Great British Energy Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.

Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.

Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.

I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments.

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

This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.

We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?

Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.

In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.

It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.

I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that building more of that infrastructure here in the United Kingdom would be good for British jobs and for our energy security, just as issuing new oil and gas licences in Scotland would be, as that would allow us to produce more of our energy here at home and make us safer from volatile energy markets abroad?

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend will not be at all surprised to learn that I agree with him entirely. It is purely the imposition on this country of arbitrary, needless targets, such as clean power by 2030, to generate headlines and get the Secretary of State’s name up in lights that is requiring us to become more reliant on the People’s Republic of China for the goods, technology and equipment to develop the solar farms, nearly all of which will be tainted by slave labour in some way, given the reliance on slave labour in part of that country for that infrastructure and technology. So of course I agree with him, and of course it would be much better if we were issuing new licences and continuing to support our own domestic oil and gas industry. That is something that we have debated time and again, and I am sure we will come back to this House to debate it again in the future.

Great British Energy is not great, it is not British and it will not generate any energy. Public funds should not be—must not be—funding imports tainted by modern slavery and slave labour. British taxpayers deserve better: a domestic supply chain that creates jobs at home rather than funding abuses abroad. That is why we support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Labour Members to do the right thing today and vote for it as well.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which I hope might act as a bridge between our two Houses. Although I welcome this Bill, from the moment it started its journey through Parliament I have been issuing a warning. Without proper safeguards in place, our transition to net zero will be carried through on the backs of those in slavery.

Renewable energy is vital for our transition to a low-carbon economy, but we know that human rights abuses are inherent in our green technology. There is evidence of child labour in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of labour exploitation in nickel processing in Indonesia. Forced labour is committed at scale in Xinjiang in China, with the abuse of Uyghurs in steel production—a material that makes up nearly 80% of our wind turbines—and, of course, there is well-documented abuse in the production of solar panels.

On Report, I was hugely grateful for the Energy Secretary’s commitment to me:

“We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain, and we will be working with colleagues across Government to tackle the issue of the Uyghur forced labour in supply chains”—[Official Report, 29 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 775.]

But too often we have accepted warm words at the Dispatch Box that have failed to materialise.

The Bill is a serious piece of legislation, not least as the Government have committed to capitalising GB Energy with over £8.3 billion. If companies want to benefit from taxpayers’ money, they must be able to prove that their supply chains are free of forced labour. I have tabled amendment (a) to that effect, as it would place the burden of proof on businesses.

Cross-Government working is the only way to end the stagnation in our response to modern slavery. Once slavery is found, we must take action, including by placing rogue companies on the Procurement Act’s debarment list to ban them from winning other public contracts. The public deserve a guarantee that their money will not be used to fund human rights abuses. To quote a Business and Trade Minister, “no company should have abuses in their supply chains”, so I admire Ministers’ resolve to give genuine commitments to root out slavery in their areas of responsibility. When it comes to GBE, my amendment offers a simple, cost-effective method to achieve that. I am glad that the Minister agrees, but for clarity, let me repeat what I believe he has committed to and push him a little further.

Primarily, will the Minister confirm that there will be clarity within GB Energy’s strategic objectives and framework document that designated companies must not use forced labour in any part of their supply chains, and that that needs to be mapped down to raw materials? I am glad that there will be a cross-ministerial working group to work across Departments to tackle slavery in supply chains—that is exactly what needs to happen—and a commitment to leverage the Procurement Act’s debarment list where there is evidence of bidders or suppliers with unethical supply chains. Let us remember that the Act includes discretionary grounds that do not require a conviction. Of course, all of that requires a designated leader within GBE to take accountability.

Finally, I have one more ask: will the Minister prioritise buying British to boost our economy and avoid the risk of reliance on slave-made renewables from international sources? Of course, the issue of modern slavery is bigger than renewables, but we must start somewhere. With a clear path and strong commitments, GB Energy can lead from the front and stop the UK becoming a dumping ground for slave-made goods.

Based on the Minister’s word, and having sought those clarifications, I will not press my amendment. I hope it also satisfies the other place that the Minister has listened and acted to stamp out modern slavery in GB Energy’s future procurement, and I thank the Minister for that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

On 6 February, the Prime Minister announced that he would “take on the blockers” and build new small modular reactors, but do those blockers include his own Government? With essential work being delayed and paused at Sellafield, possible job losses at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and still no certainty for Sizewell C due to a general fear in the industry that the spending review will stymie the ambitions of Great British Nuclear, are the biggest blockers to new nuclear in the UK not in Labour’s Treasury?

