Draft Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Good morning and happy new year. It is good to be back in this Committee dealing with yet another piece of delegated legislation.

The draft regulations make changes necessary for the operation of the capacity market outwith the EU and sensibly revokes the 10-year approval requirement. On that basis, I do not oppose it and we will not stand in the way of business today.

The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014, as part of the electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electricity generation capacity, or in some cases for reduced demand. In 2013, the Government identified 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.”

That prediction rings true, and truer still when we acknowledge the intermittent nature of weather-dependent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. That is why in a speech made at Chatham House in March, the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), called for new unabated gas power plants, to make sure that we can keep the lights on when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.

As the NESO report states:

“Around 35 GW of unabated gas (broadly consistent with the size of the existing fleet) will need to remain on standby for security of supply. This requirement for gas capacity will remain throughout the early 2030s until larger levels of low carbon dispatchable power and other flexible sources are able to replace it.”

Indeed, its “Clean Power 2030” plan sets out the intention to reform current market mechanisms such as the capacity market to

“help enable the continued operation of unabated gas for security of supply.”

This will, however, be more expensive due to the sporadic use of gas as a result of the dominance of renewables. The capacity market will provide income to combined cycle gas turbine plants, which will produce only 5% of overall generation, requiring much higher capacity prices.

As the Secretary of State charges toward grid decarbonisation, it is imperative that we retain our capacity for gas generation and maintain the capacity market scheme to facilitate that, but due to the decisions made by the current Government it will be more expensive —one of the many pitfalls of their “renewables at any cost” approach. I am sure we will soon debate this at greater length and in greater detail; it is not for today’s Committee. We have no problem with the specific provisions of the draft regulations before us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

In the clean power 2030 document published last week, the Government state that they are

“progressing the post-2030 generation interventions, with final decisions on Sizewell C and the Great British Nuclear-led Small Modular Reactor programme”,

but no date is specified for the final investment decision on Sizewell, no date is specified for completion of the down-selection SMR process, there is no indication of a route to market for advanced modular or other technologies, and there is no mention of Wylfa at all. So is it any wonder that the nuclear industry holds a suspicion that this Government are not serious about nuclear, that the damascene conversion to nuclear power professed by the Secretary of State is a false one and that, for the Government, it is renewables at any cost and the exclusion of everything else?

[Ed Miliband]

I find the hon. Gentleman quite extraordinary, and not in a good way. The last Government left not only a generalised absolute mess in the public finances, but lots of the programmes that he is talking about were not even funded. The difference with this Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that she put the money for Sizewell in the Budget. That is something the Conservatives simply do not understand. [Interruption.] You get the point.

[Andrew Bowie]

It was us in government who bought the Wylfa and Oldbury sites from Hitachi last year, giving much-needed certainty to the workforce and local communities on both sites. It was on 22 May that we announced that Wylfa was our preferred location for a third gigawatt-scale reactor, again giving a boost to that community and the wider industry. I have three questions. Is it still the Government’s intention to reach 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that is impossible without another gigawatt-scale reactor? If a third gigawatt-scale reaction is planned, will it be built at Wylfa and, if not, what is the future for the Wylfa site?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman’s story about Wylfa says it all. He says his Government had this great plan for Wylfa, but they had no money behind it.

[Andrew Bowie]

We bought the site.

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman does not say how the power station will be funded. The truth is that this is elementary economics. If things are announced, they need to be able to be funded, and the Conservatives need to learn that lesson.

Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome the amendments that this statutory instrument brings to contracts for difference regulations, extending the existing CfD to offshore wind and permitting repowering projects to apply for CfDs. Contracts for difference is a scheme that the official Opposition are immensely proud of—delivering 29.4 GW of power in six rounds of allocation since 2014. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government under Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton that introduced the scheme, to combine the power of competition with certainty for investors for the strike price, to keep prices low while driving forward low-carbon energy projects. We are also proud of the consistency and certainty brought by annual licensing rounds, which we approved last year.

However, we have concerns about the direction of travel of the new Secretary of State for Energy and indeed that of the new Government. Their target for CfDs requires an almost hell-for-leather approach for which we worry that consumers and billpayers will shoulder the burden. In the Secretary of State’s attempts to rush to 60 GW of offshore wind capacity, he would need to secure 28 GW in the next two allocation rounds. That is more than in the last six rounds combined. That will inevitably require ditching the competitive element of the allocation rounds entirely. We worry that that will push up the strike price. Even The Guardian does not think the Secretary of State’s plans are realistic, claiming that his target of having 60 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2030 is

“still a long way from being credible”.

In the past, reasonable strike price mechanisms have enabled competition while encouraging new projects by providing certainty. However the new, ferociously ambitious targets will require a strike price which outstrips the reference price, meaning that the consumer is exposed to more of the burden. Industry knows that. The head of offshore development at RWE told a business conference that the

“consumer risks losing out”

under these plans. We must take very seriously his concerns that the rush to deliver by 2030 would

“create short-term resource constraints, spikes in prices”,

and that consumers will be the ones to bear the brunt.

It is no wonder, therefore, that the Government have backed down from claims of saving households £300 on their energy bills. It is clear that this rush for electricity decarbonisation by 2030 will see bills going up and up; the industry admits that. The signal to the market from the Secretary of State is “renewables at any price”—they will pay exorbitant amounts to create the capacity to achieve a hugely ambitious political target. We cannot be naive about the economic implications of that political choice.

We do support the amendments. However, I would like to put on record our concern about the implication of the Government’s politically motivated rush to the 2030 target, which it seems the Secretary of State will pursue at any cost.

Electricity Grid Upgrades

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. It has been a pleasure, as a shadow energy Minister and a constituency MP with similar issues, to have discussed these issues to try to find a way through. It has also been a pleasure to share notes on the experiences of the communities that we both represent—indeed, there are many such communities represented by Members in this room and beyond.

It is good to see so many people attending this debate. It shows the groundswell of feeling outside this Chamber on what we need to do, whether that is on upgrading the grid and making our way to our net zero, cleaner future—everybody in this room acknowledges that we need to upgrade the grid in order to do that—or in representing communities who are concerned about the pace and direction of travel, and the inability, or refusal, of those in positions of power to consider alternative technologies.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

As ever, I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member. He said that all parts of the United Kingdom are keen to achieve and be part of this goal. Renewable energy in Northern Ireland makes up 50% of the electricity generated, but it has to reach 80% by 2030, as I know he is aware. That is six years away. When it comes to scale, pace and complexity, does he agree that there is a need for the whole of the UK to have additional support and funding to reach these goals? That means Northern Ireland needs to be part of this process as well.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Gentleman knows well, I hope, that my commitment to our entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is just as firm as his, and when I speak about the UK, I reference Strangford and Northern Ireland more widely. The situation in Northern Ireland is unique in that the number of homes that are off-grid far outweighs the number of off-grid homes in mainland GB. That brings its own complexities with regard to decarbonisation, moving away from gas or oil, and boilers for heating and other such purposes. I completely understand the unique complexities of decarbonising in a Northern Irish environment, and he is absolutely right that when the Government take decisions on UK-wide infrastructure projects, they should be cognisant of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, being in an all-Ireland grid and having so many off-grid properties. That should never be far from our minds.

