruition.
To give an example, our Berwick Bank offshore wind farm up in Scotland, which is one of the largest in the world, is currently sitting within the planning process and has been for 20-plus months now. Projects like Berwick Bank could be accelerated by a focus on areas where GB Energy can accelerate environmental consenting, basically by taking a more strategic approach to how it thinks about environmental consenting rather than considering that on a project-by-project basis.
To make a point on offshore wind, the one area that everyone will talk about—I am sure we will come back to it—is floating offshore wind. There is a big opportunity for not only GB Energy, but the national wealth fund to capture a whole range of benefits from the emerging sector, in terms of both bringing the costs of delivery down and making sure that there is a supply chain available to deliver the projects that are currently under development.
Perhaps a last point to mention is the local power plan. We would be quite keen, as an operator of electricity distribution networks, that the local power plan was able to be targeted in areas where there is a wider system and societal benefit in supporting and unlocking a lot of the low-carbon projects in the distribution network, because it is no secret that there will be lots of questions about how things connect to that local distribution network. We think that the local power plan has a particular route in targeting some of those investments in a way that can better integrate low-carbon technologies into the distribution network.
Tristan Zipfel: To add to what Alistair said, for a start, the UK is in a really strong position to maintain its leadership in the renewables market. There is a strong industry in place, and I think GB Energy can fit into that and strengthen the framework. As a co-investor, in particular, I think GB Energy could bring value, as Alistair said, by investing in frontier technologies, but also by helping to strengthen the link and connection with local communities. For our projects to be successful, it is absolutely paramount that they are adhered to by the local communities. As a developer, we spend tremendous efforts on being present and creating a connection with local communities. Having GB Energy on board for certain projects could reinforce that link and even provide a sense of public ownership in the project, which I think would be very strong.
Alistair talked about emerging technologies and how some of them present certain risk profiles, where having an investor like GB Energy could help kick-start the development of this segment of the market. He mentioned CCS; I think we could talk about hydrogen as another example.
GB Energy also has an interesting role to play as a developer. We have seen the announcement of the partnership with the Crown Estate on the offshore site. There is an opportunity for GB Energy to focus on the segments of the market where the private sector is struggling to make progress, perhaps because the infrastructure is not yet there, or because there are specific risk profiles that make the private sector struggle to invest in these segments of the market, despite them presenting long-term value. That is where there is a real opportunity for GB Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before including in a statement under this section anything which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”.
As a company that has heavily invested in Scotland, did you realise that there was detail in the Bill about how GB Energy will interact with the devolved Administrations, given that so many aspects of what it is seeking to achieve are competences of the devolved Administrations, specifically in Scotland?
Alistair McGirr: In terms of the premise, I definitely agree that the devolved Administrations have to play an important role in the direction of GB Energy. I do not think there necessarily needs to be anything in the legislation. I suppose it is also worth mentioning that there might be a view about how the investments are spread across different parts of the country. In reality, a lot of those will be up in Scotland because of the opportunities that Scotland has.
The Chair
I have three Members on my list already, and we have 15 minutes left, so please be short, sharp and to the point.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: If you take the example of France, EDF is indeed state owned, but it is a competitive market. Nowadays, EDF is one actor among others. If you take, for instance, offshore wind in France, EDF competes—sometimes it wins, and sometimes it does not. The benefit for the general public is a sense that that body can execute the strategic vision of the French Government in delivering net zero or a decarbonised future. EDF is very much the arm that executes that vision—independently, at arm’s length, but it does it. I also think there is a creation of long-term value by the ownership of assets. EDF provides dividends to the French state, which I think are valuable.
Uma Kumaran
Merci.
Alistair McGirr: If I may add to that, there is the question of the role of the state. Not everything has to be through GB Energy or the national wealth fund. In terms of the GB Energy policy framework, the creation of the National Energy System Operator can help to drive a lot of economic value through the transition here in GB by taking a much more strategic approach to how infrastructure is going to be deployed. GB Energy is one element of that, but I think the wider value can be brought together by a more strategic approach through the policy framework.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: For sure, yes, they could be part of the scope. Choices will need to be made, of course, on where those investments are directed, and I think it is important to direct the investments where they will have the maximum impact. When it comes to onshore wind, for instance, perhaps it could be a case not of investing where the private sector is already doing a good job on its own, but of looking at areas where there is a need to develop infrastructure to unlock these onshore wind opportunities, or of looking at Government-owned land that could be used to develop new projects. As you said, Alistair, it is going to be complementary to what the private sector is doing, but there will be pockets of opportunities for GB Energy to really make a difference, even in an area like onshore wind, I think—100%.
Alistair McGirr: I agree with that answer. The question would then be: where is the biggest bang for the buck? Is it building large onshore wind projects that actually have developers in that space and have a route to market? That is probably the question for GB Energy: is that the best use of taxpayers’ money, rather than other things that can be done in terms of investment in frontier technologies?
You mentioned tidal. There is the question there of an absence of a business model. If there was this supported business model, there might be an opportunity for private investors to come into that space. There is the issue that just because the private sector is not doing it does not mean that the public sector should do it, because ultimately, if it is a bad deal for private shareholders, it is probably a bad deal for taxpayers as well. I think this is about making sure that the technologies that are useful are brought forward with business models that provide a return for whoever the investor is.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”,
you have welcomed state intervention and the role of GB Energy in that. How would you feel about communities taking a direct stake in your onshore and offshore developments—say, 20%, as they do in Denmark?
Tristan Zipfel: On our side—I am sure SSE does the same—we are definitely looking at that. We are trying to develop some schemes that go exactly along those lines. We have not done it so far. The link and the reward to communities have been through the community benefits fund linked to our projects. I live in Teesside: we have an offshore wind farm there, and I can tell you that the community benefit fund, over the last 10 years of operation, has helped dozens of local projects and initiatives. You are absolutely right to think the next frontier is to have more local ownership of wind farms. That could be through GB Energy, but it could also be through direct ownership schemes. We are looking at those options at the moment.
Alistair McGirr: As I mentioned at the start, we partner with a number of different organisations; I mentioned Equinor, which is a state-owned entity. We are open to working with any kind of party on a commercial basis, be it a community or another developer. In that sense, the communities taking a stake in some of the projects is something that could be done. The question is: what are the terms of that arrangement? There is the critical point that any community ownership should be focused on co-investment. It should not just be the case that 20% of a project is passed on to a community, because that will be value that is basically taken out of the project, which then inflates the cost of the project. So the co-investment piece is very important. Whether it involves another developer, another state-owned entity, GB Energy or a community, I think that is a useful way of bringing capital into the UK’s low-carbon infrastructure.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
Alistair McGirr: Yes, frankly. I think there will be other protections in place—what was in old money called state aid protections but is now subsidy control. There will be wider provisions that ensure that GB Energy does not have adverse impacts on investment into the competitor space, be they state aid provisions or subsidy control provisions. That will ensure that what GB Energy is effectively legislated to be able to do does not adversely impact a competitive playing field. It is important to make sure that that is maintained. Ultimately, if there is a tilting of the playing field towards GB Energy, that will be a bad deal for either the taxpayer or the consumer.
Tristan Zipfel: I concur with what was said. It is really important that the establishment of GB Energy does not disrupt the dozens of billions of pounds that are going to be directed by the private sector into the renewables sector, or the clean energy sector in general, over the next decades. For that it is important to maintain trust in the fact that it is indeed going to be a level playing field and that GB Energy is not going to benefit from forms of assistance that would disrupt competition. That being said, I think GB Energy will have its own criteria, strategy and approach, which is absolutely fine. But it needs to be in the context of a level playing field from a competitive standpoint. That is really important.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Q
Alistair McGirr: I am very supportive of those projects coming to Wales. Obviously the Celtic sea auctions are another example of the upcoming opportunities in Wales. The reality is that GB Energy is not going to be the vehicle that drives that—that will be the wider policy framework in terms of what happens here in Westminster, and also in the regulatory frameworks that are in place and what happens in the devolved Administrations. My reference to Scotland is not to say that other parts of the country could not have the opportunities for investment. It is just that the sheer scale of the opportunities in Scotland for wind, hydro, some of the grid projects, CCS and hydrogen mean there is a significant opportunity in Scotland. That is one of the reasons why GB Energy has been located up in that area.
Tristan Zipfel: I can only concur. Wales is very important for us. We have onshore wind projects that we are actively promoting in Wales. I think GB Energy could play a role there. I want to emphasise, however, that I do not think GB Energy on its own will be the solution to unlocking the opportunities you describe. I think it is really important in Wales in particular that there is an effort on the policy side to provide more certainty and more visibility of the projects, as well as the question of the grid, which is a problem. But I concur that Wales is very important strategically from our standpoint as a renewable energy developer.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
In relation to some of the objects that are detailed in clause 3, I think we are all excited about the potential for the state to take a proactive role in the production of energy, but the Bill is quite clear that it is about
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
SSE is investing £40 billion in clean tech over the next 10 years, and EDF is investing £50 billion or so. How far do you think £1.6 billion can go, in real terms, given the breadth of the different things the Bill seeks to achieve?
Alistair McGirr: In reality, it is not going to be the sole investor that is going to deliver the clean energy transition. As you allude to, we have a significant investment programme that we would be keen to bring to fruition over the next 10 years or so. It is about how you best use the money that is available. Where can we accelerate the investment and crowd in the scale of investment that is going to be required? We may be talking about big numbers, and in EDF as well—not only here in the UK but elsewhere—but there will not be just one investor. If you look at the National Infrastructure Commission, for instance, they are projecting in the region of £25 billion to £30 billion of investment in energy infrastructure per year for the next decade. The scale of the investment is going to be much bigger than any single entity, be it GB Energy, SSE or EDF.
Tristan Zipfel: Choices will need to be made—you cannot do everything with that pot of money—and it is really about identifying the areas where they will have maximum impact and where they will be most complementary to the effort of the private sector. It is not about displacing the private sector; it is more about covering the gaps and providing a boost to more investment in the sector.
That is also the spirit of the agreement with the Crown Estate. Looking at offshore wind, what is currently the blocker for more investment? It is the timeframe that it takes to develop a project. The spirit of that agreement is to look at an early stage and make it easier for private investors to invest in projects that are more de-risked than they are at the moment. That is the right approach, in my view, and it could be expanded to the other technologies in the scope of GB Energy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Q
Tristan Zipfel: I can start with solar energy. As a business we do not look at geothermal, so I do not want to elaborate on that, but we invest a lot in solar. When you look at solar, the issue is not to get private capital—there is more than enough capital to invest in this. However, where GB could provide value is perhaps in creating that link with local communities. I keep going back to that, but it is so important for us to create a sense that those projects are not just there for private investors but have an element of state and public ownership. That could mean a lot for local communities. In partnership with GB Energy, we could even imagine GB Energy taking the lead on the relationship with local communities or in certain parts of the development that are so essential to the project. Recent studies have shown that local communities would respond very favourably to projects in which Great British Energy is an investor alongside the private sector. In that sense, it would make a difference.