[Sarah Jones]

I am not sure how many times the hon. Member promised he would get to the final investment decision on Sizewell under the last Government—I think he and his colleagues promised that at least five times in the House—and of course it did not happen. I gently repeat that the previous Government managed no new nuclear in 14 years, and he himself admitted that the Government had moved too slowly in getting nuclear projects off the ground. We are working at pace, and we will deliver the result of the competition in the spring. Sizewell C is also moving at pace, and we will have final answers in the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)]

Clean energy is one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy and will provide a core part of that strategy. If anybody wants to build new nuclear in this country, our door is always open.

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

Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?

[Ed Miliband]

I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.

[Andrew Bowie]

The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?

[Ed Miliband]

It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.

Warm Home Discount

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, with a change to the criteria that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to heat their homes, but for many this payment will be immediately eaten up by the increase in the energy price cap. We must be clear that the best protection for vulnerable households is to prioritise cheap energy. The announcement today is, frankly, a sticking-plaster approach to rising energy bills.

This Government fail to grasp the core issue: energy costs in this country are far too high for businesses, industry and, of course, bill payers. When the energy price cap rose in 2022, the now Secretary of State called it a “national emergency”. He called for an urgent freeze on energy bills and cited a lack of leadership. Now that he is in government, the only thing he is able to freeze is vulnerable pensioners by taking away their winter fuel allowance with no notice. Does the Minister think that shows leadership? I know that my constituents, and presumably hers too, will be concerned about their bills rising, concerned about inflation creeping back up—hitting 3% in January, despite the hard work done last year to bring it under control—and angry that Labour’s promise to cut bills by £300 is being broken.

The worst part of all of this is that this Government, led by ideological zealotry from the Secretary of State, are doubling down. Their obsession with going further and faster than any country in the world to meet their own self-imposed 2030 target is going to increase people’s bills even further. The renewables industry has warned that their rush to build record renewables in the next five years will push up prices and “consumers will lose out”. The Government’s rush to build twice as much grid in the next five years as was built in the last decade will increase the network costs on people’s bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the environmental levies will increase to £14 billion in 2030, largely driven by the hidden cost of renewables, all of which will end up on people’s energy bills.

The Labour party was not honest about its promise during the election to cut bills by £300, it was not honest about its plan to take the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners living in poverty, and now it is not being honest with the British people about what its plans will do to our energy bills. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the cost of energy is absolutely critical to any modern economy. We cannot go on following ideology over evidence and putting political targets ahead of what will cut the cost of energy in this country. However, this Government are in denial, which is why they scrapped the full system cost analysis commissioned when the Conservatives were in office.

Will the Minister say when proposals for a debt relief scheme will be published? Will she confirm by how much she expects levies to increase over the next five years? Will she commission a full system cost analysis of what the 2030 target will do to people’s energy bills? Will she confirm by how much bills will rise before we see the £300 off, which we were all promised?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The hon. Gentleman is right that energy prices are too high—on that, we agree. We also agree that that is worrying for families and businesses across the country. However, I would point out that 80% of this rise has been driven by wholesale prices. I would also gently remind him that the reason we are in this position—the reason we are so exposed to global fossil fuel prices over which we have no control—is because the Conservatives spent 14 years in government squandering the opportunity to accelerate the transition to clean power and reduce our dependence on global fossil fuel prices, leaving families across the country exposed.

The status quo is not tenable. We are at a point where energy prices are at an historic high, and we got here under his Government. That is a status quo that we are not willing to contend with. That is the reason—not because of ideology, but because we see the obvious: as long as we are dependent on global fossil fuel prices, we will be on this rollercoaster. That is what is driving the push to clean power. While the Conservatives have no alternatives, we have a clear alternative: we run to clean power; and while we do that, we support the most vulnerable households in the short term.

To answer the shadow Minister’s question, Ofgem is in the process of consulting on the debt support scheme as we speak, and we will support it to put that in place. We know that the debt burden has increased by £3.8 billion, and more than 1.8 million households in need of help will be supported by that scheme. We are absolutely committed to cutting bills—everything we are doing as a Government is driven by that desire and clear commitment. We will do that both through short-term measures and, critically, by running at clean power by 2030.

We have a plan to deal with energy bills. The Opposition have a plan to slow down and do nothing, and it will be the British public who pay the price.

Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The indication that Mingyang will get the green light from the Treasury to supply wind turbine technology to the Green Volt wind farm in the North sea is concerning. Indeed, alarm bells have been sounded by officials in the Minister’s Department and in the Ministry of Defence. This green revolution will come with a “made in China” label. The Government, in collusion with the Scottish National party in Holyrood, are determined to see Chinese companies reap the economic reward.

The Minister’s party says again and again that the transition to renewable energy will reduce our reliance on hostile regimes. Chinese-controlled technology embedded in our critical energy infrastructure is evidently a threat to our security. Can the Minister assure us that she is taking this threat seriously? Can she explain how using wind turbines made by Mingyang reduces our reliance on foreign states?

Just last week I, along with many MPs in the Minister’s party, was briefed by the Royal Navy on the vulnerability of our subsea communications and energy infrastructure. We have seen a pervasive rise in sabotage attacks on subsea cables in the Baltic, affecting our Scandinavian allies. If Chinese-manufactured turbines are installed, security experts have warned that sensors could spy on British seas, defence submarine programmes and the layout of our energy infrastructure. We would be reliant on Chinese equipment and software, and on Chinese suppliers for updates and maintenance, handing Beijing significant opportunity for interference. In the current international climate, it is unthinkable to disregard the security implications of this decision.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government have scrapped the GIGA—green industries growth accelerator —scheme that we launched to build British supply chains in energy technologies? What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence about its concerns over our ability to ensure the security of our energy system? What safeguards will be in place to prevent Chinese maintenance ships accessing the turbines for repairs? What guarantees has she had, if any, from our defence and security agencies that this investment will pose no threat to our national security? If such assurances are not forthcoming, will she revisit this decision and put a halt to the madness of allowing the People’s Republic of China to have such a significant stake in our energy system?

[Kerry McCarthy]

When the Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am the Minister now. [Laughter.] The shadow Minister mentioned revisiting this decision, but, as yet, no decision has been made. We are undergoing rigorous processes to consider the role of China in our supply chain and in the investment in our critical infrastructure.

Having been in my position, the hon. Gentleman will know why it is so important that I do not provide a running commentary on individual cases, but I have made it clear that we are taking into account the national security considerations as well as our need for investment in the supply chain. Let me touch on the legacy that we were left by the previous Minister: he was perfectly happy to leave our energy system exposed, with the British people paying the price. The retreat—the “under new management” line that he was parroting earlier this week—would leave us even more exposed to those petrostates and dictators. We are getting on with our clean power mission to end our energy insecurity, and I shall take no lessons from the shadow Minister on energy security given his Government’s record.

Biomass Generation

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I also apologise, as I am sure that the House is a little fed up hearing the Minister and me this afternoon.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome.

Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy.

Turning to the details of the statement, naturally we welcome a more limited role for Drax biomass in our power system, but more biomass subsidies are needed only in the short term, because this Government are embarking on a reckless experiment to have a grid based entirely on intermittent renewables at the expense of flexible and reliable baseload power. Drax’s role could be filled with more gas power plants, which are cheaper and cleaner than burning trees shipped in from Canada. Ministers know that burning wood at Drax produces four times the emissions of our last coal power plant, which in turn produces around twice the carbon emissions of gas. We could get that gas from the non-subsidised fields in the North sea, if this Government were not in such an ideological rush to shut down our domestic energy industry.

On cost, the new agreement that the Minister has signed us up to comes with a genuinely eyewatering strike price of £160 per MWh in today’s money. That is higher than Drax’s existing agreement of £138 per MWh. In fact, Baringa’s analysis that Drax put out this morning shows that bill payers will still be paying over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. If the analysis behind the Minister’s promise to cut bills by £300 is anything to go by, we should not rely on him too much. Has his Department carried out its own independent analysis, separate from that published by Drax this morning, to determine what the increased strike price will cost the British people and how that compares to supporting extra gas power in the capacity market?

We welcome the strengthened sustainability criteria, as investigations by Ofgem and the BBC’s “Panorama” have revealed serious questions to be answered by Drax about the import of wood from untouched primary forests in British Columbia. But as the BBC journalist Joe Crowley, who reported on these issues for “Panorama”, stated this morning, more clarity is needed on whether wood from primary forests will be classed as unsustainable under this new regime. Will the Minister confirm that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during any of its generation—not just that which is subsidised? What work is being done to ensure that the new sustainability criteria are actually enforceable?