I thank the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), as ever, and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for their contributions. I did not agree with all of them, but they were all very thought through. I know that everybody in this room, whatever their perspective on how we achieve a cleaner future, agrees that upgrading the grid is important. How we go about that is the issue concerning us today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex eloquently highlighted the strength of feeling among communities across the country being asked to take on the burden of what is being proposed. I mentioned that we shared notes, and that is because my constituency, like that of my hon. Friend, faces the threat of huge energy infrastructure bills over the next few years. Communities fear the genuine threat of industrialisation sweeping rural landscapes and the impact on communities as a result.

In my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency, the energy industry is omnipresent. It is home to the subsea capital of Europe and on the edge of the oil and gas capital of Europe. Many of my constituents work, or have worked, in the energy industry. Many are involved in the design, construction or installation of underground or offshore pipelines for oil, gas or electric cables. If someone digs deep enough in my constituency, they will find national gas pipelines buried underground. The only indication of them being there are the little yellow marker signs on the surface warning people to beware and not to dig anywhere close.

I say that because I stress that my constituents and so many others around the country who are raising this issue are not doing so because they are being needlessly obstructive. They are not doing it because they are being anti-net zero, or because they do not agree the grid needs to be upgraded. They just know, due to their experience working in the industry, that there are other ways forward. It is for this reason, and the overwhelming desire on the Conservative side of the House to exhaust all the options in our pursuit to find the best technology at the best cost that would deliver our decarbonised grid—and not, as the National Energy System Operator report suggested, that we favour pace over perfection—and to do so in a way that does not blight so many communities and our great British countryside, that we committed in our manifesto to take a different approach.

[Tom Hayes]

We have heard in this debate about the importance of expediency. Does he agree that, uniquely, we live in a world in turmoil? We see growing international threats, and one of the surest ways in which Britain can protect ourselves against them is by being energy independent. As a consequence, we need not just to move quickly to meet our climate crisis—our energy defences are down, and it is important that we can protect ourselves in the future.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more. Indeed, I long for a day when we are much more energy independent. That is why I take such issue with Labour’s position on the North sea and the wilful destruction of our oil and gas industry, leaving us open to further outside influence and reliant on hostile states. That is one of the reasons why I think that we need to increase our energy security, and why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to improve it.

This is not about whether we do that; it is about how we go about it and about taking decisions now in the best long-term interests of people and of the energy security of this country. I do not believe that the way that the Government are proceeding at the minute is in the best long-term interests of the communities of this country. If we get this right, work together, get to a solution where communities feel they have a stake in the energy transition, deliver the clean future and become energy independent, as I used to say when I was the Minister, that is a win, win, win—but we are a long way from that just yet.

I mentioned community benefits briefly. In June 2023, I visited East Anglia to begin the consultation process on the community benefits package. On 7 December 2023, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined the framework of that package. I wonder whether the Minister present might be able to give us an update as to where the process is and where the Government have reached on community benefits—

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

That was almost a year ago.

[Andrew Bowie]

Quite. Regardless of the technologies that are selected, of whether the pylons and associated infrastructure are built and of any right hon. or hon. Member’s view, communities out there want to know what the community benefits package and the trade-offs will be, and what they will receive as a result of having to host infrastructure in the national interest. An update on that would be delightful.

[Ms Billington]

I am struck that we have heard a lot about community engagement and consultation, but what does not seem to be clear is exactly what is meant by it, despite the fact that all of us do a lot of community consultation and engagement through the process of democracy. In particular, given how people talk about it, we could quite well end up with a veto by a small number of people of a transformation of our country to increase resilience, reduce costs and tackle the climate crisis. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is not desirable. That is why we need to change the planning process, so that we can support the transformation we seek.

[Andrew Bowie]

I respect the hon. Lady’s position and welcome her intervention, but it would be reprehensible if hon. Members elected to this House to represent their communities did not do so. For her, it might just be a small number of people complaining about this, but for many Members of this House and representatives in other legislatures across the United Kingdom, huge numbers of people in communities that they represent are very concerned about the impacts that the plans will have on their landscape, their land, their house prices and so on. It is incumbent on us, as the elected representatives of those people, to bring those concerns to the House to debate and discuss, and for a decision then to be taken by the Government. Whether we like it or not, a decision will be taken by the Government about the best way forward, which is why I asked about community benefits.

The consultation that I mentioned a minute ago was focused specifically on the community benefits package, and I asked whether we might see more detail on it in the near future, and whether it might be statutory— I know that that was something being looked at by the Department, but it has been looking at it for some time.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I have little time, but I will.

[Deirdre Costigan]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned protecting landscapes. Does he agree that it is rather audacious for those in his party to refer to that, given that after 14 years they have left us with nature targets that they failed to achieve, still drilling for oil and gas, with backing for fracking for a significant amount of time, sewage in our rivers and seas, and plastic bottles across the country because they refused to implement environmental schemes on that front? Does he agree that he has a cheek to mention protecting the landscape? Furthermore, does he agree that many of his arguments today are a delaying tactic? We need that power in west London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

No, I do not agree.

Before I conclude, I will say this. Noticeable today and in discussions on this subject in the recent past, is a certain tone that is being adopted by some Labour Members. While we might disagree about the ways to reach net zero and to best upgrade the grid, there are people out there who are genuinely worried about what these plans might mean for them and their communities. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to please engage in this debate with an element of respect for the views expressed on behalf of those people and communities up and down the country.

I know that the Minister recognises this. Indeed, he has always engaged in this debate with due respect for those communities. There are people out there concerned about the way forward and the pace at which this change is coming. Please remember those people, consider other options, and listen to those communities. We can then bring the country together, and everybody can contribute to this transition, which we all agree needs to happen in the national interest.

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Nothing could bring me greater pleasure than to be here this evening to discuss this SI.

The previous Government brought the emissions trading scheme into UK law to provide continuity during the Brexit transition, and our framework became operational from January 2021. We did that to provide a mechanism for industry and to reduce emissions using cap and trade, to allow the market to take responsibility for our journey towards net zero.

As the Minister said, this draft order makes a number of changes to the legislation. It expands the scope to include flights from Northern Ireland to Switzerland, in line with the Great British standard. That was not previously possible due to the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The draft order brings carbon dioxide venting from upstream oil and gas installations under the scheme. It also enacts the reduction in the cap on allowances and strengthens enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, including by introducing the deficit notice, and it accounts for a reserve price for stability during excessive market volatility.

When the UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme was introduced in 2020, it was decided that its purpose was to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions that will contribute to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net zero goal. Today, we address the draft order in the context of satisfying that ambition. We all have a common ambition when it comes to tackling climate change, and the introduction of the cap-and-trade scheme was a component of our national efforts towards that. However, as we know, that comes at a cost, and there are inevitable trade-offs.

We have seen recently that the Labour Government’s climate policies take precedence over any financial or economic concerns—through the damage done to the North sea oil and gas industry with the extension of and increase to the energy profits levy and the ending of investment allowances, through the £58 billion cost of the Secretary of State’s plan to decarbonise the grid, and through the new ambition for an 81% reduction in omissions by 2035, with no detail on how that will be achieved. On that point, will the Minister clarify whether it is indeed the Government’s policy to see the carbon price rise to £147, as necessitated by the National Energy System Operator report? If so, what assessment has been made of the impact of that huge increase on employment, industry and households?