Alistair McGirr: I think the local power plan is an opportunity for these technologies. It is not just about the big, mature technologies. It will play an important role in developing projects in solar and geothermal in Cornwall, in Wales and in other parts of the country, too. It is about making the most of the local power plan and working with developers to help to bring those to fruition as soon as possible.
The Chair
Thank you. I apologise to Members who have not managed to ask all the questions they want to ask, but we are out of time on this panel. Mr Zipfel and Mr McGirr, I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee and the House for affording us the benefit of your opinions and your time.
Examination of Witness
Dan Labbad gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dan Labbad, who is the chief executive officer of the Crown Estate. For this session, I am afraid that we have only until 2.50 pm. For the benefit of the record, Mr Labbad, could you introduce yourself?
Dan Labbad: I am Dan Labbad, the chief executive of the Crown Estate.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan Labbad: First, thank you for having me here this afternoon.
The Crown Estate has been operating in the offshore renewable energy space for a long time—roughly 25 years—and, working with Government, the private sector and the third sector, we have created what is the second largest offshore wind capability in the world. That is something that we as a country should be very proud of, but obviously what got us here will not get us where we need to be.
When you look at the Climate Change Committee’s report on what is required from offshore wind and other renewable and zero-carbon technologies into the future, you see that we need to accelerate our deployment in a way that is balanced with other marine uses, including the environment, and ensure that we are deploying at a rate that meets the targets that were set for good reason. We have been organising the Crown Estate for the last five to 10 years in order to do that, accelerating leasing and starting the de-risking process for developers.
We also have a Bill before Parliament to enhance our powers to do more in this space. For example, we have something called the marine delivery route map, which looks at all uses on the seabed to ensure that we can create spatial co-ordination for different uses. That is fundamental to being able to achieve deployment, but even with our new powers we cannot do it alone. We need support, certainly support from Government.
There are three key areas that we would have called on had GB Energy not been announced, but Great British Energy offers a number of things. First, there is the co-ordination of all the agents involved in what is a very complex energy sector, both within and outside of Government. One of the big encumbrances at the moment is that everyone is working in slightly different directions; you do not achieve targets if everyone is working in slightly different directions.
Secondly, there are the increased investment powers to ensure that we are additive to what the private sector needs and ensure that we can achieve the acceleration throughput that we are talking about and invest in new technologies.
Finally, it can ensure that we are evolving policy around areas that are not limited to planning and grid, for example, so that we have the pathways not only to lease seabed for renewable deployment but to deliver generating capacity. We see GB Energy bringing those things.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Dan Labbad: Consultation across the country is fundamental. In fact, if you look at our Celtic sea round 5 tender, which is live at the moment, you will see that we consulted heavily with the Welsh Government and with Welsh stakeholders. In fact, we evolved our approach quite considerably in the deployment of that tender approach through that consultation, adding a lot of value.
I should say that to get a leasing programme out like round 5—which is the 4.5 GW floating wind programme that we have at the moment live in the Celtic sea—you engage with many stakeholders. The count in the case of the Celtic sea was more than 70 stakeholders from global and local environmental groups, developers across Government, the third sector again and a whole host of users of the seabed. Without doing that we do not deploy, because we do not get everybody’s buy-in. If we are talking other parts of the country, there is no difference whether it is Northern Ireland or Scotland.
We enjoy a good relationship with Crown Estates Scotland and with the Scottish Government. They are partners in our marine delivery route map and we are co-ordinating on systems issues, because obviously some of the environmental issues and deployment and grid issues do not have borders, so that consultation is, as you suggest, fundamental.
Perran Moon
Q
Dan Labbad: First, as regards the Celtic sea, there are social requirements as part of the tender process. I obviously cannot talk about them too much, given that we are in a live tender for procurement purposes, but there are social requirements as part of that tender.
To your question, it is fundamental. It will be a real failure if we end up deploying renewable energy on the seabed in the way we need to in the next 20 years and are not able to capture a fair proportion of that industrial complex for ourselves as a country. It would be a real pity if we did not build new jobs and new futures for young people across the country and if we did not support the distribution of that benefit across the country, including to coastal communities.
We have to bear in mind that there is a role for developers and a role for Government and the Crown Estate. For example, in the Celtic sea a 4.5 GW tender does not build a supply chain. It is not enough; the critical mass is not there. Again, that is why it is so important that Great British Energy and the Crown Estate work together, with our additional powers and being able to provide forward commitments to, for example, the Celtic sea. We estimate at the moment that it has the potential for another 12 GW of offshore wind, predominantly floating but also fixed. You need that type of scale so that both Government and private sector investment in the supply chain, including in coastal communities, will stick. That is why this partnership is so important and why we have to remember the size of that prize, so to speak.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Dan Labbad: First, from the Crown Estate’s perspective —I know this is a little out of scope—we operate under an Act of Parliament and have an obligation to enhance the value of our portfolio nationally, on behalf of the country, into perpetuity. We must ensure that we, like any business, balance safe investments with more risky investments. There is no doubt that investing in the seabed in the way we are talking about is a higher risk activity than other things that we do.
The increased borrowing powers do two things. First, they give us the capital throughput to do more—to accelerate and offer more. Secondly, because we know that we will have a line of credit, they allow us to make commitments. To use the Celtic sea as an example, as we move from what we envisage we can do about 12 GW to the reality of knowing that we can do that, we can then say to the market that we are committed to that leasing programme over the next 10 years. That is huge. From a developer perspective, they are not chipping away. For argument’s sake, let us say that we have 4 GW divided into three bits. You are talking about small gigawattage for companies of the scale of Equinor, for example. Being able to provide a pipeline where we know there is more to come means that they invest more—that is what that does.
The other thing that comes with the borrowing powers is a broader investment remit, which allows us to turn our attention to supply chain opportunities and to support the industrial complex and jobs. Again, we have been restricted in what we can do there in the past, so that is fundamental. With regard to GB Energy, as I said earlier, the Crown Estate cannot do it all on its own. We need additional capital support, support with co-ordination and support with policy evolution. All those things are required, which is why the partnership is so fundamental.
The Chair
Order. The issue of scope has raised its head again. I gently say that while this Chairman is not in the business of seeking to tell witnesses what they can and cannot say, he is in the business of making sure that Members, at least, stay within the scope.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Dan Labbad: Yes. Both the Crown Estate and GB Energy moving forward will support that type of thing. It is an example of a local community energy project, and I think there needs to be more of that, as I said in my answer to the earlier question. Where we can build community support for renewable projects, we should. The Crown Estate and GB Energy will be looking to that as part of our core mandate moving forward. I am very excited about that type of thing because it benefits everybody, so it is fundamental to what we do moving forward.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Within the scope of the Bill, under clause 3, we also heard in evidence this morning the request that we seek a duty towards nature and nature recovery and the achievement of the Environment Act 2021. Would that provide the reassurance that while we are dealing with the climate emergency, we are not disregarding the nature emergency and the environmental value of the seabed and the sea?
Dan Labbad: While I cannot comment specifically on the Bill, I would say that the Crown Estate already has a responsibility to protect the environment and look at nature recovery. In fact, this week we launched our nature commitments, which have undergone significant consultation. You can find those live on our website. We are obligated under our Act to do that. That obligation maintains in the partnership, so we will be doing that as part of what we bring to the GB Energy partnership.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Dan Labbad: If you look at where we are today, we have just under 12 GW generating. The Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has about 42 GW in the pipeline. The first thing is: how can we bring as much of that to generating as possible? That is really important. Where and how do we remove immediate encumbrances? That is something we can work on immediately. From there, even to bring 20 GW to 30 GW to market by 2030 needs a lot of work and co-ordination.
To put it another way, we have delivered 12 GW of generating capacity in 25 years and if, as informed by the Climate Change Committee, we are to move up to 125 GW of generating capacity by 2050, that means we need a five to tenfold increase in the next 25 years. What we do in the next few years is incredibly important to ensure that we are laying the foundations for that to be a successful deployment.
The Chair
I said that that would be the final question, but we have a couple of minutes left, so, very briefly, I call Torcuil Crichton.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Dan Labbad: We are looking to learn all the time from what happens around the country and around the world. One thing that it is worth saying quickly is that sometimes we are too focused on interior discussions and debates about how and what goes on where in the UK. The elephant in the room, in some ways, is losing the first mover advantage we have had in this sector to the rest of the world. It is essential to demonstrate that as a country we can do floating wind better than anyone else, and to build the integration and maintenance capabilities in this country, because that is what will bring the jobs, for example. We are always focused on that.
We have learned a number of things. Obviously, focusing on the supply chain is fundamentally important. That has been a learning over the past 10 years. The other thing that has been a learning is that we need to work to de-risk the sector for the private sector as much as possible, because in a world that has a growing offshore wind pipeline, even the companies that you are listening to today all work internationally, and we need to retain the UK as a competitive place for them to want to deploy renewable energy. The way that to do that is to build the pathway to the future, so that they can see the pipeline using the marine delivery route map. We must de-risk such projects up front so that they still put their capital in and earn the requisite return on it for the risk that they take, but we are not asking them to take a disproportionate risk on projects that are being stalled. Those are all learnings over the past 25 years.
I will also make a final point. The industry and Government—the Crown Estate and others involved in this sector over the past 25 years—have been exceptional at course correcting when things have not gone exactly to plan. The innovation capacity in the sector is there, and all we need to do through things like the partnership with Great British Energy is empower that capacity. Then, I think, we have every chance of meeting those deployment targets.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Labbad, it may seem like a long way to have come for a very short period of time, but your evidence is extremely valuable to the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Josh Buckland gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon. We will now hear oral evidence from Josh Buckland, a partner at Flint Global. For this session, we have until 3.10 pm. Mr Buckland, will you identify yourself for the purposes of the record, please?
Josh Buckland: I am Joshua Buckland, a partner at Flint Global.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.
Do you see the Bill and the creation of GBE as an assistance in unlocking private capital and the investment that we need in the new technologies, or are you worried, as some are, that this might be a blockage and get in the way of the private sector?