On sustainability reporting, will the Minister confirm that the Department has received the KPMG report that the Prime Minister said he would look at? Will a copy be placed in the Library? The Minister’s statement has left the door wide open for the introduction of power BECCS after the transition arrangements end in 2031. That proposal to fit first-of-a-kind technology solely for the purpose of meeting our carbon budgets would cost the bill payer up to £40 billion—£1.7 billion a year. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS?

Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.

[Michael Shanks]

“Under new management,” indeed! The tough thing about being the acting shadow Secretary of State is that it is not, of course, his script that the hon. Gentleman is reading out.

This Government are fixing the mistakes left by the previous Government. I gently point out that eight previous Conservative Energy Ministers stood at this Dispatch Box and—deal after deal after deal—announced a worse deal than this for bill payers, energy security and sustainability. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that today. In fact, only a year ago—such is my love of his contributions in this House that I have read up on Hansard—he was saying that he had “absolute confidence” in the deal the previous Government made with Drax.

Let me outline why this deal is so different from those his party made in the past. The hon. Gentleman first asked about subsidy and mentioned a figure, which is what it will cost to deliver the necessary dispatchable power. He missed the fact that it is, of course, half of what was paid under the previous Government—nearly £1 billion a year—to Drax. We have halved that amount to lower bills for consumers.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about sustainability. We agree on the importance of tightening up the sustainability, which is why we have moved from 70% to 100%. I would gently say, again, that he was quite happy to support public money going into unsustainable biomass year after year when he was in the Energy Department. We have said that we will not pay a penny of subsidy to Drax if there is unsustainable biomass in the mix.

Thirdly, what the previous Government did not do, of course, was any sort of deal to control the runaway excess profits—record profits—that Drax was able to obtain as part of its deal. We have put in place a mechanism to claw back that excess profit so that the people of this country do not pay over the odds for their energy.

Fourthly, I will address the important point about energy security. Year after year, the Conservatives exposed us to the lack of a plan for what the energy system would look like in the late 2020s and into the 2030s. This Government have had to take tough decisions quickly to secure that supply for the future, and that is what we have done. We have decided that running Drax when it was not necessary—when there were clean, cheaper alternatives in the system—will no longer happen. To the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on Drax running less, I say that limited generation times mean that it will run only when we need it for capacity to meet demand in the system. The alternative—he asked for the figure, which I set out in the statement—would be £170 million more every single year.

Finally, on the future of BECCS, we are open-minded at this point on the role it will play. However, I agree that it is important that we come to a decision on that soon. The review we have outlined is about bringing together all the various bits of science that we know are there in different reports and trying to work out a credible pathway for whether power BECCS will play a role in the system. We will make that decision as soon as possible.

I will finish by saying that this is an extremely different deal. It will deliver benefit for the hard-working people of this country, ensure that sustainability is at its heart and protect our energy security in the years ahead.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.

On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.

Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.

More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.

[Andrew Bowie]

In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.

The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.

Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.

The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

New applications?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.

What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.

Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg. It is a day full of energy; we cannot get enough energy—in all respects, I suppose.

As we discussed just a few weeks ago with regards to the Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024, the capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electrical generation capacity or, in some cases, reduced demand.

The capacity market is responsible for ensuring that the right incentives are in place to deliver during periods of electricity system shortage and stress. As we mentioned when the previous amendments were introduced in November, the previous Government identified over a decade ago that, while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix,

“The amount of gas capacity we will need to call on at times of peak demand will remain high, with potentially significant amounts of new gas generating capacity required by 2030.”

As we saw in the January cold snap, a renewables-dominated system does indeed come under considerable stress. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine—as it often does not in the UK, especially in the winter—we experience a dearth in the supply of renewable-generated electricity. That is compounded by high demand on the coldest, darkest days.

The draft instrument aims to improve security of supply and expedite investment in low-carbon technologies. It seeks to amend the timeframe for the Electricity Settlements Company’s determinations, bringing those adjustment decisions in line with the timeframe for penalty charges. It also seeks to use multi-year agreements to provide certainty, incentivising a greater range of technologies to participate. On that basis, and also because it was the previous Government who began this work, I do not wish to oppose the draft instrument.