Specifically on this statutory instrument, and in the context of the Government’s overall energy strategy, we have serious concerns about the direction of travel, and particularly about the Labour Government’s continued attack on our North sea industry. The SI includes within the scope of the UK ETS upstream oil and gas sector activities such as carbon dioxide venting. Although that may incentivise lower emissions, it imposes significant new costs on companies that are already navigating a complex and changing regulatory environment.

There is also a concern regarding carbon leakage. As a result of the growing burdens on the North sea companies, we will see an exodus to more price-competitive, unregulated markets for production. That will not reduce omissions overall, but it will ensure that the UK sees none of the benefits. The Minister spoke about the protections against carbon leakage; I would be grateful for some more detail on that, if she would be so kind.

His Majesty’s Opposition would like to put on the record our concerns regarding the Government’s direction of travel, and we urge them to look again at the scale of anti-industry measures being continually levied on the North sea. For the sake of employment and the economy, the supply chain companies investing in new clean technologies, our energy security, and the employers and further investment that will suffer as a result, we will vote against the SI.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. As I said, the UK emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of the UK’s net zero policy regime. I am slightly surprised by his decision not to support the SI —perhaps not from a political point of view, but because I am pretty sure that if he was still in the Department occupying the post I am in now, he would have supported the measures. As I said, they are just about ensuring that the scheme retains its credibility and moves forward and adapts to circumstances.

With the Northern Ireland Assembly established, it is absolutely common sense that Northern Ireland should be treated in the same way with regard to venting and flaring—

[Andrew Bowie]

indicated assent.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am glad the shadow Minister agrees on that. He asked a specific question about the pricing. As the market conveners, we cannot comment on the price. I will leave it at that, other than to say that the market determines the price of the allowances, and opting for the top of the net zero-consistent range means that more allowances will be available while we can still deliver against our net zero trajectory.

The shadow Minister also brought up some broader issues about carbon leakage. Again, there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the issue, but we are absolutely committed to providing certainty to industry about the steps we will take to protect against carbon leakage. That is why in July 2023 the overall level of free allocations that will be provided from 2026 were set out. We have since consulted on how best to target those free allocations from the next allocation period, to ensure the smooth functioning of the market and the continued protection of at-risk sectors.

As the shadow Minister will know, the UK Government have announced that from 2027 a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism will be in place for certain at-risk sectors, and the authority has consulted on aligning free allocation charges with the start of that CBAM. I assure him that the UK ETS Authority will work the UK Government to ensure that a CBAM will work cohesively with the UK ETS, including with free allowances. No doubt that will be revisited—perhaps in this very room —over the coming months.

The draft order is a key part of our net zero policy regime. We believe that the maintenance of a strong UK ETS will play a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower and in delivering our mission of having secure and clean electricity by 2030. By driving green investment as part of our industrial strategy, the UK ETS will also help to deliver a just transition, thereby growing the UK’s economy and securing good jobs for people throughout the country.

As I said, the changes proposed in the SI will bring in a net zero-consistent cap. I remind the shadow Minister that it was his Government who legislated for net zero, and at one point they were proud of having done that. The SI will also alter the industry cap and expand the scope of the ETS to the venting of CO2 in the upstream oil and gas sector. The change follows a comprehensive consultation on developing the UK ETS that was carried out in 2022. The proposals deliver on commitments made in the response to that consultation in July 2023, when the UK ETS Authority set out a comprehensive package of reforms to the scheme. The proposals have the long-standing support of the four Governments of the UK.

We, as part of the UK ETS Authority with the devolved Governments, are determined to manage and improve the scheme effectively. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets. We are committed to being attentive to views and to carrying forward changes as required to ensure that the scheme operates efficiently to achieve emissions reductions. The changes to the UK emissions trading scheme in the SI will support the scheme’s role as a cornerstone of the UK’s climate and net zero policy. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

We have spoken a lot about the Conservative party’s record in government, and I am very proud of our record on fusion. We launched the Fusion Futures programme to provide up to £55 million of funding to train more than 2,000 people, we became the first country in the world to regulate fusion as a distinct energy technology, and we launched the process to build the spherical tokamak for energy production—I cannot say that as quickly—at what will be the first fusion power plant at West Burton in Nottinghamshire. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Members are very welcome. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention, as it was ours, to have fusion power on the grid by 2040?

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I mentioned, I am very much looking forward to visiting West Burton soon. The Budget announced significant support for fusion energy in 2025-26 and, yes, we remain as ambitious as the previous Government for the potential of fusion energy.

[Andrew Bowie]

Having confirmed that 2040 is still the ambition, which does the Minister think will come first: fusion on the grid or the final investment decision on Sizewell C?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The final investment decision on Sizewell C, as I understand it, is expected soon. We will hear more about support for that in the next spending review. Fusion energy has huge potential, not just in the long term but from the innovation we are already seeing in that sphere, which I very much welcome.

Fuel Poverty

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger, and to join so many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for an incredibly important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it.

It has been great to hear from colleagues. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the removal of the winter fuel allowance and how the push to get more pensioners on to pension credit is incredibly important. However, when the figures suggest that the push for pension credit will actually offset the money being saved by the apparent removal of winter fuel allowance, I wonder whether the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have thought their plans through. The comments by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about the knock-on impact of fuel poverty on the NHS and charities were well made and should have been listened to carefully by all in this room and beyond.

As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend, made powerful points about the unique situation facing residents in Northern Ireland, where so many more houses than in Great Britain are off grid and rely on LPG and oil for their heating. Households over there face unique challenges when combating fuel poverty. As he said, the removal of the winter fuel allowance is a crushing blow for pensioners facing a cold winter this year.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) raised insulation. I completely get his point. We need to go further and move faster to insulate more homes. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record on that. We inherited a situation in which only 12% of households had an insulation EPC rating of C or above. When we left office earlier this year, it was up to 41%—a near 30% increase. Could we have gone further? Absolutely. Could we have done more? We absolutely should have. But that was a near 30% increase on the situation in which we found ourselves when we came to office, and that is something about which I am very proud.

[Mr Carmichael]

Is EPC not something else that we could reform? The way in which EPC bandings are rated seems to be utterly random and occasionally quite counter-productive.

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree. I would love to see the Government commit to a review of EPC ratings and how homes are judged. Maybe the Minister will speak to that if there are any plans coming through the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed any other Departments that would be responsible for that as well.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald)—it is taking time to get used to that constituency name—raised some very interesting points and concerns that I share, as I represent a vast rural constituency myself. However, he is entirely wrong: God, of course, comes from Aberdeenshire, not the Isle of Skye, although Skye probably comes a close second.

I wonder what the constituents of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as companies reliant on the oil and gas sector, think of the Liberal Democrats’ support for the extension of the energy profits levy—something also raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). As we will be voting on the Budget resolutions in a few hours’ time, they may go away and reconsider their support for those Government measures. The Conservatives will certainly be voting against any extension.

Keeping homes warm this winter will be at the forefront of people’s mind in many households across the United Kingdom. We can feel the temperature falling outside as we speak. As a consequence of various pressures such as Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing instability in the middle east, the cost of heating homes has risen and has hit many families hard.