Josh Buckland: I think that that is the right question to ask. Ultimately, the amount of capital we need to invest in the energy transition is so significant that we will have to deploy and leverage in private finance at a scale that has not really been seen before, and any intervention from Government needs to play a role in unlocking that private capital. The Government have set out that Great British Energy will be mobilised with £8.3 billion of public capital. On the surface, that is a significant amount of money, but in comparison with the hundreds of billions that we will need to deploy through the overall transition, the way that it crowds in greater levels of private investment will be the key test of its success.
The Bill sets out a range of roles that Great British Energy could play, some of which could have a bigger impact on mobilising capital than others, and a range of different mechanisms that it could deploy. It is probably too early to tell whether the structure and the decisions it makes will mobilise capital at the scale that the Government intend, but the framework set out in the Bill will definitely give it the potential to do so.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: The financial assistance statements set out in clause 4 are relatively broad; they give Great British Energy the ability to invest in a variety of ways. It comes back to the question of how you create value through Great British Energy. One of the key tests will be whether it can drive additionality, so whether it can deploy capital in a way the private sector cannot. That usually rests on two issues. One is whether it can invest earlier in the development curve when private investment at scale is tricky, so where there is technology risk or development risk. An alternative is whether it can invest on a sub-par basis, so effectively whether it can create catalytic capital—that is the terminology often used—in a way the private sector would not be able to.
Clause 4 could potentially do those things, and there is no restriction on its ability to do them, but obviously the Government have not yet said much about exactly what format these investments will take. That is not necessarily an issue from a legislative perspective. I have looked back at the legislation that underpinned the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Green Investment Bank, which I was involved with when I was in government, and both those Acts are relatively high-level in terms of the interventions and mechanisms that they can deploy. On the surface, there is nothing that restricts that. As the Government think about the deployment of Great British Energy, I imagine that they will want to set out how it will give more clarity to the private market on the sorts of interventions and mechanisms that it will look to deploy at scale.
Olivia Blake
Q
Josh Buckland: My personal view on financial assistance is that it is fine to keep it relatively broad. Having been a civil servant in government for a long time, I know that primary legislation, if it is relatively broad, gives you the ability to think commercially, and clearly the energy transition will be set out with a range of different technologies. Innovation will come through, and the ability for the Bill to be flexible will assist that.
There are other questions about things that are referenced less in the Bill—let’s put it that way. In some of the previous legislation—for example, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which set out the Green Investment Bank—the Government talked about the need for operational independence undertakings and gave more clarity on the importance of creating an independent institution that can act in a way that ensures it can partner with the private sector and can take investment decisions that mobilise private investment and do not distort the market. Although that is not necessarily linked to clause 4, there are some interesting questions around whether the independence framework set out goes far enough to give that reassurance to the private market.
Harriet Cross
Q
Josh Buckland: On the surface, a range of different countries have publicly owned energy companies of different sizes and scales. Therefore, I do not agree with the concept that private investors are either unfamiliar or concerned at a general level. It will all come down to your point around the design of the actual institution and how it operates with the private market.
I think you are right to say that the Bill is relatively high-level. Looking back at some of the precedents that exist, I would mention the Green Investment Bank again. That was operational for a number of years and was established and grown while the legislation was then taken later down the line. It was easier, if you were a private investor, to understand the role that the Green Investment Bank would play and then have the legislation to effectively inform and solidify that.
The challenge in this context is that the Government have obviously proceeded with the legislation early on, as the institution is being established. That does not mean to say that it cannot be created as an institution that is independent and galvanises private investment but, clearly, the current level of uncertainty around the design and the mechanisms that it will deploy will add to that challenge.
Therefore, the Government have said that alongside the Bill they will look to publish more detail on a framework agreement with Government, and how they will set that out and consult with private industry. That, in tandem with the Bill, is critical at this formation stage. That is not to say that it necessarily leads to all that detail being in the Bill itself, but it is critical that it goes alongside it.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: It is a fair and good question. I think your substantive point is absolutely right; the mechanisms set out under clause 4 give Great British Energy the opportunity to take different approaches as technology shifts and changes. We have definitely seen, over the past decade, a shift towards different mechanisms deployed by Government. At the early stage, they were largely bilateral, non-competitive and largely done on a kind of long-term contract basis. It is very instructive to look at what the UK Infrastructure Bank is now doing; it is now looking at different mechanisms—earlier stage investment, development capital at risk, and equity investments. Those are the sorts of things that Governments have not traditionally done at the scale that is necessarily required for the energy transition but that obviously Great British Energy could play a role in extending.
There is an interesting question around where you draw the line between Great British Energy and the role of other existing institutions. The Government have already talked about the fact that they are going to evolve the UK Infrastructure Bank to be the national wealth fund, and obviously that will have some crossover with the operations and focus areas of Great British Energy. For me—this may be an issue that is separate from the Bill—how the Government set out how the governance will work between the Department, the Government, Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and other institutions will be critical to making that a success over time, as the executive of Great British Energy looks at new issues and technologies as they come through.
I would stress—I imagine that this point may be made by other witnesses—that the fact that clause 3 is relatively broad, in terms of the sectors and areas that the entity can invest in, is really beneficial, because that also allows some level of independence for the executive to take choices as the energy sector evolves. Clearly, we know the many technologies that we have now, but there will be a range of different issues that come through. I therefore think that that flexibility under clause 3 is quite important.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Q
“the Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities”.
Do you think that it would be important to have a timescale for that, so that we know when the Secretary of State is preparing the strategic priorities, and so that it happens quite quickly? That is something that we can do: put a possible time limit or timeframe into this Bill.
Josh Buckland: That is a very good question; I look back to my time as a civil servant. Sometimes timelines can be very useful because they give clarity, externally, as to when priorities will be updated and when there will be new interventions from Government, but sometimes they do not necessarily reflect the external environment as things change. If there were to be a decision to include an additional requirement around the timeframe, I think you would still want the ability to respond to external events as the world changes, to ensure that the priorities set out to the institution could adapt as the external world changes. Obviously, that is very true in the energy transition.
Clause 5(8) states that Great British Energy must have the ability
“to publish and act in accordance with”
that statement. The thing for me—again, it may not be an issue for the Bill itself, but it will be interesting to watch—will be how bound Great British Energy is to the specifics of the Secretary of State’s statement and what latitude it has beyond that, because clearly it will want to take its own commercial decisions. Fundamental to its independence and ability to crowd in private finance will be that it is taking commercial decisions with strong justification. That is an area that may not need any greater clarity in the Bill, but it will be one thing that private investors will look at quite closely.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Josh Buckland: Completely. There are plenty of precedents in various sizes and scales. Critically, they are not necessarily all in the concept of a developer company, which obviously has got most of the attention as a result of the Great British Energy Bill. There are those examples, and there are significant European energy developers and national energy companies right across the world, and quite often they partner with other entities, whether they are private investors or developers. It is welcome that in the broader statement the Government have been clear that, especially at an early stage, they want Great British Energy to partner with other developers. We should not forget that we have a lot of leading companies in this country, both headquartered here and inward investors.
The other interesting area is the role that the state can play more generally. I might be wrong, but I think that is alluded to in clause 4, which mentions that the financial assistance may be applied “pursuant to a contract”. That is an interesting dynamic. In Denmark, for example, the state in its new leasing process for offshore wind will take a 20% stake in projects as it offers out contracts to the private sector. That is an interesting model that could potentially be applied here and has been applied in other European jurisdictions.
I am not entirely sure about the Government’s intentions on whether that would be a matter for GB Energy or for broader policy, but clearly it creates different opportunities. We should not necessarily think about Great British Energy just as an investor of capital, to go back to the question asked earlier; this is a significant amount of money but, given the scale of investment required, it will be deploying other capital through it that is the key test of success.
Perran Moon
Q
Josh Buckland: I have looked through the project life cycle, and clause 4 gives a lot of flexibility around it. There is the early-stage development capital, which is quite difficult at this stage to develop at the scale required. Developing large-scale energy projects costs not just tens of millions, but potentially hundreds of millions through the development phase, so there is a role there that GB Energy could play in the deployment of development capital.
Potentially more important in a development phase is the ability to help projects to de-risk other things that they cannot control, such as their ability to access a grid connection, to get planning approval and to access the right supply chain domestically, to go back to the point about unlocking economic potential here. That could potentially be a significant role for GB Energy. That comes back to the governance question of where Government draw the line between a role for Great British Energy and the Government, because a lot of those issues are effectively for the Government to deal with, but that is an interesting dynamic to watch.
If we move through to the construction phase, there is slightly less of a role, in truth, because the level of capital required in building out projects once they have got over the initial financing barrier is potentially lower. I know the Government have talked a lot about that separately from the Bill. The exception is local and community energy projects, where clearly the barrier to unlocking investment is higher, and there is potentially a role there for Great British Energy that the Government have talked about.
The final piece is whether, once an asset has been built out and is operational, Great British Energy should have a role there. Again, that is potentially more a question about how you want the capital to be deployed. The Government could take a stake in a project, or invest to then seek a return, and utilise that money either to reduce energy bills or to reinvest. That is a question around prioritisation of public spending, because that might be a sensible thing to do, but there is a range of other things you could invest in that might look beyond the energy transition. Hopefully that gives you a bit of a feel. The role will definitely change depending on where you are in the asset life cycle.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Josh Buckland: There is a question around consultative processes, I suppose. One thing we have seen, or that I have experienced, especially on the planning side, is that when the Government set out statements of intent—for example, through the planning regime and national policy statements—it is important to consult on those extensively in advance so that there is certainty around what they mean. Then they have to wait as institutions respond. There may be a question about what level of external input is given before the statement of strategic priorities is set out, or whether it is just a Government statement that is then passed through. There is an interesting question about consultation in advance.
Once it is established, those acting and investing alongside Great British Energy will be more interested in how it as an institution interprets that statement. If it has to set out a strategic business plan as set out under subsection (8), that is the area that companies will be more interested in, because—assuming it is operationally independent—that is the thing that they will take more seriously.
The other dynamic in terms of updates is the risk that regular updates to the strategic plan create uncertainty. That might go back to the question of timeline and expectations of when the statement is reviewed, when it is republished and at what stage, and what needs to change externally to make that a reality. That is probably an important dynamic. Whether that is a matter for the Bill I will leave to others to guide on, but obviously it is an area that will be of interest externally in understanding how Great British Energy operates in practice.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Q
Josh Buckland: Ultimately, the question of supply chain is broader than this Bill. Great British Energy could absolutely play a role, especially if it is doing place-based investments or is particularly investing in certain projects. but there is a fundamental question for the Government, as they look to build out the supply chain, around what they are doing at a skills-based level, what they are doing at a technology development level and how they are giving greater clarity on the pipeline of projects over time, some of which might be invested in by Great British Energy and some of which might not. For me, supply chain and skills deployment is a matter of broader Government policy, which Great British Energy can support.