I shall not stand in the way of business today, as the draft instrument seeks to make only minor adjustments to the capacity market. However, as before, I do wish to put on record the Opposition’s apprehensions regarding an increasingly intermittent energy system, shored up by increasingly expensive capacity market payments. As I said, however, we support these moves today.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister must be the only Member of Parliament representing Aberdeenshire who is against investment in Aberdeenshire. He will have to explain to his constituents and businesses right across his community why he stands up and opposes investment in his constituency. Of course, in doing so, he misunderstands the role that Great British Energy will play; the key point of it is that it will invest £8.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in clean power projects right across the country, helping to unlock private sector investment and create supply chains in this country. The shadow Minister has now turned his face against all of those jobs that will be created in Aberdeen, which is a question he will have to answer for his constituents.

[Andrew Bowie]

The Minister has a right cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire, when tens of thousands of energy workers are going to lose their jobs because of this Government’s decisions on the North sea. The British people were promised lower bills by the next election; now, they have been given a vague assurance that in the very long term bills might come down, and they are meant to be grateful for that.

The arrogance of this Government is staggering, if not surprising. They are so driven by ideology that they will not even allow Government lawyers to defend licences issued for Rosebank and Jackdaw, and are willing to see imports of fracked gas increase as long as they go down in history as the Government who shut down the North sea. While pensioners freeze as the Minister’s Government strip them of the winter fuel allowance, and as people are made unemployed due to his Government’s position on the North sea, can the Minister see why people across this country are quite miffed that the Government get to waste £8 billion of their money on the GB Energy white elephant?

[Michael Shanks]

First, let us be absolutely clear that Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects right across the country, including in the shadow Minister’s constituency. Secondly, he has an absolute cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about jobs in oil and gas, when more than 70,000 jobs were lost in North sea industries over the past decade—the shadow Minister was in the Energy Department for at least a chunk of that time. The truth is that a transition is under way in the North sea. Conservative Members were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it was not happening as thousands of people lost their jobs. This Government are determined to build what comes next; the shadow Minister stands opposed to that, and he will have to explain to his constituents and the people of Scotland why he does not support that investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

This Government’s ideological obsession with intermittent renewables at the expense of stable, clean, baseload nuclear power will, we think, be their greatest mistake. They have delayed the small modular reactor down-selection competition, and we have not heard a peep about the final investment decision on Sizewell C. However, none of that comes close to the monumental act of self-harm of deciding to throw away and bury—out of reach, underground—20 years of nuclear-grade plutonium, which could be used to drive forward a nuclear revolution in this country. How does the Secretary of State think this will play with the pro-growth, pro-nuclear MPs in his own party who are already worried about him being a drag on growth?

[Ed Miliband]

First, may I take this opportunity—I know we are short of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—to congratulate the permanent shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), on the birth of her baby boy? I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating her. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his temporary elevation.

On the issue of plutonium disposition and the decisions I and my hon. Friends have made, we are acting on the best advice we have inside Government. It has the potential to create thousands of jobs—thousands of long-term jobs—and it is the right thing to do not just for jobs, but for nuclear safety.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for taking the time to meet me this morning prior to making the statement.

The ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme were set up because we know that improving the energy efficiency of homes is one of the best ways to cut energy bills and keep people warm. This is especially the case for those who are in fuel poverty. When we took office in 2010, just 14% of homes in this country had an energy performance rating of A to C; today, that figure is around 50%, and for social housing, we went from 24% in 2010 to 70% today. That is a record that we are proud of—a record of reducing bills for households and keeping families warm. Almost half of the measures installed under GBIS have been in low-income households.

Solid wall insulation is a small proportion of the overall work that the ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme undertook. The vast majority of installations under those schemes have been cavity wall and loft insulation, alongside installations of smart thermostats and boiler upgrades under the ECO scheme. However, it is deeply concerning that examples of substandard solid wall insulation have been identified in some of the installations under those schemes. We of course support the action that the Minister has announced today, and Ofgem being given responsibility for overseeing the repairs and remediation, and it is right to conduct additional on-site audits to inform action moving forward. I thank TrustMark for the work it has done to identify examples of poor-quality solid wall insulation, and we also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the quality of solid wall insulation under other schemes. It is absolutely right for installers to fund the repair work, and to ensure that the situation is remedied for affected households as soon as possible. Nobody should have to live in a house with damp or mould as a result of poor-quality insulation.

