Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Andrew Bowie and Stephen Flynn

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in particular, direct Great British Energy that any revenues generated from activities of Great British Energy in relation to resources located in Scotland must be invested back into projects located in Scotland.”

Good morning.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Hear, hear!

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the shadow Minister for that warm welcome. What a delight it is to be back in Committee Room 10 on a Tuesday morning to discuss the Great British Energy Bill.

Last week, we all spoke at length about the massive opportunities in the renewable energy sector in the UK and particularly in Scotland. From fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind to green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, tidal and wave, pumped storage hydro, onshore wind and so forth, Scotland has a plethora of resources. I believe it was the chief executive officer of the Confederation of British Industry who said last week that Scotland’s renewables sector could unlock economic growth for the UK—imagine what it could do for Scotland’s economy.

It is important to reflect on the fact that over the past 50 or 60 years or so of North sea oil and gas, £450 billion has flowed from Scotland’s waters down to Whitehall. Can anyone seriously and reasonably argue that Scotland’s society reflects the magnitude of that wealth in our public environment, our infrastructure or our energy projects, which are in their infancy? They should be much further on, using the wealth that we had accumulated over many decades.

I do not want to see the same mistake repeated. I want to see the revenue generated from Scotland’s energy resources returned to Scotland so that we can ensure a society that is greener, more inclusive and fairer, and that delivers the continual economic growth that we so badly need. Scotland produces six times more gas than we consume, with some 28 to 36 GW of floating offshore wind coming down the pipeline—and that is before I get into all the other energies that are keen to come on stream should the Government finally put in the financial mechanisms to support them.

That affords Scotland the ability to have a competitive advantage, not to repeat what Ireland has done on corporation tax—we cannot all chase the same reduction, which would be a race to the bottom—but to create a competitive advantage that attracts big business to Scotland based on the energy that we consume. The prize is so great that we surely cannot miss out on it. I appreciate that Members around this Committee Room in the United Kingdom Parliament may not share my enthusiasm for Scotland to have its resources returned, but it is an important point to engage with.

[Andrew Bowie]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

Always.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he share my concern that—should the amendment be agreed to and should the Minister consent to any revenue generated from Scotland by GB Energy being returned to Scotland—the Scottish Government will not be competent enough to deal with it, given that in only six years they have squandered the £700 million generated from the ScotWind leasing round, which was returned directly to Scotland to plug gaps in their own Budget and was not invested in new energy projects, new technology or new infrastructure across Scotland?

[Stephen Flynn]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think she is being slightly unfair. When I was Networks Minister, we commissioned and accepted every one of Nick Winser’s recommendations on how we could speed up connection times, improve the national grid, build new infrastructure and ensure that the queueing system was brought into a much better shape than we found it in when we came into office in 2010—

[Stephen Flynn]

Why did you step down?

[The Chair]

Order. Will you stop chuntering from a sedentary position?

[Andrew Bowie]

However, I accept that more work can be done.

[Stephen Flynn]

In fairness to Committee members who may not have been here, perhaps the shadow Minister will remind us why he chose to step down as the Minister with responsibility for the grid.

[Andrew Bowie]

When I was moved to the position of Renewables Minister, it was impossible for me to carry on also being the Networks Minister. It is clear what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at: namely, the situation in the country today, where many communities feel under siege because they are hosting this new energy infrastructure—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs at the words “under siege”, but they do feel that.

Communities in this country face the prospect of new pylons, new energy infrastructure, new substations and battery storage facilities being built in the countryside. That industrialisation of the countryside is the reason that we proposed a review to investigate the costs of other technology that would not be so invasive of their communities, their landscape and the land in which they live and work. That is why we did that, and that is what I was about to speak about, but the right hon. Gentleman provoked me into coming to it earlier than I had planned.

We need to get this right. We need to take the country with us and have a discussion with the country about consent and consultation. It is about doing things not to communities but with and for communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

It was inspirational. The Minister is absolutely right; they were inspirational speeches. Indeed, we talked about those issues at great length. When in government, I was proud to launch a consultation on community benefits, for example, which has still not been implemented. Although it is outside the scope of our discussion, it would be interesting to get an update from the Government on when they will bring forward the community benefits package and if any changes will be made to the package unveiled by us last November.

I return to the discussion on consultation and consent. In an attempt to reduce the burden on communities, we pledged to have a review into the presumption for overhead lines and to examine all other options that would be cost-comparable so as not to inflict that huge burden on communities.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am listening closely to the shadow Minister, and I am a little confused. On the one hand, he seems to be in favour of making sure that the grid capacity is there; on the other hand, he seems to be sticking up barriers to that grid capacity coming on stream and using terms like “reviews” and “consultations” that have no appropriate timescale attributed to them. What does he want to happen?