As we stand here today, we do not necessarily have the right level of skilled capacity in the country to deliver all the ambitions that have been set out across infrastructure. It is important not just to look at the energy sector; a lot of the changes will require changes in the transport sector, the water sector and others, but that does not mean that we cannot have those skills if there is a broader framework to develop them, to train and to invest at scale in the supply chain. Great British Energy could play some role in that, but the broader policy framework and the Government’s ambitions more widely will dictate that to a greater degree.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for your time this afternoon, Mr Buckland. The Committee is indebted to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Olivia Powis, Jack Norquoy and Myrtle Dawes gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Jack Norquoy, the director of communications and public affairs, Scottish Renewables, Myrtle Dawes, the chief executive officer of the Net Zero Technology Centre, and, I hope, from Olivia Powis, the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, although Ms Powis has been slightly delayed. We will proceed and hope that she is able to join us later. For this session we have until 3.50 pm. Please introduce yourselves for the benefit of the record.
Myrtle Dawes: My name is Myrtle Dawes. I am a chemical engineer and am currently CEO at the Net Zero Technology Centre. For those of you who do not know that organisation, it uses government funding to work with industry to accelerate and develop emerging technology.
Jack Norquoy: Good afternoon, Committee. I am Jack Norquoy, representing Scottish Renewables. We are the voice of Scotland’s renewable energy industry. We represent nearly 400 organisations working across all renewable energy technologies and the supply chain in Scotland.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”,
to include technology that might be involved in carbon capture and storage. It is not set out clearly within the Bill that that is the case. Ms Dawes, as somebody who works with the companies involved in the extraction and production of fossil fuels in Aberdeen and the drive to transition to net zero, do you share the concern with the narrow prescription of what GB Energy will be allowed to invest in and be involved in?
Myrtle Dawes: I understand their concern. From my perspective, I understood that that would be covered under clause 1(2)(b), which concerns the reduction of greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the storage or utilisation of carbon dioxide comes with the reduction of greenhouse gases. [Interruption.] As Olivia is here, she could probably respond.
The Chair
Order. If I may interrupt, we have now been joined by Olivia Powis, who is chief executive of the Carbon Capture Association. For the benefit of the record and Hansard, could you identify yourself?
Olivia Powis: I apologise for being a couple of minutes late. I am Olivia Powis, chief executive officer of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.
The Chair
There is no need to apologise; we understand the vagaries of travel in London and are grateful to you for joining us. Minister—shadow Minister, I beg your pardon—would you like to come back?
Andrew Bowie
Q
Thank you for joining us, Ms Powis. I was going to ask about the concerns that your association has brought to our attention about the definitions in the Bill, particularly in clause 3, concerning the objects that GBE is restricted to facilitating, encouraging or participating in. Please could you expand on those, and also on your suggested changes to the Bill, about which you kindly wrote to us two weeks ago?
Olivia Powis: I would be pleased to expand on that. We welcome the Bill and its support. In his opening remarks on Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that
“Great British Energy will support project development”
to
“help speed up the roll-out of offshore wind and other technologies”—[Official Report, 5 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 460.]
such as CCUS, wave, tidal and hydrogen.
We believe, however, that the narrow definition of clean energy in the current draft of the Bill could be prohibitive to low-carbon technologies and inadvertently limit the scope of GB Energy’s investments, thereby reducing the potential for public projects and hindering the UK’s ability to meet its net zero targets.
The definition of clean energy should be clarified to ensure that it encompasses energy sourced from fossil fuels when combined with carbon capture and storage—that is, when abated. We, alongside Hydrogen UK, have proposed some alternative wording that would enable abated fossil fuels to be included, and ensure the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels. We must future-proof this definition to make sure that GB Energy is able to invest safely in projects such as low-carbon energy with CCS and is not at risk of being challenged.
Jack Norquoy: I understand the concerns that have been raised. Some of our members will also be members of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association. I understand those concerns and am happy with the suggestions. Our recommendation for the Bill, and moving forward, is that it maintains alignment with what the Climate Change Committee has within its scope as part of our transition to net zero.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Olivia Powis: No, we would recommend that the wording is changed in the Bill so that it is future-proof. We welcome the words that came alongside it, but we want to ensure that it is future-proofed for when people come back to this legislation in five years’ time. It must be on the face of the Bill.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Myrtle Dawes: I am really excited about this. For reference, the Net Zero Technology Centre received £180 million of Government funding. We have managed to raise and match that with industry and go on to have more than 100 start-ups. We have more than 69 commercialised technologies. We have done more than 300 projects and gone on to give value back to GB of an order of one to nine in cost-benefit terms. When I see something like this, on a much bigger scale—our work is really a microcosm of this—it is really exciting. It is a catalyst sitting at the heart of Government, which will make sure that there is support for innovation during the period when it needs acceleration, when we need this technology to make things more efficient and drive down costs, and when we need to get good technology into the next set of infrastructure projects. For us, it is really exciting. Given what we have seen at the NZTC, it could go on to deliver quite a lot of value.
Jack Norquoy: I share that enthusiasm. Scottish Renewables has welcomed the development of GB Energy, alongside many of our members in industry. Of course, we welcome any additional investment at this time, particularly when we have heightened ambitions towards 2030. We have an unprecedented line of sight in Scotland with our pipeline, so we welcome the conversation and the development of GB Energy to deliver the support that will be needed to accelerate deployment.
We are particularly interested to see what the goals of GB Energy are. That has been set out in the Bill and in the surrounding documents, but we will need to see some clearer objectives and pathways to support that with industry. We appreciate that that might come after the Bill. We have interest in the governance, too; the importance of operational independence has been discussed today. Finance is very important to the heightened ambitions for what GB Energy will do, as the Bill sets out, but we also want GB Energy to work with industry.
This comes at a time when there are a lot of welcome moving parts in industry, such as the development of a strategic spatial energy plan, the national wealth fund and GB Energy. We welcome the Bill and we would like to see the establishment of GB Energy, but in the steps ahead we would like to see a pathway to give some assurance to our members in industry who are now actively involved in the pipeline on how they can help towards the deployment to 2030.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Jack Norquoy: The Bill includes a reference to working with Scottish Ministers, which is welcome, as part of improved relations at the moment, which are welcome too. On governance and devolved competency, as we heard in earlier evidence from the Crown Estate, the partnership with GB Energy is welcome. There will have to be development across the UK to support our net zero targets, but we want to ensure that there is parity with Crown Estate Scotland too. At the start, I highlighted the pipeline that we have sitting in Scotland. On the point about the competency of the Scottish Government, we would like to see some more detail—again, probably outwith the Bill—on how we can ensure parity between extra powers to the Crown Estate and to Crown Estate Scotland.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Myrtle Dawes: I suppose it would have to be towards the impact. Naturally, the budget we are looking at is well suited to innovation. The crowding in of money that we could get around that from investors—the impact that we could have by moving on a lot of projects—is quite significant.
To take the example of floating offshore wind, we have some of the best wind resources in Europe and actually the world. We are sitting with one of the best supply chains for subsea in the world, because the North sea has been the harshest place in the world to do business. If we are ever going to get an effective floating wind business, with technology and jobs here in the UK, we need to start and move on it now. Not only is there an opportunity to get electricity here in the UK, but we are very close to the heartland of Europe, which is also looking for electricity and for hydrogen. We can do lots of things where the impact, if we were to move now, would be great.
I have also worked on de-risking in major projects. They do need de-risking. I do not think that those in the supply chain are necessarily looking for a handout; they are looking for clarity, for investable business cases and for things where they can do the commercial work that they normally do. I can tell you that at the heart of this is technology that has to be sufficiently robust and reliable, and cheap enough that the product is cheap for the customer, who in this case is those who are using our energy.
Olivia Powis: I support everything that has been said. I think GB Energy offers the potential for targeted investment and support in areas of the value chain, for new innovations and across the supply chain. In particular, we look at some capture technologies with lower TRLs that would benefit from some investment, enabling them to move forward from what we refer to as the valley of death, to be able to compete on the open market. There are many opportunities within the innovation space.
Jack Norquoy: A big part of what GB Energy will do is the local power plan, to which a sizeable contribution of that £8 billion allocation has been made. You raised a point about how the rest of it will be spent; I echo the comments that have been made about innovation.
There will be a need for GB Energy to have a balance. That has been outlined in what we have seen so far, in that there will be a need to generate revenue in order for there to be a public return, but it is important that that money be targeted at high-risk areas where we need the longer-term strategic view to support innovation. Sectors in Scotland such as the marine energy sector would very much welcome that targeted support. So we have a balance between GB Energy being willing to take more risk than perhaps we have seen so far and some investment going towards the local power plan, developing the stable revenue that we will want to see coming through.
Olivia Blake
Q
Olivia Powis: We have proposed instead that the statement must provide that Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating and encouraging investment in, and participating in, one or more of the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy, and the reduction, directly or indirectly, of greenhouse gas emissions from energy derived from fossil fuels, where that clean energy definition means energy and molecules produced from sources other than unabated fossil fuels. It is just about being clear about that clean energy definition. We have been told that, as drafted, it would exclude those with fossil fuels.
Olivia Blake
Q
Olivia Powis: CCUS, as an industry, very much welcomes the announcements from Government last week and the further detail provided yesterday. There is lots of private sector investment helping to drive forward these projects. The funding commitment from Government is for projects once they are operational. Obviously there are still first-of-a-kind projects here, so I would not classify it as a very high risk. This is not a new technology; it is an industry that has been deployed elsewhere, and there is an understanding of how it will work.
There will be first-of-a-kind projects in the UK, and there could therefore be areas in which GB Energy could play a critical role. We have yet to really explore the extent—we would welcome further discussion on that—but there could be a role in enabling infrastructure, oversizing pipes, import terminals and port infrastructure. There is a role it could play in driving forward that enabling infrastructure investment.
The Chair
Ms Dawes and Mr Norquoy, have you anything to add?
Myrtle Dawes: I am glad to get the clarification. We also invest in CCUS; it is really important technology for industrial decarbonisation. As an engineer, I will tell you that there is risk involved in that, because we are used to steady state, and we will want to stop and start things. It is a refrigerant, so it will not like it.