Could the Minister, in addition to taking the action that she outlined in her statement, please answer the following questions? First, have the audits undertaken so far identified what proportion of the solid wall insulations are affected by poor-quality work? Can she confirm that all 39 companies that have been suspended still exist, and set out the mechanism by which they will be required to remedy their work? What action is being taken to make sure that remedial work is of the required standard, to ensure that consumers are protected from yet more poor-quality work? What action is the Minister taking to make sure that everyone who had solid wall insulation installed under the schemes is informed promptly and in full, and that nobody will be missed? Will she publish a full list of the 39 companies suspended from the scheme for carrying out poor-quality work, and has the Department considered taking legal action against them?

Members in all parts of the House want to ensure that families have a warm and comfortable home that is efficient and cheap to run. The Minister has our assurance that we will work cross-party to ensure remediation for those affected.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank the hon. Member for his response. I am glad that there is consensus across the House that energy efficiency measures and home upgrades are key to delivering warmer homes and lower bills, and I hope all Members are supportive of the action the Government are taking.

In answer to the hon. Member’s questions, we are still conducting audits to get a full picture. From sampling that has been done—I stress that the sampling was geared towards the installers that we thought were most risky—it seems that a significant proportion of that sample has major issues, which is why we are taking this action. On the 39 installers that have been suspended, we are working through certification bodies and TrustMark to require them to go into households and remediate the work. In the cases that we have audited, that is happening. The vast majority of installers want to do the right thing and want to do a good job, and where issues have been flagged, they are repairing the work. Where we think there are problems, we have mechanisms in place for making sure that the installers deliver on their obligations, and the guarantee system acts as a backstop.

A crucial question is how we ensure both that where remediation work is being done, it is being done to the right standard, and that future solid wall insulations are done to a better standard. We are putting in place additional spot checks across the piece to make sure that where work has been remediated, it has been done to the required standard, and critically, all solid wall insulations will be given more monitoring and checks. Suppliers have committed to that, so that when people are having this work done, they can be confident that it is being done to a much better standard than we have seen.

On keeping everyone informed, we will be writing through Ofgem to all households that have had solid wall insulation installed. We will be doing quality checks on all 65,000 solid wall insulations. I should stress that we hope the vast majority of those will be okay and that any issues will be minor, but we want to do a quality check across the piece. Our priority is getting in, making sure we are doing a proper inspection of the property, and getting key issues remediated as quickly as possible. Through all of that, our priority is the consumer, whose experience has to be as hassle-free, stress-free and cost-free as possible. This should never have happened in the first place, and we are determined to get this right and fix it on those consumers’ behalf.

Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and a great pleasure to be back at another Delegated Legislation Committee. I am thinking about getting a camp bed and staying on this corridor for the rest of the year.

Of late, His Majesty’s official Opposition have been accused of seeming to oppose for opposition’s sake; in last week’s Second Delegated Legislation Committee there was an uncomfortable moment when the Minister quoted a 2023 speech of mine back to me verbatim. That will not be the case this morning, however, because the Opposition welcome the move to regulate the heat networks market, which has hitherto been largely unregulated. Heat network users currently have fewer rights and diminished customer protections compared with other utility consumers. Although heat is an essential utility, the existing legislation covers only issues that pertain to metering and billing usage.

We welcome the consumer protections that the draft regulations entail. Consumers and bill payers are at the crux of our energy systems, and changes made must be in their best interests. I believe that this change is indeed in their best interests: in this instance, the consumers stand to benefit.

Sadly, that does not seem to be true of the Government’s energy policy more widely. We are not seeing the £300 saving on energy bills that was promised in the election campaign. What we are seeing is a ruinous overreliance on renewables, with wind generation supplying just 0.7% of the UK’s energy demand today; the boiler tax, which Labour MPs waved through Parliament last week; and the increases to employer national insurance contributions, which will depress wages and dampen employment. Households and consumers rarely seem to be the focus when this Government are making policy.

Today, however, that is not the case. In the heat networks market, the consumer stands to benefit from the introduction of this regulatory framework. As the market for heat networks expands, the risk of exploitation of consumers becomes more pertinent. It is therefore right that legislation be introduced to remedy the gap and bring heat networks into line with the frameworks that regulate gas and electricity markets.

I will not detain the Committee any longer. The Opposition absolutely support the regulation of the heat networks market for the sake of the protection of consumers from exorbitant charges, so I do not wish to stand in the way of the draft regulations. I strongly encourage the Government to prioritise bill payers and consumers across the rest of their energy policy, so that once again we can be in a place where I am not opposing for opposition’s sake, as I was accused of doing last week.