Myriad factors contribute to fuel poverty, including energy efficiency, income, housing costs and energy prices. That is why the Conservative Government took steps to support families to keep their homes warm. Through the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, we supported households the length and breadth of the UK at the height of the energy crisis. The steps we took amounted to approximately £1,500 for a typical household, covering about half the energy bill of every home in Britain. The warm home discount scheme meant support for 3 million households at risk of fuel poverty: that was 3 million families who could afford to keep warm and keep more of their money in their pocket. We stepped up support for our pensioners, delivering up to £600 in winter fuel payments and pensioner cost of living payments to 11.8 million pensioners. Some 1.1 million cold weather payments, worth £29.6 million, were paid out last winter alone. Those were all steps to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society in the cold weather.

[Anna Dixon]

Despite all the measures that the shadow Minister says the previous Government took, The Lancet and the Institute of Health Equity have estimated that 102 excess winter deaths in the Shipley constituency alone were due to cold homes. It seems to me that those are shocking figures and that nothing the last Government did actually reduced fuel poverty or deaths from cold homes.

[Andrew Bowie]

One death from fuel poverty or from living in a cold home is one too many, let alone the number that the hon. Member gave for her constituency. We must all look at what more we can do to ensure that homes are better insulated and that pensioners and other vulnerable people in society can keep their homes warm through the winter, but I am proud that over the energy crisis last year the Government stepped up and paid half the energy bill of everybody in this country. That was important, as were the other measures we brought forward to support so many people in this country. Could we do more? One person living in fuel poverty is one too many, but it is important that we recognise that the previous Government took steps to ensure that fuel poverty was addressed and that people could keep warm last winter.

I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the House will have heard from elderly constituents and their families how worried they are that the winter fuel payment is being taken away. For pensioners in my constituency and in other vast rural northern constituencies represented in the Chamber today, it is particularly alarming. They understand what it is to live in parts of rural Britain during winter. As I have mentioned before on the Floor of the House, Braemar in my constituency of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine holds the coldest UK temperature record of minus 27°C; I believe it shares that record with Altnaharra in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

It is in such rural communities, which face the coldest temperatures more frequently, that support is so needed. That is why it is so regrettable that the new Government made the political decision not only to take critical funding away from those vulnerable pensioners, but to do so at the same time that they found an extra £11 billion from somewhere to hand out inflation-busting pay rises to public sector workers. That is a political decision that Age UK has said

“will leave millions of struggling pensioners without money they rely on”.

Without the lifeline that they so badly need, many pensioners will be left in serious trouble.

In February this year, it was estimated that fuel poverty would fall over 2024. In choosing this path, the Labour Government risk reversing that, pushing more vulnerable households into choosing between heating and eating. I never thought that I would see a Labour Government take such a decision. Prior to the debate, I had a look over the Labour manifesto—something that Government Ministers must have failed to do, seeing as they keep breaking the promises in it. Interestingly, there is a quote in that manifesto from a pensioner called Gary, who talks about the challenges of keeping on top of his energy bills and how apparently only Labour has a plan to help him. I wonder how Gary feels now, knowing that this Labour Government have taken away the support that pensioners like him are reliant on. Gary also talks about GB Energy. We heard a lot from the Labour party about how GB Energy would reduce bills by £300; we do not hear much talk about that any more.

Politics aside, all of us in this debate and in this building—across all parties and all parts of this United Kingdom, which are represented quite well in this room—want to see fuel poverty eradicated. I have visited the wind farm on Shetland that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. I, too, represent a rural constituency that also hosts a number of wind farms and associated energy infrastructure and that has too much fuel poverty, both because it is incredibly rural and because many people rely on oil and LPG to heat their homes, so they are far more exposed to wildly fluctuating prices. I do understand the challenges and I do understand why we must get a grip on this.

Six million people living in fuel poverty is far too many. One person living in fuel poverty is too many. Politics aside, despite what I have said in leading up to this, I assure the Minister, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and all hon. Members that His Majesty’s Opposition will work as constructively as we can to find solutions and find a way forward to tackle fuel poverty in this country and ensure that nobody has to choose between heating and eating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes a very good point, although I noticed that he called the shadow Minister his friend but not me. But, over time, I think we will build on that and—

[Andrew Bowie]

Aspire to that.

[Michael Shanks]

I aspire to that—quite. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a number of important points, and I have to confess that I was not aware of the statistic that he cited. That puts the difference into stark contrast, so I absolutely take the point.

The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about engaging with the Northern Irish Executive. I have met both Ministers with responsibility for different parts of the energy policy—most recently, in fact, in the inter-ministerial working group across all the devolved nations. One of the key topics that we discussed was decarbonisation, particularly of such households, so we absolutely are taking that issue forward.

I am conscious of time, Sir Roger, so I will just pick up on a couple of other points that hon. Members raised. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) tempted me to be drawn into Beveridge’s “five giants”. Actually, I think that is an important statement about where this Government have come in, because it feels to me like want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness are yet again the five giants that we have to tackle as a country, and we are tackling them all as quickly as we can. I take his point, but it brings into stark contrast the fact that we have come in with some really tough decisions to make. There are pressing needs in the NHS, the education system, housing and energy, and we are doing what we can to improve all those. The Budget last week was about fixing the foundations and investing in our public services again. We can undoubtedly do more, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can.

I want to touch on consumer protection, which a number of Members have raised, and the point of the regulator. The ministerial team in the Department have had a number of meetings with Ofgem over a variety of issues, but there is no doubt—Ofgem shares this view—that suppliers could do much more to protect customers and provide them with a better quality of service. We are therefore looking at how we strengthen the regulator—a consultation is under way—so that it can hold companies to account for wrongdoing, require higher performance standards and ensure that there are much better levels of compensation when providers fail.

Last year, Ofgem introduced much more stringent rules around the involuntary installation of prepayment meters, an issue that I raised in one of my first questions after I was elected to Parliament. That was a shocking situation, but much more stringent requirements are now in place. We continue to monitor the situation to see whether much more is required.

I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. There is agreement across all parties that this issue is extremely important. Progress has stalled in recent years, and we now need to make significant advances. The Government are committed to slashing fuel poverty. We will do that through the fuel poverty strategy for England, and also, we will look across the whole of the UK at what we can do with our energy system to reduce bills and provide more secure energy for everyone, and to improve home standards. We will do that by protecting low-income and vulnerable consumers and by trying to raise households out of poverty across the board. Our strategy on child poverty, the raising of the minimum wage and other factors combine to support households struggling in fuel poverty.

We will no doubt return to this topic again. We do not pretend to have all the answers, so we are open to any ideas from hon. Members right across the House. Together, we can tackle this issue, but it needs concerted effort and investment, and this Government have started that.

Great British Energy Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy]

I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Report stage of the Great British Energy Bill. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who gave such eloquent and powerful maiden speeches earlier in the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), who showed such leadership on this issue prior to her being elected to this House. As well as commenting on the overall thrust of the Bill, I want to comment on new clause 1 and amendments 6, 8 and 5.