There is quite a lot to do to reduce costs. The monitoring and verification of the stores is super-important. If we can turn a waste stream going to store into a product stream that is being utilised, that will be fantastic. That has to be the way we need to go. There is lots of technology to look at, both on the capture of emissions—direct air capture has its role, especially if we are going to look at some kinds of synthetic fuel—and on some of the emerging technologies around capturing carbon dioxide from seawater. Apart from the fact that we might also be able to mine some minerals from doing that, these are things that we should be looking at. It is all about getting the security of doing these things closer to home.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Jack Norquoy: I am happy to clarify that. We are content with the Bill; we understand the need to enable flexibility so that it can evolve over time. We certainly want GB Energy to be durable at a time that we are building a new energy system. There are various mechanisms, which I highlighted at the start. This is an opportune time to enable that durability. I think the scope is right; yes, it is wide, but that is important for longevity. We would want to see clarity within the business plan and as part of the statements that come following the Bill.
I think industry is very keen. We are operating at pace, so we want some clarity around the architecture in which this will sit, to give assurance to businesses that are ready to engage and want to work closely with the Government and GB Energy. As has been highlighted to the Committee today, we want a sense of the role of GB Energy, where it will end when it comes to the national wealth fund and where those can complement each other. We also want clarity on the established array of institutions at a UK level, primarily the UK Infrastructure Bank. That is compounded when you come to Scotland, where we have the good work of the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise. I do not think that this detail is needed in the Bill, but clarity on some of that architecture would be very welcome shortly thereafter.
The Chair
As nobody else on the panel wishes to respond, and there are no further questions, may I thank you for your evidence? We are very grateful to you for coming in.
Examination of Witness
David Whitehouse gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take oral evidence from David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK. For this session, we have until 4.10 pm. Mr Whitehouse, for the benefit of the record, could you please identify yourself?
David Whitehouse: I am David Whitehouse. I am the chief executive of Offshore Energies UK.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: Looking at the 400 members that we represent—people investing in our oil and gas, wind developers, people investing in carbon storage, but also a huge supply chain—I do not think we are sceptical. As an organisation, looking at our 400 members and at the 200,000 people who work in the sector, we see that journey to net zero as a real opportunity for the UK and for Scotland if we build on our industrial strengths. We are so lucky in this country that we have brilliant people and a world-class supply chain; we are also lucky that the wind blows and that we have the North sea and other assets. We must make best use of them.
Within the context of a wider energy strategy, we absolutely welcome GB Energy. It will play a role in a bigger energy strategy and a bigger industrial strategy. How do we see GB Energy working? We see it unlocking opportunities that otherwise would not happen. It will not create value if it simply replicates what the private sector would do anyway—I think that will be acknowledged in the priorities that I would expect to see from the Secretary of State. There is a still a huge role to play in de-risking projects, as well as in some of the local energy projects that have been raised. There is a huge opportunity to invest in technology and future infrastructure.
We touched on infrastructure with our European neighbours. How do we interact with it? Already, we have a number of companies looking at what kind of projects meet the mandate of GB Energy and would fulfil it. Do not forget the world-class supply chain that we have. We will fail in this country if we do not recognise how important our supply chain is. Our oil and gas supply chain is world-class. The transferability of those skills to what GB Energy needs to deliver is huge. There is a massive appetite for us to leverage the skills that we have and use GB Energy as a vehicle to deliver value for the country.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: I think what you have is a Bill that, as you have heard in evidence, provides broad definitions and broad statements of intent. In and of itself, it is a platform to deliver that. What will be critical is that the Government, the Secretary of State and the devolved Governments, who have welcomed this, work together and honour the words about working in partnership with industry to take what is on paper and turn it into a reality of unlocking opportunities that would not be happening—opportunities for communities up and down the UK, and certainly for our key supply chain companies—to help us to accelerate some of the critical projects that need to be unlocked.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“Great British Energy’s objects are restricted to facilitating…the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
Is there any concern from among your members that the stated objects will prevent GB Energy from partnering with or investing in some of those companies, given that they have an existing footprint in the oil and gas sector?
David Whitehouse: We will look to bring clarity in that area. The interpretation we have taken and the conversations we have had indicate that this would not preclude companies from investing in that manner, and that the Bill is broadly defined to allow all companies to invest. That is something we very much welcome. We see the journey to net zero as being one of inclusivity, not exclusivity. As I have said, we represent companies that produce oil and gas, which have a critical role in our energy mix, but in terms of bringing forward technology, as it stands, no, we do not think that. There is an opportunity, though, as the Secretary of State brings forward the priorities, to provide clarity that those things would not be excluded.
Andrew Bowie
Q
David Whitehouse: The position we have always taken is that you have energy communities up and down the UK. We have a very proud energy sector, and in principle I think you could have put GB Energy in many places, but we welcome it in Aberdeen. The reason we welcome it in Aberdeen is because that is where you see a real density of high-quality operators, high-quality developers and high-quality supply chain. That is the right place to put it. We take confidence that this journey to net zero must be about inclusivity, and about breaking down barriers and building bridges. Having GB Energy centred in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent that this Government—it was also supported by the Scottish Government—recognise that as well. We need to make the most of our industrial strength. Placing this in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent, so we welcome that.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
David Whitehouse: Apologies: what was the word they were using?
Torcuil Crichton
Some see them as a threat, not an opportunity.
David Whitehouse: Okay. So I need to do a better job, because I do not see a threat whatsoever. In the UK at the moment, we are on a journey. The Climate Change Committee says that we must hit our net zero targets by 2050, and on that journey 50% of our energy under the balanced pathway will come from oil and gas. Today we produce only about half of what we need, so it is right that, in my opinion, if the industry is held to account, we should prioritise domestic oil and gas.
Our members see no threat from accelerating the path to renewable energy. It will take time, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. The only concern or consideration from our perspective is, “Yes, of course, accelerate.” Our members are actually investing in that, and our supply chain members are using their revenues from oil and gas to invest in that transition. It is an opportunity, not a threat.
What we need, though, is that balanced discussion with those who work in the oil and gas sector. We have a voice: we are Offshore Energies UK, not “Oil and Gas UK”. That is because companies, supply chains and people are evolving, and you want that big tent if you are going to be successful in bringing it forward. If you are getting that feedback from those in the sector, I hope that in the coming weeks and months you will not hear that.
Stephen Flynn
Q
David Whitehouse: I think we all recognise that on the journey to net zero a huge amount of investment is required to get us there—the Climate Change Committee says that £1.4 trillion is required. The lion’s share will come from the private sector, so GB Energy will help, but actually we need to create the conditions more broadly where we have investment in the energy sector that turns into enduring value. That is what we need to deliver, and we can talk about that.
Where GB Energy can play a role is in those opportunities that would not otherwise have happened, such as through the opportunity to de-risk projects. If we look at things such as carbon storage, de-risking and understanding the nature of the carbon stores and using that as an opportunity to buy into future investments is a role that GB Energy can and should play.
We have spoken about connectivity with Europe. Scotland and the UK’s future will be hydrogen pipelines to Europe, and there is a role for a state player to crowd in private sector money make those projects happen. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle but, if we work in partnership with industry, it should be much more than that. Getting money is difficult, but it is not always the most difficult thing that we have to do, so it is about unblocking the other issues. There are 13 years from consent to the delivery of the first electrons. It is in those areas where we can have a state player sitting with industry that understands our challenges and what we need to do. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle, but it should have a bigger vision than that.
Harriet Cross
Q
David Whitehouse: There is no doubt that the UK and Scotland are in a global race for investment, and we need to create an environment where we are attracting investment. I sit in a sector that has been battered to some degree by public perception and by tax changes. There are things that are happening outwith GB Energy that, as a country, we need to look at. We need to make a great environment for investment.
Time does matter; GB Energy will start to come to life when the Secretary of State puts forward priorities. The thing that we would ask—I think you have heard it from others—is about bringing forward the strategic priorities for GB Energy. The statement should be something that we are engaged in and are bringing forward now. It should come forward in a timely manner, but it must make sure that it has taken on board the necessary engagement with industry, Governments and other key stakeholders. Time is always of the essence.
Perran Moon
Q
David Whitehouse: For me, there are areas—I have touched on them slightly—where you look at the projects and their timelines, and if you have more data and more information up front, it massively shrinks the time from taking on a licence, or whatever it is, to turning that into carbon stored or electricity generated. There is an opportunity for an entity like GB Energy to invest in some of that up-front data gathering to de-risk those projects. GB Energy would then have the opportunity to trade that for a share in the future projects that come from that. We will see how that shows in the priorities, but that is a clear area where GB Energy can invest now to get data and use it to leverage equity stakes in projects moving forward, which I think is very much consistent with the founding principles of GB Energy.
We also touched on the infrastructure that is required in the UK, much of which is now being dealt with through the National Energy System Operator, and people will have spoken at length about the issues around the grid. There is so much more that we need to deliver a net zero future for the UK and for Europe. Again, a state investor with a long-term investment horizon can now be in the position where we start talking about what networks we need across the North sea to be successful. Having an entity like GB Energy crowding in private sector money is a great opportunity to unlock some of that.
Perran Moon
Q
David Whitehouse: I think it will and should be one of the priorities of GB Energy that our drive for clean energy must be done in a way where we create those supply chains. How do we do that? We already have—we can provide it to the Committee—a good assessment of the quality of the UK supply chain and what its capabilities are. We have a good understanding of what those future renewable opportunities are, and you are absolutely right that there are supply chain opportunities across the country, in essentially every constituency. We have that knowledge.
Now we need GB Energy to recognise what those opportunities are. There are projects to be invested in that GB Energy should be part of, and it should be directing and working with industry and the supply chain to make sure that we take the opportunities to grow our supply chain. We have a lot of significant companies that we should grow. It is a fantastic export but also delivers in our own country. Myrtle will have touched on it: we have a whole host of acorns around this country that could be grown into massive oaks. It will probably use less flowery language, but that should be one of the principles of GB Energy. We have supply chain acorns that we can identify, and we must turn them into the oaks that this country needs.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
There was a question this morning about whether the Bill should specify that GB Energy should look at the gap in financial markets when it comes to support for new technology companies that otherwise would not make it through the valleys of death. As I understand it, there are not enough financial products out there, from private equity, ordinary banks or other investment opportunities. Can we put anything in the Bill to make addressing that particular gap more of a priority?
David Whitehouse: I am sorry; I wish I could give you a better answer. I have spoken with our members. In some way, shape or form, we think the Bill as it stands is broad and provides the opportunity for the Secretary of State and others to bring forward the statement of principles. That is where we would see some of that.
The Government will also bring forward an industrial strategy, and linked to that will be our energy policy. I think there is such a good opportunity within those—we will have representation from industry, which understands some of the issues, and there will be representatives from our investors across the sector. From our members’ feedback, I think that is where they would see that input: in those broader ways.