[Andrew Bowie]

Both can be achieved. Of course we need to improve the national grid and grid connectivity times. When I was in a ministerial position, not a day went past when a colleague did not come up to me on behalf of an individual, company or organisation that had been given grid connectivity times of seven, eight, nine or 10 years, and sometimes even more. That is an impossible place for the country to be in. It is preventing inward investment and holding back the economy, so we need to improve the national grid, review the queuing system and improve connectivity times, but we need to do it in a way that brings the country with us and does not inflict misery on the communities that are being asked to host this huge infrastructure on behalf of the rest of the nation. That is why we need to get it right and examine all the available options. We need to examine whether undergrounding or offshoring could be cost-comparable or preferable to overhead lines when we move forward.

[Stephen Flynn]

The shadow Minister is being generous with his time, as always. What sort of timeframe would he associate with that level of engagement going forward? He seems to lack certainty on what that new technology would be. Can he advise us of the cost savings that would go to the consumer from these new technologies, which I am not aware of and do not think that any Member in this room is aware of?

[Andrew Bowie]

It is precisely because we do not have all the answers that we commissioned that review in the very last days of the last Parliament, which we committed to in our manifesto and which sadly has been abandoned by the Labour Government.

It should be incumbent on Great British Energy to take into account the challenges that we all acknowledge we face to ensure that the investments that it undertakes give the best value for money on behalf of British taxpayers, whose money is invested in the funds for the company. It should also ensure that each project has grid connectivity available at the right time so that it is a worthwhile investment and returns can be realised as soon as possible from each investment.

Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Andrew Bowie and Stephen Flynn

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

I do not disagree entirely with the hon. Lady. I think we should be aiming to reduce the cost to taxpayers, and that investing in new cleaner technologies, including nuclear, will see energy bills fall in the long run—so why not have that as one of the objects of the company in the Bill? The Bill states that the objects of Great British Energy will be

“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from 15 fossil fuels…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”

There is not one mention of reducing consumers’ bills. Surely we want to enshrine that in the legislation, if that is indeed one of the aims of the creation of this company.

My amendment 12 would include the necessity to present

“a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years.”

Transparency and accountability should be key to the operation of GB Energy, particularly when the investments and activities that the organisation undertakes have a potential impact on household bills for every family in this country. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the amendment, Dr Huq; I do so to ensure that the Bill makes provision for GB Energy to be held accountable on its aim to reduce energy bills for households.

It is in the best interests of GB Energy and of the British public that the company have a clear directive to ensure, through investment in clean energy technology, that the cost of household energy is reduced. Labour MPs made clear the intention of GB Energy to reduce bills—indeed, they campaigned extensively on the £300 reduction—so I hope that they will support amendment 12, which would support them in achieving that goal, along with including provisions on accountability and transparency to the public on the overall impact of GB Energy’s investments on consumer bills.

[Stephen Flynn]

I rise to support amendment 24, which is broadly similar to the shadow Minister’s amendment 11. I am intrigued by the discussion that we have had, various aspects of which appeared to disagree with evidence we have heard.

First, the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam, if I picked her up correctly, made great play of the fact that GB Energy will reduce costs. Yet just a couple of days ago, each and every one of us was in the room with the chair of GB Energy, who was very clear that reducing bills

“is not the scope of Great British Energy”.––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q5.]

We can all watch the footage online, and we can all read Hansard.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made the argument that the £300 promise was not actually a promise. Which is it? Will it or will it not reduce costs?

Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Andrew Bowie and Stephen Flynn

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Q I think we are all agreed that

“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 You have spoken eloquently and rightly about the energy transition, jobs, skills and STEM, but I have double checked and the Bill contains absolutely no detail about any of those things. Is that correct?

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.

Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Andrew Bowie and Stephen Flynn

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Q This will be my last question, Chair, I promise. Mr Norquoy, you represent Scottish Renewables. In the past, there have been moments when the aims and objectives of the UK Government and those of the Scottish Government have not been entirely aligned. Your members operate in a devolved administrative area, Scotland. How content are you, given the provisions of the Bill, that GB Energy—an arm of the UK Government, a company established by the UK Government and answerable to the UK Secretary of State—will have the autonomy and power to work constructively with and under the auspices of the devolved Administration in Edinburgh?

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 We have heard a great deal today, and rightly so, about the potential investment that GB Energy could make, whether that is in production, storage or generation and so on and so forth. I am particularly interested in the innovation space and in your experience with the Net Zero Technology Centre. Do you think that GB Energy’s focus should be on that, given the relatively small quantum that is available, or do you think that it should be broader and more focused on the de-risking of projects that might already be in the pipeline but might require assistance in relation to consent, planning or further capital investment?

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.