It is somewhat surprising and, indeed, interesting to hear Conservative Members calling for a review of the effective delivery of energy policy, for legislation to reduce energy bills by £300 and for the creation of jobs as a result, not least because a review of energy policy and the trajectory of bills and jobs created under the previous Government would reveal some stark facts. Every family and business in Britain paid the price of 14 years of Conservative failure through rocketing energy bills. Indeed, Britain faced a worse cost of living crisis than other countries, because the Tories left us exposed to international fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators such as Putin.

When I said in my intervention on the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who has since vacated the Opposition Front Bench, that we were reliant on Putin, she responded that I did not understand energy markets. I am afraid that just shows that she does not understand energy markets, because the truth is that we are at the mercy of international markets of which Russia is a part. The previous Government did absolutely nothing to reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and as a result of their failure to invest in clean energy, they left us with a legacy of high energy bills, energy insecurity and a lack of clean energy jobs. With our plans for Great British Energy and clean power by 2030, the new Labour Government are determined to change that.

I am somewhat surprised by amendment 8, which calls for legislating the creation of 650,000 jobs, not least because we create these jobs not through legislation but by having a meaningful industrial strategy, which was lacking under the previous Government. Figures from the Institute for Public Policy Research—which, I must admit, is my former employer—show that around 4% of our GDP is made up of green goods and services compared with the European average of 6%. If we had had an industrial strategy and created jobs from offshore wind at the same rate as Denmark did from its offshore sector, we could have green goods and services making up 11.5% of the economy and we could have created 100,000 more jobs. So although I admire the chutzpah of Opposition Members calling for price reductions, and the creation of 650,000 jobs, through legislation, I welcome instead our approach of creating a publicly owned energy generation company—the first in 75 years.

[Andrew Bowie]

All we are asking through our amendments is for the Government to put on the face of the Bill what they promised the British people, in their manifesto and many election campaign commitments, that Great British Energy would achieve. Why will the hon. Gentleman not challenge his Ministers to put on the face of this Bill the very things on which he stood for election, such as the creation of 650,000 jobs and the reduction of bills by £300?

[Luke Murphy]

I have to say that, whoever is the winner of the Conservative party leadership contest, I am not sure legislating for the creation of 650,000 jobs is the direction in which they will be heading. I do not believe we can legislate our way to job creation; I believe that is done by introducing an industrial strategy, something that was so lacking in the last 14 years.

Large-scale Energy Projects and Food Security

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I visited her constituency once and a half on nuclear business—the half was due to me travelling on a rain-soaked day in May when events in London called me back somewhat earlier than planned. I completely agree with her points regarding Wylfa being the perfect site for a new nuclear power station, not only in the United Kingdom, but within Europe. I would urge the Minister to heed her words and move forward with what we had planned to do, which was to deliver a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa.

The last time this debate was heard in Westminster Hall—indeed the last time I was in Westminster Hall—I had the privilege of responding as a Minister to the debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). With circumstances somewhat changed in the intervening months—the cast list has changed considerably—I now respond as the shadow Minister. When speaking for the previous Government on the subject, I guaranteed that, should we be returned, the Conservative Administration would not countenance the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. I gave that guarantee from this very place, though standing on the Government side, only six months ago. We changed the planning guidance to ensure that food and energy security were equally important and that top graded agricultural land would be protected, and began the process of ensuring independent verification of soil samples to ascertain the quality of land on which building was proposed.

At that time, I do not think anybody knew how soon the political landscape would be transformed, but I do know that at the time of the debate, colleagues in government were acutely aware of how the Labour party—now the Government—might have been inclined to drastically transform the energy landscape. It was telling, however, that not a single Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP Member was in attendance at the debate that day, apart from the official Opposition spokesperson.

Indeed, within the first few months of this Government we have seen Labour ride roughshod over our attempts to protect rural Britain from the over-development we had pledged to oppose, with the approval of three mammoth solar farms: in July, the 2,000 acre Mallard Pass, the Gate Burton energy park in Lincolnshire and the Sunnica energy farm in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. More recently, we heard of the Corton solar farm.

The Government have committed to trebling solar capacity by the end of the decade. Speaking on his decision to approve those solar farms, the Secretary of State said:

“This is a Government in a hurry to deliver the change it promised.”

Our concern on the Opposition Benches is that the Government are in far too much of a hurry. That hurry leads the Government to ride roughshod over communities’ views, to disregard their discontent, and to sign over agricultural land to industrial use. I am sorry to say that that is a mistake on a number of fronts.

When I spoke on the subject as Minister for Energy, I acknowledged the fundamental need to balance the competing priorities and needs of our finite resources. We believe in solar power, on homes and on brownfield and industrial sites. Under the previous Government, we saw a near 5,000% increase in the number of homes with solar panels, to 1.5 million homes. Solar will play its part in our renewable energy mix and, I might add, has the support of many farmers, as a vital component of their land use, which serves to buoy the financial viability of their arable or livestock ventures through providing secure income.

Farmers host around 70% of Britain’s solar power capacity and many have integrated solar power to some extent, either through panels on outbuildings or by dedicating parts of their land to solar panels. However, we must acknowledge that the primary use for that land is and should remain agricultural. We must protect our domestic ability to feed Britain. Through the pandemic and the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fragility of international supply chains has been illustrated. It is vital that we protect our domestic agricultural capacity.

We produce only 60% of our own supply currently, with every development of 2,000 acres chipping away at potentially productive farmland. The ambition to reduce our carbon footprint, to produce more clean, cheap energy to power our homes and businesses, is a cause that rightly unites us across the House; I hope I am correct in thinking so. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), likes to think that his side of the House has a monopoly on that mission, but I remind him that it was the previous Government who oversaw the first to the fifth largest offshore windfarms in the world being built off British shores. The previous Government achieved the fastest decarbonisation in the G20 while still growing the economy, halving emissions during our period in office.

The Minister has our support for the ambition to decarbonise our energy sector and supply cleaner energy for the UK, but I gently say to him that this headlong rush to 2030 is alienating people in rural communities up and down the country. They too often feel that they are shouldering the burden for keeping the lights on in cities far from them, and that the sheer scale of this infrastructure build is leaving many across our islands feeling under siege.

I speak as the MP for such a community, and know that only too well. I am sure that newly elected Labour MPs representing rural constituencies, in some cases for the first time, will see in their inboxes the fear and anger being generated by these plans. We are united in our desire across the House to reduce our carbon footprint and to conserve our planet for future generations. However, it is evident that on these Benches we have a very different idea of how to attain that ideal. Our path to a cleaner future would not ride roughshod over community consent and would not sacrifice prime agricultural land.

I ask the Minister please to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members from Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Reform party and the Green party, and from everybody who has spoken—bar from the Government Benches—in this debate. Please listen to them and ensure that food security has equal importance to energy security in the eyes of the Government.

Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

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 ---

Division 8

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 1

Noes: 10

[Andrew Bowie]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) (a) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, report to the Secretary of State on the projected cost of fulfilling its strategic priorities under Clause 5 in accordance with its objects under Clause 3.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to be back debating Great British Energy. Given that Margaret Thatcher has already been referenced this morning, we should appreciate that her legacy is the very reason we are standing here today, because she was the first world leader, at the 1989 UN General Assembly, to raise the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, ocean and Earth itself from climate change. Had it not been for her global leadership in so many areas, we would not be debating the issues we are today, nor would the United Kingdom be the world leader in combating climate change we claim it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I know that the Conservative party is in shifting political sands at the moment, but I was not expecting this morning to lead with such a full-throated defence of Thatcher—I do not think she is in the running for the leadership of the party.