Catherine Fookes
Q
David Whitehouse: Let me talk about inclusivity in general terms. I am studying for a master’s in renewables; I am the energy transition, albeit slightly older. When we talk about inclusivity, those who come from an oil and gas heritage are sometimes excluded from the conversation. You need all those voices. When I talk about inclusivity, it is about “bring all the voices”.
How do we improve what we are doing? I have a couple of brief comments. Speaking personally, I thought the legislation on the gender pay gap was excellent. What does it do? It makes conversations and debates happen. Last week in the sector, we spoke about Vision 2030—how we are going to deliver on a sector that is truly inclusive, that looks like the future, not the past, and that is attracting the next generation, with commitments about targets that we wish to achieve.
There are seven pillars on the path to getting there. How do we do that? You need commitment from leaders in the sector; I think we can give you that. You need some targets; I think we can give you them. We also need a plan of action that holds us to account. I come back to the path to net zero: we will not do this if we are not inclusive and not attracting across the entire spectrum, the entire country.
The Chair
Order. I think we can say that that is fairly close to being outside the scope of the Bill. I am absolutely confident that the next question will be within it.
Uma Kumaran
Q
David Whitehouse: I am an engineer, so it is simple engineering stuff. Collaboration: I was pleased to see the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments welcome this. I do not think GB Energy is the convening force in and of itself, but the convening power, which means we have Governments around the country working together for a common goal, is an important part of what GB Energy can provide a focus for.
Collaboration is really important. We need collaboration among our regulators. We have a complex regulatory framework. The view many of our members take is that to change our regulatory framework to be exactly what we require for this journey would take so long that the train would have gone. What GB Energy will do, and what it can see and help with, is alignment between our regulatory bodies—bodies in the devolved Governments and the wider UK Government. It will also see what the other barriers to investment are.
I think there is good cross-party consensus about the journey we need to go on to drive collaboration. Looking at what needs to be done to help with the simple co-ordination between different competing projects can drive down costs and drive efficiency. We should look at what we can do to reduce the cycle time. There is 15 years from licence to electricity—unfortunately, in my experience, I am probably on year 30 from carbon storage to actually injecting it. There is a significant role there that GB Energy should be growing into, and it should be playing in that space.
The Chair
I apologise for the slight distraction at this end of the table. We have been trying to juggle timings in connection with the imminent Division.
As there are no further questions, Mr Whitehouse, may I thank you for your contribution? We are most grateful.
Examination of Witness
Andy Prendergast gave evidence.
The Chair
We are likely to have a Division in the House, so I am afraid that we will have to ask you—if you have the time, Mr Prendergast—to allow us to go and vote and then come back if we have not finished your evidence session.
Andy Prendergast: Yes, that is fine.
The Chair
You are most kind. With that in mind, we will now hear evidence from Andy Prendergast, who is the national secretary of the GMB. We have until 4.30 pm, in theory, but we may be interrupted. Mr Prendergast, for the benefit of the record could you identify yourself?
Andy Prendergast: I am Andy Prendergast, national secretary of GMB union.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Andy Prendergast: We see GB Energy as a long-overdue, desperately needed step. As a country, and as someone who works for a union supporting tens of thousands of energy workers and people who work in energy-intensive industries, there is a real problem at the moment when we look across the world at the investments being made in green technologies and what other Governments are doing to ensure that those investments lead to jobs and supply chains in their nations. What we see in Britain is a complete failure to match that, whether it is the Inflation Reduction Act in America, or European subsidies.
As a union, we regularly sit down with investors who have shovel-ready projects that have the opportunity and potential to transform huge swathes of Britain in areas that we have called “left behind”, “post-industrial” or “red wall”, but we simply cannot get the support to get those through. The investors are telling us that if they decide to put their site in Philadelphia, they get huge subsidies and tax breaks; if they decide to put it in Germany, they get subsidies and Government support, but in Britain there is simply a void.
I have heard quite a lot of people talk about the importance of supply chains. I will be honest: for my union, we do not necessarily see that to the same degree. If we look at offshore wind, we see jackets, technology and blades that are not made in Britain. We have huge swathes of the country where people are willing and able to work, yet they are sitting there watching this technology be imported in. In the case of the Methil fabrication site in Scotland, which is currently sitting without work, they are watching the wind turbines that they could be building being put up in the sea in front of them. We need to avoid that, and I think GB Energy is the first step to doing that—a step, frankly, that should have been taken a long time ago.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Do you think that the aims and objects of this Bill go wide enough? Do you think that there is broad enough scope for the different technologies that GB Energy will have to invest in? We have heard the CCSA raise slight concerns that there might not be the scope for investment in carbon capture, for example, where a lot of new jobs are going to be created, and presumably a lot of those will be members of the GMB.
Andy Prendergast: We fought for carbon capture to be included. As far as we are concerned, having checked the wording, we think that is covered. An issue we have on the scope is whether the funds are sufficient to back the ambition. Before the election, we were talking £28 billion at one point. What we have offers a huge scale and a huge opportunity, and while ultimately we would like to see more money, this is genuine, real money that was not there before. That is a step in the right direction. From a trade unionist point of view, I very frequently argue about a lack of money—we do it on a daily basis everywhere.
Another concern with the Bill, which I think the Bill itself addresses, is the relationship between GB Energy and GB Nuclear. We desperately need new nuclear. We are waiting for the decision on Sizewell and we would like to see the decision on Wylfa as well as small modular reactors. There is a genuine question about whether SMRs fit under the remit of GB Energy or GB Nuclear, and it needs to be resolved. SMRs are another of those technologies that British brains created but, if we are not careful, we will see the supply chains go overseas. It is an industry that is likely to be £180 billion within a decade. The choice we have with that is either to support British companies such as Rolls-Royce or, as with wind, to import this key technology that should be supporting companies and jobs throughout Britain.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Andy Prendergast: I am not necessarily saying that it needs to be in the Bill, but it needs to happen quite quickly. The Bill refers to the fact that it needs to be bottomed out, and every route we look at to net zero requires a huge increase in the amount of nuclear power. We need that decision on Sizewell quite quickly. I do not look at that as key to GB Energy, but it needs to be resolved.
Josh MacAlister
Q
Andy Prendergast: The most important thing to say about nuclear is that the nuclear industry in Britain is, to a degree, a tragedy. We invented it. The first civil nuclear site in the world was British, and yet when we came to Hinkley Point, we had to import the know-how and technology and reinvent the wheel. What we have done in Hinkley Point has been amazing. The site employs tens of thousands of people and provides real, skilled jobs—the kind of jobs people are proud to do, which is very important.
If we look at the lessons we learned from Hinkley and transfer them to Sizewell, we start speeding up the process. If we then go on to Wylfa, it becomes easier to take them through. The key thing it shows is that we cannot have those huge gaps. When we have gaps, we lose the skills. What is frightening for us in so many areas is that we are talking about an energy transformation, but we simply do not have the skills to transform at the speed we need to.
There is an estimated lack of 40,000 welders in this country. In the near future we will need more pylons, a huge amount of work on the water mains, SMRs, CCS and hydrogen. I sat on a load of Government bodies with the last Government, and all I kept hearing was, “We need more welders.” You had to take a view that, sadly, repeating “We need more welders” does not magically lead to a lot of welders showing up. We need the investment in the skills and in the supply chain to ensure that we get the right people in the right place.
It is important to say that welding jobs are fantastically well paid. They are jobs that get paid more than most people in this room. There should not be a problem employing welders in this country if we simply resort to capitalism, so if there is a problem, how do we identify it and how do we get around it?
Josh MacAlister
Thank you. I think I should have declared an interest at the start of that question as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy.
The Chair
Thank you. That is a matter of record, and I gently advise any other Members who have a similar interest to declare it.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Andy Prendergast: From a lot of the conversations we have had, talking about a one-stop shop, assistance in planning and further regulatory support, I think that is something that will evolve over time and will be matched by the funding. An investment vehicle is badly needed on its own because it is something we do not have, which makes us almost unique among advanced economies. Looking at the Bill itself, there are parts that could be fleshed out. We would like to see more about skills, as I just mentioned, and there are some parts that we need to look at, but that is an evolutionary process as opposed to something we definitely need in the Bill now.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Andy Prendergast: If I may take the second part first, one key thing the public want is to see lower energy bills. We know that. A potential issue with GB Energy being so popular is that, to a degree, not everyone knew what it was. Some people think it will lead to an immediate reduction in energy bills. We are likely to see that over a longer period of time, but GB Energy needs to make the investments in new technologies that we have failed to make and that we have too often missed the boat on. If you compare us to Denmark, for example, 14% of its exports are in green technology. That is because it has Ørsted, which is very similar to what we are trying to do with GB Energy, but ultimately it has had a long run into this and has stolen a march. What GB Energy belatedly allows us to do is potentially to steal a march on some of the new technologies that have not been exploited, with a view to supporting those supply chains in the important parts.
Could you repeat the first part of your question, please?
Stephen Flynn
It was about the quantum that is available. You referred to IRA and the EU’s corresponding investment. The quantum for GB Energy is £8.3 billion over the course of five years, or £1.6 billion per year. Do you think that is sufficient to meet the objectives laid out in the Bill?
Andy Prendergast: I think it is sufficient to make some of them and sufficient to make a difference; it is not sufficient to make as much of a difference as we would like it to, but compared with what we had beforehand, it is light years ahead of where we have been.
Olivia Blake
Q
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”—
in the Bill for your members, given the global situation in which we find ourselves? Secondly, which of the objects in the Bill will have the most impact, or in what ways will the Bill have an impact on your members?
Andy Prendergast: The first point about energy supply was really brought home around the start of the Ukraine war, which exposed how unprepared we were. Whereas your average European country had months of gas supplies, we had a matter of weeks. We went into that war with the largest gas supply place in the world, Rough, unused. One thing we must understand, with the evolving nature of Government, is what is the very minimum that we expect Government to do. I think the very minimum people expect Government to do now is to keep the lights on and keep us secure. That is how important energy is. Sometimes, when you speak to some politicians, there is almost a view that energy is an optional extra, but I do not think that that has been the case for about 150 years. God forbid we go back to that.
When we talk about energy supply and security, it is about two things—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Mr Prendergast, I am sorry that you were interrupted. It was very good of you to stay. I believe I am right in saying that Ms Blake had a second question.
Olivia Blake
Q
Andy Prendergast: Both in terms of shoring up the jobs we currently have and potentially creating the jobs we so desperately need, one of our real concerns about net zero is the fact that, in a lot of countries, there is a perception that net zero is something being done to people, not with them. Look at the response in America, which is very much typified by “Drill, baby, drill”; look at Germany, where, bizarrely, Alternative für Deutschland is organising around heat pumps. We already have Reform UK talking about fighting the next election on the basis of net zero.