[Andrew Bowie]

A shame.

[Michael Shanks]

Some things are outwith even the hon. Gentleman’s powers.

There are a number of reasons why we will resist amendment 20. First—I have made this point a number of times—the Bill is about making the minimum possible provisions to support the establishment of the company. Great British Energy will be operationally independent and, although directed at key points by the Secretary of State, its financial responsibilities will be the same as any other company, subject to all the regulations and laws that any company in this country has to face.

The amendment would introduce unnecessary detail into the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman would have agreed in previous Bills that he was involved in, this is an unnecessary amendment, and he would be making that exact argument if he was standing where I am today. As a publicly owned company, Great British Energy will be accountable through regular reporting to the Department, and its annual accounts and reports will be laid before Parliament so that Parliament can see them in detail. As a publicly owned company, it will also be subject to HM Treasury’s value-for-money guidelines. Like all existing public finance institutions, its investments will be subject to the usual safeguards and risk assessments to minimise the risk to taxpayers.

As I said in our last sitting, the purpose of clause 6 is for the Secretary of State to give direction to the company only in the most urgent or unforeseen circumstances. It is not for day-to-day operational reasons; I gave the example last time of national security issues. The power is meant to be used sparingly to ensure that Great British Energy has the space it requires to fulfil its role and deliver its strategic priorities. The amendment would change the intention of the clause, which is one reason we will resist it today.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State will set Great British Energy’s strategic priorities to ensure that it remains aligned to current Government policy and strategy. It is therefore appropriate that we use clause 5 to set Great British Energy’s strategic priorities and objectives, not clause 6.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State, rightly, has ambitions for Great British Energy—as the whole Government do and as I hope the whole House does. Those achievable objectives will be achieved through the funding envelope set for it by Parliament, backed by £8.3 billion of new money over the lifetime of this Parliament, and working in partnership with the private sector, local authorities and communities to spread skilled jobs and investment across the country.

Great British Energy’s aim is to become a financially sustainable, self-financing organisation in the long term, reinvesting its profits in the Treasury or into new projects. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that Great British Energy will be held accountable for the delivery of its objectives through the usual mechanisms. For those reasons, the Government will not support his amendment today and I hope that he withdraws it.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am sad not to hear a full-throated defence of Mrs Thatcher’s legacy when it comes to climate change—maybe the Minister is more of a “Hug a husky”, “Vote blue, go green” kind of guy in the Cameron mould.

[Michael Shanks]

You were once!

[Andrew Bowie]

Well, that was a long time ago. Although I do not agree with all those arguments for not accepting the amendment, I will not press it to a vote. We will explore those points more deeply, however, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Bowie]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) (a) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on—

(i) Great British Energy’s in-year rate of return on investment, and

(ii) a forecast of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment.

(b) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(c) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.”

Amendment 21 would require Great British Energy to provide an annual report to Parliament on its annual rate of return and investment, and a projection for the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. We heard from the Minister that every project will see a return—we heard it on the Floor of the House—and, as discussed under amendments 11 and 12, GB Energy will drive household bills down by £300. In line with that, it would be useful to include in the legislation a direction for GB Energy to report to the Secretary of State on its in-year rate of return on investments, and a forecast of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment.

We heard assurances from the Government that GB Energy will return lower bills for households, and indeed, as I said, that every project will see a return. As it is a company that intends to invest in and de-risk projects in rising new clean energy technologies, it would be useful to see the return on investment from those projects—statutorily, in the Bill. I imagine that the Minister will have no issue in accepting this amendment, given his confidence in the financial success of GB Energy, and indeed his confidence that every project will generate a return.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for succinctly introducing his amendment; I will be succinct in my response. In debates about previous amendments, I made the points—I will not repeat them—that we should not add unnecessary burdens to the Bill or use the power in clause 6 for different purposes. I know he takes that argument seriously. Amendment 21 significantly widens clause 6 from its intention, which is why we will not support it.

I reiterate, however, that Great British Energy will operate not through some extra-legal mechanism, but in the exact same way as every other company in the UK, and will be responsible in the usual way, under the Companies Act 2006, for the presentation of its accounts. In addition to filing those accounts, financial information, annual reports and so on with Companies House, they will of course be laid before Parliament, and I will personally make sure that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy the moment that it is printed—he can hold me to that—so that, quite rightly, he can scrutinise them.

It is important to say that the day-to-day financial management of the company will be in line with Government regulations. The point of setting up Great British Energy as an independent company is that it will have an expert fiduciary board that will scrutinise the accounts in the usual manner. For those reasons, we do not think that amendment 21 is necessary.

[Andrew Bowie]

While not accepting all of the Minister’s arguments, I look forward to him personally presenting me with the financial returns. I will not press amendment 21 to a vote, but we will obviously explore the issues in more detail when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Andrew Bowie]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself at the time of any investment in renewable energy infrastructure that connection to the National Grid will be made in time for energy produced from the relevant investment asset coming onstream.”

Amendment 22 would require Great British Energy to take all reasonable steps to ensure that access to the national grid is ready for any energy infrastructure invested in by Great British Energy. The great grid upgrade is, without a doubt, a necessary component of our journey to net zero by 2050. Currently, new energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and solar farms—the clean energy-generating technology that we need to invest in in this country—has a significant wait time for grid connection, as do many other projects.

That is why, when in government, we commissioned the Nick Winser review to set out recommendations on how to reduce that timeframe. We accepted every single one of the recommendations and the advice on all 43 areas to ensure that the continued work to drive down connection times was accelerated. Despite the work we initiated in government by accepting those recommendations, the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for new projects can be as long as 10 years, so a project without grid connectivity will potentially not come online until the mid-2030s—well beyond the new Government.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the national grid as though the previous Government—his Government —had not been in power for the last 14 years and did nothing to transform the national grid to support the renewable energy that is essential for the country’s prosperity. All the failures in the national grid system, and all that backlog, are because of the failure to grip the problems with the national grid that happened on his Government’s watch.

[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.

[Torcuil Crichton]

The hon. Gentleman has almost made my point for me. Through GB Energy, communities will have a share and an investment. We will all share in the wealth of wind and in the grid connections that will come through this company.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in GB Energy’s ability to be the problem-solving fix-all. I have my concerns that that will not be the case and that the many issues we face—from grid connectivity to the targets that we in government set and the building of new infrastructure—will not be resolved by the creation of this company, given that the capital expended to it is so low in comparison with other state energy companies.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that none of that will happen without the involvement, commitment, backing and consent of communities. Through GB Energy, that is what we will achieve.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must agree to disagree on this point. Of course, we want to see this effort succeed; we just have our doubts that it will.

Future renewable energy projects face huge connectivity challenges that the Government must be prepared for, but as I said, there is another equally significant challenge: the one facing communities. In my constituency, communities are expected to host hundreds of kilometres of new large pylon infrastructure, but the burden for new infrastructure falls particularly heavily on north-east Scotland, the north of England and East Anglia.

My key points are about the need to gain consent from communities, to reduce the burden where possible, and to have community benefits. We need to bring communities with us; there needs to be a conversation. If we are ever going to get to net zero, we need to stop alienating the communities hosting this infrastructure on behalf of the nation by imposing, rather than seeking, consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. The Clerk is reminding me that interventions should be brief—I remember being told that myself when I sat on a Public Bill Committee at exactly the same point in 2015.

[Andrew Bowie]

Thank you, Dr Huq. When the hon. Member for East Thanet has a spare moment or is struggling to sleep at night, I advise her to go back and review the Hansard of our contributions to the Energy Bill Committee in the last Parliament, during which we debated such points at length.

[Michael Shanks]

Inspirational!

[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.

[Michael Shanks]

I have to say that of all the amendments before the Committee, I find this one utterly extraordinary. The shadow Minister’s amendment says that Great British Energy

“must take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself at the time of any investment in…infrastructure that connection to the National Grid will be made in time for energy produced from the relevant investment asset coming onstream.”

The recognition, after 14 years, that dealing with the issues with connections to the national grid should somehow be important is extraordinary. For the hon. Gentleman to wake up this morning, just a few months after leaving government, and decide that fixing this problem is a massive priority is quite something.

I am genuinely concerned by some of the language that we have heard today. The shadow Minister spoke, quite rightly, about Cameronian support for the climate. I wonder whether the Conservative party, after such a short time, ever takes a look at itself and wonders whether the rhetoric that it uses about the mechanisms we are going to use to tackle the climate crisis is in the right place. I know we have some net zero sceptics in the running to lead the party, but it is quite extraordinary to say in one breath that there are huge connectivity challenges for the country and that communities are “under siege”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to mention Cornwall, but let us not relitigate our earlier argument.

There are huge opportunities. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan made the important point that there are certain parts of the country, particularly in the north of Scotland, where for obvious reasons there are a number of wind projects, and we need to look at the infrastructure that comes with that. We want to ensure we build the nationally important infrastructure to deal with the connections issue that the shadow Minister rightly raises, but we also need to recognise the need for cohesion in planning to make sure that there are not some of the issues that we have seen in other parts of the UK, where a number of projects have come on stream over time rather than being planned coherently.

Finally, on community involvement, the point about consent in dealings with communities is important. We want to take some of the previous Government’s work on consulting on community benefits—we will say more on this in the coming months—to make sure that there is genuine community benefit in hosting not just energy generation infrastructure, but network infrastructure, which will be critical. Nothing that we have said runs roughshod over the planning and consenting process, which will remain for communities.

[Andrew Bowie]

The Minister is being typically generous with his time. He says that nothing will ride roughshod over the planning and consent regime and allowing communities to have their say. Am I to take it from that that there are no plans afoot to resolve the Scottish planning and consenting issues that remain as a result of its being governed by the Electricity Act 1989 while the rest of the United Kingdom is governed by the Planning Act 2008 on electricity, which means that the automatic right to public inquiry remains in Scotland? Is the Minister assuring the Committee and me that that right will remain and that he has no plans to resolve that issue?

[Michael Shanks]

The question of balance, which I was just about to come to, is important. The right to a public inquiry can be triggered by a much smaller number of people in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, so there have been real issues: communities do not generally have a view, so individuals or campaign organisations trigger public inquiries. We are looking at the consenting regime, as I think the hon. Gentleman’s Government was, to bring balance to this.

Balance is key. The Government, from the Prime Minister down, have been clear that we will need to build this infrastructure, which is nationally important for all the reasons that the shadow Minister set out. That is why the amendment is so extraordinary. The shadow Minister said that we need to tackle the huge connectivity challenge—I wrote that down—and the Bill is the mechanism for doing that. Balance is key: my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made it clear that we want communities to benefit from having a stake in what Great British Energy will deliver, but it is important that we get on with building this infrastructure. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment.

[Andrew Bowie]

Right hon. and hon. Members have made some disparaging comments about the Conservative legacy on our climate, but I remind them that we halved our carbon emissions faster than any other G7 nation, built the first floating offshore wind farms in the world, ended coal for power generation and led the world in so many other ways, including developing new technologies and delivering the very successful COP26 conference in Glasgow. It is because our views on this are so aligned that I think the amendment would sit well within the Bill.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

I think the shadow Minister is a secret supporter of the Bill, not a true believer in his amendment. In an interview that he gave to Politico earlier this month, he said that there were “mistakes” in the roll-out of mini-nuclear reactors, because it was a slow process, and he called the infrastructure delays facing the UK “absurd”. I think he knows that the Bill will help to speed those things up and that his false dichotomy between the Government and communities will not really pose a risk to projects.

[Andrew Bowie]

It is a matter of public record that I think we should have gone faster on small modular reactors, and I hope that this Government pick up the pace. On the hon. Gentleman’s other point, my concern is that the creation of GB Energy will get in the way of delivering our objectives and shared goals and supporting new technologies. We oppose its creation because we think it will actually be a block on getting where we need to more quickly.

[Josh MacAlister]

You don’t!

[Andrew Bowie]

I do. That is why I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I am hoping that at some point someone will want to take part in a debate, to save the Committee from hearing only from me.

Clause 8 sets out the extent of the Bill, which is important, and its commencement. The Act will come into force immediately on its passing, reflecting the fact that setting it up has been one of the Government’s key priorities, which is why we commenced the process and introduced the Bill to the House within our first 100 days.

It is important to us that the Bill reach the full territorial extent of the United Kingdom and that it benefit citizens in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have shared net zero targets across the whole UK. Clearly the devolved Administrations have different responsibilities for different aspects of energy policy—it is generally reserved, but in Northern Ireland it is transferred—so the role of Great British Energy will be slightly different in different parts of the UK, but it is important to say that the investments that Great British Energy makes can still drive deployment, create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy across the UK.

I thank the devolved Administrations, who have engaged with me since my appointment as Minister on the Bill. We have had detailed and helpful conversations with my counterparts in all the devolved Governments across the UK. I thank them for how they have engaged in our discussions: they have been supportive of Great British Energy, recognising the benefits that it brings to all parts of the UK, while clearly advocating on behalf of their own Governments. It is important that we continue that. My commitment to them and to the Committee is that we will continue the process after the Bill passes to ensure that we have a company that delivers for all the people of this United Kingdom. I thank them for their constructive and collaborative approach. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Review of effective delivery

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the effectiveness of Great British Energy in—

(a) delivering its objects under section 3,

(b) meeting its strategic priorities under section 5, and

(c) complying with any directions given under section 6.

(2) After each review, the independent person must—

(a) prepare a report of the review, and

(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State,

as soon as is reasonably practicable after the completion of the review.

(3) The independent person must submit to the Secretary of State—

(a) the first report under this section within the period of 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act comes into force, and

(b subsequent reports at intervals of no more than 12 months thereafter.

(4) On receiving the report, the Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable in each case—

(a) publish the report,

(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, and

(c) prepare and lay before Parliament a response to the report’s findings.