What we have recognised is that we have to make net zero work for people, and we think the best way of making that happen is to ensure that net zero comes with jobs and opportunities. The simple reality is that, if we get it right, those jobs and opportunities are going to be in the post-industrial areas. We have seen the maps put forward by people in the hydrogen lobby and from carbon capture and storage. These are jobs in places that desperately need them. If we are going to be serious about levelling up and making sure that prosperity is spread in Britain, we need to rebuild those industrial heartlands with proper, decent technologies that we can start exporting.
Andrew Pakes
Q
Andy Prendergast: That is a very good question. We have been really pleased to see that the role of trade unions is incorporated in the Bill, although we do need to flesh out exactly how that works.
Your criticism of the renewables industry, particularly for members of the GMB, is absolutely critical. When people talk about our role in industry, what they are often talking about is the white-collar jobs—the ones in universities, getting the technology. They are not talking about the blue-collar jobs, which, at the moment, are the ones in the energy sector that are very well unionised, with good rates of pay and excellent terms and conditions, and which give the security that families and communities need for the long term.
What really concerns us about the renewables industry so far is that it came with the promise of mass jobs that simply have not materialised. Alex Salmond promised 30,000 jobs in offshore wind; 10 years later, fewer than 10,000 have been delivered. Particularly when you are looking at maintenance jobs, you are talking about jobs that are subcontracted with terrible terms and conditions and that are anti-union. When we look at the success that places like America or Europe have had in renewables, trade unions are at the heart of that.
What we have seen so far is a real willingness from the Government to work with both ourselves and employers. One of the bizarre things about it is that those coalitions really have an impact. One of the most surprising days in my job was attending a meeting here and being praised by a Tory MP, which I never thought would happen—it was one of those pinch-yourself moments. It was in relation to Hinkley Point: it was recognised that we had a huge role there in helping to develop the workforce and to manage the process of ensuring both that they benefited and that we got things done quickly and properly.
If we get that right, this is an opportunity to bring not just jobs but good jobs. In a lot of the areas that we are talking about, we have this constant debate about “red wall” and about “post-industrial”. It is not that there are no jobs there; it is just that the jobs being brought in are not very good ones. They are not jobs that offer permanent contracts. They are not jobs that offer good pensions, sick pay or opportunities for advancement. They are zero-hours contracts—got here today, gone tomorrow—that give people very little pride. This is an opportunity to reverse that 40-year decline in our industrial base and do something positive about it.
Uma Kumaran
Q
Andy Prendergast: Part of this is about listening without prejudice. Look, we are going to be absolute clear: we agree with the Labour Government on a huge swathe of things, but one thing we do not agree on is the ending of oil and gas licences. We look at oil and gas licences and every single scenario into the future requires us to have oil and gas. We as a nation have a choice. We either take it for ourselves, with high working and environmental standards, or we import it from a number of frankly disreputable regimes.
Part of that transition has to be listening to those communities and the people doing the jobs and actually take their expertise. We are absolutely clear—and I think it is obvious to anyone with half a brain—that global warming is happening and the speed at which is happening is quicker. It is the biggest challenge that humanity has faced, certainly in my lifetime, and we need to deal with it. The concern for us, and this relates to what I was talking about earlier, is that if we get this wrong and we do not listen to communities and do not bring them with us, we risk getting a reaction against that, which is what we have seen in America and Europe. Then, instead of doing it a little bit slower but in a demonstrable and deliverable way, we end up with an electorate being offered simple solutions and quick fixes, and ultimately due to a mixture of climate pessimism and snake oil salesmen, they take the wrong decision. We have to look at some of this from a pragmatic angle, ask what is best in the national interest and listen to the workers and communities who are currently benefiting.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Andy Prendergast: The role of trade unions is key. I have always had a very simple view: trade unions are about democracy at work. We are a country that believes in democracy so much that we invade other countries to give it to them whether they want it or not, and yet the idea of democratisation at the workplace is an anathema—certainly to what was over half of Parliament.
We need to listen to workers and ensure that they share in the success of businesses and ultimately that their sacrifices and those of their families are recognised. When we look at the work that is going to be coming out, we know that we have to do this. We have been asking for an industrial plan for years, and I think GB Energy is part of that industrial plan. That industrial plan has to be a road map of how we do this properly, how we engage those communities and how we provide the support necessary to make a transition.
I mentioned going to Denmark. When I was there, something fascinating happened: they closed a bacon plant, which was 1,000 jobs. You sit there and say, “That’s terrible. In Britain, we’d be fighting that. We’d be on picket lines.” In Denmark, because of the support given in social security and retraining, and the industrial strategy, it was seen as an opportunity for people to get better jobs. That was also helped an awful lot by the fact that those people were getting 90% of their salary paid for up to a year, so people thought, “Well, it’s a better job and a bit of a holiday in the meantime.” That shows what happens when you engage people properly.
What you ended up with is something that would decimate a community in Britain but rejuvenated a community in Denmark. That is because there was a tripartite strategy of listening to unions, talking to Government and talking to employers, and everyone put their heads together to come up with a solution to what would clearly be a problem. We have failed at that in Britain for years.
The Chair
Mr Prendergast, thank you very much indeed for your patience and for answering our questions this afternoon. The Committee is indebted to you. I am most grateful.
Would the Minister leading on the Bill like to meta-morphose himself and take the witness stand?
Examination of Witness
Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Michael Shanks: Good afternoon. I am Michael Shanks, the Minister for Energy.
Andrew Bowie
Q
“There will be a range of projects, in some of which we will certainly have the controlling stake, and some of which we might help to get over the line, but in every single project there will be a return for the British taxpayer.” —[Official Report, 26 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 939.]
We have already talked about how GB Energy will be important—almost the key partner in investing in riskier technologies. How can you guarantee that every single project will have a return for the British taxpayer?
Michael Shanks: It is important to say that the return for the taxpayer will take different forms. We have been really clear in all the briefings we have done on the Bill and in the founding statement that in some we will take an equity stake, in some there will be debt financing, and in others we might provide some of the capacity for organisations to take forward some of the funding or project delivery themselves. In each one of those, we expect that GB Energy will play a part in delivering those projects, getting them over the line and delivering for the British people. That will be done in a variety of ways.
Some of it will absolutely be money coming back to GB Energy, which we have said will either be further invested in more projects or give a return to the Treasury to fund public services in different ways, but it might also be that on community energy, for example, we help community projects to get up and running. That also delivers a return for those communities.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: I am saying very clearly that the aim of setting up GB Energy is that, like other countries right across the world, we can have a stake in some of the projects we are delivering. That is quite normal in many European countries. Indeed, the previous Government found it acceptable for those projects to set up in the UK too; it is just that they did not want the UK to have a stake in any publicly owned energy. It is a very common method of delivering projects like this, and giving a return to the British taxpayer is important. It will take many different forms.
In time, there will absolutely be a significant financial return on many of these projects, but in some of them, as you rightly say, de-risking them and getting them over the line will involve us taking a strategy that means that, on individual projects, we might not make an immediate return. But the overall vision of GB Energy is that it will play a part in helping us achieve our targets by 2030, and the British public will have a stake in that future. That is something we believe in, and we hope all Members of Parliament support it.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: I think there are two different questions there. If you look at the rest of Europe, there are fantastic companies—EDF, Ørsted, Statkraft—that are delivering many of these projects in the UK. It is a model that clearly works, and that delivers economic and social benefits to those countries and to the people living in them. If we look at the price spike when Ukraine was invaded, EDF was able to mitigate some of that significant rise in bills for people in France. We are not saying that within six months of setting up GB Energy, it is going to compete with Equinor or Ørsted—of course we are not—but it is important that we start that journey. Of course, all these publicly owned companies started somewhere. They have been able to invest in the future to get to the scale that they are now, and to deliver significant projects in the process.
The second point of the question is important. GB Energy is not designed to displace any of those companies—or any other companies, incidentally—in delivering projects in the UK. It is about crowding in additional investment. We know that 2030 is going to be a real challenge. We have been very clear that we have set a target that we think is extremely ambitious, but achievable. When NESO publishes its road map shortly, it will give the detail on how we are going to get there. But we have to start somewhere, and I think GB Energy is a critical part of delivering that and will play a significant role in getting us to 2030—and, crucially, beyond 2030.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Moving on, some concern has been raised today that there has not been very much clarification, or that there is some confusion, over the status, operational independence and autonomy of Great British Nuclear within GB Energy. I wondered if you might expand on that and maybe think about putting something in the Bill regarding Great British Nuclear and its relationship with Great British Energy.
Michael Shanks: That is a really important question. We have said throughout that we want to have further discussions about the role of Great British Nuclear. I think folding it into Great British Energy is probably not the right solution, because what is really important—credit to your Government for doing this—is that the board of Great British Nuclear has significant expertise in nuclear projects. I think that is important for us to maintain. Clearly, there will be synergies and work together on certain projects, but they have, in some ways, quite different remits in terms of the investments we expect them to make, so I think they probably will remain in some form independent of each other. Clearly, the partnership working between them will be important, and we will say more on that in the coming months.
Andrew Bowie
I agree with you entirely on what you said about Great British Nuclear. Sir Roger, I think we should note that the Minister has just credited the former Government with something. I think it is the first time—
Michael Shanks: I think I credited you earlier as well. This is becoming a habit.
Andrew Bowie
Q
Michael Shanks: No, I will not be. To be fair to Juergen Maier, what he said very clearly was that in the initial set-up phase and for some time afterwards, we are talking employees in the hundreds based in the headquarters. Eventually, we think it may expand beyond that in Aberdeen and in the satellite offices, and indeed in any other set-ups that we have across the UK. I think the critical point on jobs is that the role of GB Energy is to invest in projects where we are creating new well-paid, trade-unionised jobs in the UK. That is critical. The jobs are not necessarily going to be in the headquarters of GB Energy, but they will be created by GB Energy’s investment. That is where the tens of thousands of jobs right across the UK will come from.
The Chair
I understand that that was out of order this morning, but you got your answer in the end.
Perran Moon
Q
I can safely say that the people of Cornwall are really excited about GB Energy. Expectations are very high. We are a post-industrial community that has suffered for decades from lack of investment. More recently, however, we have discovered that investment is now going into our tin industry; we have the third highest-grade tin deposits in the world. We also have lithium. We face the Celtic sea, so we have a huge opportunity with offshore wind and onshore wind. We have companies setting up in geothermal, solar and tidal, and we have the country’s largest ground source heat pump.