(5) In this section, references to an ‘independent person’ are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of—

(a) the Secretary of State, and

(b) Great British Energy.”—(Andrew Bowie.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andrew Bowie]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Secretary of State is establishing a new state-run body—for the record, that is something that I oppose—of which the energy sector has many. For example, we have the UK Infrastructure Bank, an organisation that has many similarities with Great British Energy. As with UKIB, the Bill aims to give statutory force to the company’s objectives. However, unlike the legislation for UKIB, the Bill does not endeavour to create statutory forms of transparency, accountability and governance for the firm, so it is concerning that the Great British Energy Bill gives the Secretary of State sole powers of direction. We cannot possibly think why that would appeal to the Secretary of State, so my new clause 2 would ensure a level of independence in the governance of Great British Energy.

The Minister said on Thursday that Great British Energy would be “operationally independent”, but it lacks specific, key components to ensure that. Indeed, it seems that a significant level of direction lies with the Secretary of State. I suggest to the Minister that accepting the new clause to introduce a requirement for an independent person to review the effectiveness of Great British Energy in delivering its objects would ensure its independence and transparency.

There is a precedent in the legislation on the UK Infrastructure Bank for the designation of an independent person to carry out reviews into the effectiveness of GB Energy. If that does not happen, we are concerned that any review of its effectiveness may be perceived externally as Great British Energy simply marking its own homework. If the UK Infrastructure Bank has appointed an independent person to conduct reviews of its effectiveness, why are the Government so reluctant to set out the same standards for Great British Energy?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for his attempt to add an additional clause to the Bill. I will speak briefly about why we do not support new clause 2, but I agree with him on the importance of ensuring that Great British Energy be accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives. We absolutely want to see that as well.

We believe that the Bill is in a strong place at the moment. It will, of course, utilise all the mechanisms already in place for other companies, including publicly owned companies, through its annual reports and accounts. It will provide regular updates on its work, meeting its objectives and the stewardship of the public funds that it is given. It is important to recognise that the reports, accounts, other information and directions that have been given will be laid before Parliament and will therefore be readily available to hon. Members. In the same way as any other company operating in the UK, Great British Energy will undergo external audit of its accounts, providing a further level of assurance. It will be expected to publish its own strategic plan on how it will deliver its objectives, which will be laid before Parliament.

I do not think it proportionate to add another mechanism for an annual independent review. I note the shadow Minister’s point about the UK Infrastructure Bank, but the rhythm of independent review was that it would happen once the bank had been operating for seven years and would be repeated at intervals of no more than five years. I do not think the new clause proportionate to what was introduced in the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023.

In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington described as the shadow Minister’s secret support for the Bill—he doth protest a little too much in saying that he opposes it—I would hate to suggest that the new clause was some kind of mechanism to stymie the action of Great British Energy. However, the frequent cadence that the shadow Minister proposes for the review would considerably interrupt the work of the company in actually delivering. It would be under almost continuous review, which does not seem proportionate or effective for a company that we aim to move in a nimble and speedy way to deliver for the British people. I would rather Great British Energy got on with delivering for the British people on its important mission to deliver projects to benefit all the United Kingdom. We will not support the new clause.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept the new clause. We have some concerns about transparency and accountability, which we will explore further on Report. I will not push new clause 2 to a vote today—not least because I seem to have lost my Whip, but also because we wish to explore the issue on the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Directors: appointment and tenure

“Great British Energy must secure that its articles of association provide that—

(a) Great British Energy is to have at least five and no more than fourteen directors;

(b) the chair of Great British Energy’s board, Great British Energy’s chief executive officer and the non-executive directors are to be appointed by the Secretary of State;

(c) the Board is to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the Board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions;

(d) the period of a non-executive director’s appointment is not to exceed four years, or such shorter period as may be specified in the terms on which the director is appointed;

(e) a person may be appointed as a non-executive director no more than two times;

(f) a person ceases to be a non-executive director as soon as—

(i) the person ceases to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Companies Act 2006 or is prohibited from being a director by law,

(ii) the person becomes bankrupt (in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland) or the person’s estate has been sequestrated (in relation to Scotland),

(iii) a registered medical practitioner who is treating the person gives a written opinion to Great British Energy stating that the person has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and is likely to remain so for more than three months, or the person has resigned as non-executive director in accordance with notification which the person has given to Great British Energy.”—(Andrew Bowie.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andrew Bowie]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On governance, new clause 3 would require Great British Energy to appoint between five and 14 directors, alongside a chair of the board, a chief executive officer and non-executive directors. Like new clause 2, it would bring checks and balances to the governance of Great British Energy to ensure that the powers of direction do not rest too heavily on the Secretary of State. Like new clause 2, it has a precedent in legislation: section 7 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 sets out precisely the same requirements for the appointment and tenure of its directors. I therefore commend new clause 3 to the Committee.

Before I sit down, Dr Huq, may I take the opportunity to thank you and Sir Roger for your chairship? I thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, the Minister for his time, and all right hon. and hon. Members for their attendance.

I also thank the officials in the Box. I had the distinct privilege of serving in the Department for just shy of two years. The Minister is very lucky to have such an able team of civil servants supporting him in his work; it was a genuine privilege to work alongside them. Although I do not think that Great British Energy will succeed in its objectives, I wish them the very best in endeavouring to set this company up.

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to end on an argument about why the Conservative party is in such a rut, but the hon. Gentleman has changed the tone completely. I feel lost with my political attacks, so I will move swiftly on to why new clause 3 is not necessary.

I will not detain the Committee long. The argument is clear that there are quite established governance arrangements in place for companies of this type, and it is not necessary for primary legislation to make provision on the detail of the board of directors. There are a number of very well-established governance documents that set the course for this. The UK corporate governance code published by the Financial Reporting Council sets out best practice, to which Great British Energy will conform.

The interim chair Juergen Maier, whom we met last week, is in place to start up the company. Recruitment is under way for other key posts, and the permanent chair and the non-executive directors will be recruited in due course. The governance code on public appointments will make it clear how those will be carried out; they will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. Although I recognise the shadow Minister’s legitimate points about transparency and accountability, I think his new clause unnecessary.

Rather than giving my prepared remarks criticising the Conservatives’ position, let me gently say that I am grateful that in the three days on which the Committee has met, the shadow Minister has moved closer and closer to voting Aye. I am confident that by Report he will be in the right Lobby. I welcome that move.

I genuinely thank all hon. Members for serving on the Committee; it has been a pleasure. Dr Huq, I thank you and Sir Roger for your stewardship of the Committee, along with everyone who has been involved in delivering its sittings. I also thank all our witnesses who gave their time freely last Tuesday. It was quite a lengthy session, but they gave important evidence—not least because every single witness confirmed how important Great British Energy is to delivering our mission to move to clean power by 2030.

As it has been three months now that I have had the privilege of having this job, I will finish by echoing the shadow Minister’s points, which were heartfelt, genuine and absolutely right, about the exceptional skill and qualifications of civil servants in what was once the Department of Energy and Climate Change. A change of Government is a considerable thing for the civil service, but it has moved at pace, as the Government have. I give real credit to the civil servants who make things happen and who so often do not get the credit for their hard work. I thank them all, and I thank hon. Members for their consideration. I do not support new clause 3, but I thank everyone for their time today.

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not push new clause 3 to a vote. We will discuss the issue further on Report, but I will not detain the Committee any longer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Thank you, everyone, for your patience with me and Sir Roger in the first Bill Committee of this Parliament.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.