Can you elaborate on the potential benefits for communities such as Cornwall, where we have such a wide array of opportunity, and say how GB Energy will support those opportunities? And if I may be a little bit cheeky, we have heard quite a lot today about the head office being set up in Aberdeen with satellite offices being set up in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but I will just point out that there is another corner of the United Kingdom that would be delighted to have a satellite office.
Michael Shanks: May I thank you for the question? I think that, in asking it, you have successfully elaborated on all the potentials of Cornwall, which I am sure your constituents will be delighted about.
However, you make a really important point on two fronts. The aim of GB Energy is to crowd in investment in projects right across the United Kingdom. Yes, we are very proud to say that the headquarters will be in Scotland and—importantly—specifically in Aberdeen, as the Prime Minister announced. That is partly to recognise the energy story in the north-east of Scotland for the last 60 years in oil and gas, and the importance of the transition. However, it is also important to say that on the renewables journey Scotland has also been leading the way and will continue to do so in so many ways. It is right that the headquarters is in Aberdeen, building on the talent, experience and skills that are already there.
On the broader point, though, there are real opportunities for investments in every corner of the UK. To go back to some of the earlier points that witnesses made, this is a combination of policies; it is not just GB Energy in isolation. We have been really clear that we are a Government that are not agnostic about industrial strategy, and that we want to see manufacturing in the UK, and the thousands of jobs that could have been created by some of our offshore wind projects, for example, but actually went to other countries before we towed the projects into British waters. We want to see those jobs in this country and that will create opportunities across the country in the supply chains, in skill developments and in lots of other opportunities, including in Cornwall.
Although I absolutely cannot commit to opening an office in Cornwall and I would like the record to reflect that, I think there will be opportunities for your part of the world and indeed for the whole of the UK.
Harriet Cross
Q
Michael Shanks: That is a really fair question. The question of risk appetite is important; that is partly why setting up GB Energy as a company, regulated by the Companies Act and with a fiduciary board made up of financial experts who have a responsibility as a board of directors for the direction of the company and for its financial results, is so important.
There has to be some risk appetite, and one of the earlier witnesses made a point that I would agree with—if there are absolutely no projects that do not have any risk at all, GB Energy is not really filling the gap. It is really important that GB Energy can move in the spaces where the current investors are not necessarily finding those opportunities. Crucially, however, GB Energy is obviously owned by the taxpayer and therefore, as a backstop, there is a real conviction that it will only invest in things that have a likelihood of producing a return for the taxpayer.
Of course, when we get into making individual decisions, that is partly why it is important the Bill does not go into a granular level of detail on every single thing that GB Energy will do, because it is really important that we give that board, those experts and everyone they bring in to advise them, the space to move into opportunities as they emerge.
If we were to go back five or 10 years, we would not have thought that we were about to have the world’s biggest floating offshore wind farm off the coast of the UK. That would not be on the face of a Bill like this, but actually it is a huge potential opportunity for us and we would like those kinds of opportunities to be open to GB Energy to explore.
Olivia Blake
Q
Josh MacAlister
He has had this from every Scottish MP for the past six months.
Olivia Blake
Well, we have not heard enough about God’s own county here today.
There has been a lot of positivity from witnesses; some of them seemed quite excited about the Bill. I want to understand, from your perspective, why it has taken a change of Government to see this sort of Bill come forward, and what your ambition is for it.
Michael Shanks: That is really important. Last week, I visited Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, the last coal-powered station in the UK, and it was a good example of the just transition in practice. It was the right thing that we phased out coal; the TUC itself confirmed that that was exactly how to deal with workers in such a difficult situation where you are moving people from one industry and transitioning them into something else. It was a properly planned process, which is what we want to see in industry.
You are right: we absolutely want to avoid what happened with coalmining in the 1980s. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: this Government are not agnostic about the future of jobs and manufacturing in our industrial communities right across the country. It is important that we invest in them not only because, frankly, we are in a race against the world for all the parts we need to deliver the future of energy, and we will need to produce some of them in this country, but because good, well-paid, skilled jobs are how we will manage the transition in a fair and prosperous way. It is critical for us.
I think it matches other policies. Yes, GB Energy will be a key part, but the industrial strategy will also be important. The national wealth fund and a whole range of levers will be important. The office for clean energy jobs is all about saying that, as a Government, we are committed to the future of this workforce and to creating tens of thousands of new jobs that do not currently exist.
Wera Hobhouse
Q
Michael Shanks: I think it is a combination of things. I urge you to read the Great British Energy founding statement document alongside the Bill, because it is important. The Bill is about setting up a company, and what we do not want to do is hamstring that company by putting in so much detail that it cannot move into the right places that give good investment opportunities for the taxpayer and deliver good energy projects.
The statement makes it clear that community energy, for example, is a key part of our local power plan. We want to see many more community-owned energy projects, for a combination of reasons. They have real social and economic benefits for communities. For us, there is the belief that communities having a stake in those projects is important: communities having ownership and feeling part of the mission will help us with some of the arguments for the amount of infrastructure that we will have to build in the next few years. Also, in certain areas we want small-scale generation projects to have access to connections that bigger projects cannot have. Frankly, in a lot of cases, building the power generation near the population is where we have issues with spatial energy planning across the country.
There are huge opportunities. We are committed to increasing community ownership. We have also said in the local power plan that it could look like municipal ownership of certain generation projects, or it could look like local authorities or combined authorities. We are quite open about what it looks like, but we want to create a landscape where Great British Energy can invest and also provide some capacity to help organisations to get over the line. We all know that local government is struggling and is on its knees right across the country, after years of underfunding. The capacity to deliver a lot of the projects is not there, so GB Energy can fill that gap.
Catherine Fookes
Q
Michael Shanks: That is an important question. We have done several different things already. I have had many conversations with my counterparts in the Welsh Government, in the Scottish Government and, to a different degree, in the Northern Ireland Executive. Energy is of course transferred in Northern Ireland, but we are keen that they are still part of the Bill, so that they can benefit from some of the GB Energy possibilities, although it will be a different relationship because they are part of a different grid.
All my conversations with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have been about how we collaborate, not just on the formal process of consulting on the statement of priorities, but on how they can be part of helping GB Energy to set its priorities on an ongoing basis. On Monday, I met the Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government. We talked about, for example, the Scottish Government having a role in a much wider sense in the company to help with some of the priorities in Scotland.
There are a variety of ways. What is critical is that the devolved Administrations should absolutely be consulted, and we want that to be an open process, but we have also reset the relationships with the devolved Administrations in a way that means that this is not now a combative process. Across the UK, we have broadly the same outcomes in mind for clean power, with slightly different targets here and there, but we are all on the same journey. That allows us to align a lot of our priorities and to deliver for people all across the UK. I want that to be an open and collaborative approach. Consultation is the formal part, but it is not the limit of what we think can happen.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Michael Shanks: In the election, we committed that bills would come down. That figure was from independent analysts. We never said that bills would come down overnight; this is a process that will take time. GB Energy is part of delivering that. Without GB Energy, it would be harder to reach our targets by 2030 and to bring down bills for everyone. The reality with bills is that we remain far too wedded to fossil fuels; whether they come from the North sea or not, they are traded on the international market and we are subject to all the spikes, so reducing our dependence on unabated gas is critical. That is why I hope that all Members will vote to support GB Energy as part of the solution, including you.
Uma Kumaran
Q
“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”.
For our constituents watching at home, which I choose to believe they are, what does the Bill actually mean for energy security? What does it mean for our constituents in the years ahead?
Michael Shanks: Our constituents and the wider population are watching every moment of this sitting, I have no doubt.
That is an important question. Security of supply is one of the critical questions that we have to answer. We have this challenge at the moment of how we bring down bills; how we move towards our climate targets for clean power, which is essential; and how we ensure security of supply. The only way—the only long-term solution—is for us to move to cheaper renewable energy at pace. Every single year that we are dependent on volatile fossil fuel markets, we open ourselves to the kind of exposure that people have still been paying the price for in the past few years. That cannot continue.
We will not be able to flick a switch overnight. We have come in after 14 years of chaos, frankly, in so much of government, and we are doing as much as we can to move at pace, but this is the journey that we need to be on. As I have said, 2030 is ambitious, but it is absolutely achievable. I was heartened when every single one of our witnesses today confirmed that although this is an ambitious programme, they see GB Energy as a critical part—not a silver bullet; of course it is not, and we never said that it is—in moving us toward energy security, cheaper bills and the climate leadership that the public want.
Pippa Heylings
Q
Michael Shanks: There are two separate things here: the objects in the Bill, which are around the restrictions placed on Great British Energy, and the five key functions, which are outlined in the founding statement. I was referring to the five key functions, one of which is the local power plan, which is how we think we will deliver a lot more community-owned energy.
The important thing about the Bill is that we do not want inadvertently to create a list of things that we think are good to have—I do not disagree with you at all about the importance of that—but that actually end up restricting it in ways that we do not expect. There is that danger with Bills like this; it was the same with Great British Nuclear and the UK Infrastructure Bank, where they have a clear, focused remit. There is nothing in the objects that prevents community energy projects—in fact, they are intrinsic to several of them—but we think that adding more and more detail, including the amendment that you propose, is not the right way to go. But it is clear in the founding statement, in the evidence from Juergen Maier and in numerous answers from the Secretary of State and me that this is something to which we are absolutely committed.
Torcuil Crichton
Q
Michael Shanks: That is really important. There are two strands to this. The capacity building point, to which you allude, is critical. A lot of communities absolutely have the possibility, the option and the potential for some of these projects, but just do not have the capacity to deliver them. We see that as a critical role that GB Energy could have, as a sort of one-stop shop of experts to provide that support, help with the essential pre-planning work and help to navigate the connections issues.
The second point around connections is really important, and it is something I am focusing a lot of time on within my wider remit as Minister: how do we clear the connections queue, while also prioritising the projects that we want to get connected much faster? Some of that will require us simply to build more network infrastructure to alleviate the pressures; some of it is building on the work that the previous Government did around prioritising the queue.
There are difficult trade-offs. Far be it from me to give credit to the former Minister again, but there are trade-offs because it is important for us not to say that one project is more valuable than the other. There might be, for example, mechanisms around saying that one is more likely to be connected faster, or is further through its delivery phase and should therefore get priority over something else. There are also a lot of projects still in the queue that just should not be there at all, because they are nowhere near ready to be delivered. It is important that we work on both those things, but GB Energy can be a real catalyst for communities to unleash the potential that they have. I am really excited about the opportunities that are there.
In closing, may I thank Committee members for their forbearance today? Can I also say that it is the first time since 2010 that a Minister has given evidence in a Bill Committee? I am glad that this Labour Government have brought back the practice of Government Ministers being responsible to Parliament and answering these questions. I look forward to doing more of that in future.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna Turley.)