Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Andrew Pakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Pippa Heylings]

Q Given your history as a civil servant and in government over the last years, one of the issues around governance under clause 5 was the level of scope and power given to the Secretary of State, without a review, being able to review, reverse or replace the statement. Given that in the past we have had the rolling back of commitments and that we are trying to create certainty for investment, do you have any reflections on whether there should be any kind of review before the Secretary of State can do anything? We are being asked to support this Bill’s being so broad and flexible that any change would be quite substantive. Is there any learning from the past where you would change the way that is described in the Bill?

Josh Buckland: There is a question around consultative processes, I suppose. One thing we have seen, or that I have experienced, especially on the planning side, is that when the Government set out statements of intent—for example, through the planning regime and national policy statements—it is important to consult on those extensively in advance so that there is certainty around what they mean. Then they have to wait as institutions respond. There may be a question about what level of external input is given before the statement of strategic priorities is set out, or whether it is just a Government statement that is then passed through. There is an interesting question about consultation in advance.

Once it is established, those acting and investing alongside Great British Energy will be more interested in how it as an institution interprets that statement. If it has to set out a strategic business plan as set out under subsection (8), that is the area that companies will be more interested in, because—assuming it is operationally independent—that is the thing that they will take more seriously.

The other dynamic in terms of updates is the risk that regular updates to the strategic plan create uncertainty. That might go back to the question of timeline and expectations of when the statement is reviewed, when it is republished and at what stage, and what needs to change externally to make that a reality. That is probably an important dynamic. Whether that is a matter for the Bill I will leave to others to guide on, but obviously it is an area that will be of interest externally in understanding how Great British Energy operates in practice.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

Q Most of my professional background has been in workforce development in supply chains, ensuring that we can deliver. Even though we have had the conversation about the flexibility and the broadness of the objectives, I think this is still an ambitious piece of legislation that the Government are putting forward. I am interested in your reflections on the objectives and the financial assistance, and whether you think that in the country we currently have the supply chain or the skills to deliver on this ambition, or whether the Bill itself in containing these powers will be a catalyst to deliver on that ambition.

Josh Buckland: Ultimately, the question of supply chain is broader than this Bill. Great British Energy could absolutely play a role, especially if it is doing place-based investments or is particularly investing in certain projects. but there is a fundamental question for the Government, as they look to build out the supply chain, around what they are doing at a skills-based level, what they are doing at a technology development level and how they are giving greater clarity on the pipeline of projects over time, some of which might be invested in by Great British Energy and some of which might not. For me, supply chain and skills deployment is a matter of broader Government policy, which Great British Energy can support.

As we stand here today, we do not necessarily have the right level of skilled capacity in the country to deliver all the ambitions that have been set out across infrastructure. It is important not just to look at the energy sector; a lot of the changes will require changes in the transport sector, the water sector and others, but that does not mean that we cannot have those skills if there is a broader framework to develop them, to train and to invest at scale in the supply chain. Great British Energy could play some role in that, but the broader policy framework and the Government’s ambitions more widely will dictate that to a greater degree.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed for your time this afternoon, Mr Buckland. The Committee is indebted to you.

Examination of Witnesses

Olivia Powis, Jack Norquoy and Myrtle Dawes gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Q Before we were interrupted, my second question was about what the biggest impact of the Bill will be on your members. I do not think we have covered that.

Andy Prendergast: Both in terms of shoring up the jobs we currently have and potentially creating the jobs we so desperately need, one of our real concerns about net zero is the fact that, in a lot of countries, there is a perception that net zero is something being done to people, not with them. Look at the response in America, which is very much typified by “Drill, baby, drill”; look at Germany, where, bizarrely, Alternative für Deutschland is organising around heat pumps. We already have Reform UK talking about fighting the next election on the basis of net zero.

What we have recognised is that we have to make net zero work for people, and we think the best way of making that happen is to ensure that net zero comes with jobs and opportunities. The simple reality is that, if we get it right, those jobs and opportunities are going to be in the post-industrial areas. We have seen the maps put forward by people in the hydrogen lobby and from carbon capture and storage. These are jobs in places that desperately need them. If we are going to be serious about levelling up and making sure that prosperity is spread in Britain, we need to rebuild those industrial heartlands with proper, decent technologies that we can start exporting.

[Andrew Pakes]

Q It is good to have you in, Andy. Do you think there should be anything in the Bill and its priorities on workforce development? Having worked in the sector alongside GMB colleagues, my experience is that lots of these new companies set up, but do not recognise trade unions and do not have the quality of work that we have seen previously in the power and industry sectors, particularly in renewables and others. Indeed, some of the renewables companies, despite being divisions of existing larger companies that do recognise unions, have set up without recognition. What do you think the role is of the Bill, or its strategic priorities, in ensuring we get the right terms and conditions for the new workforce, as we have for existing workforces?

Andy Prendergast: That is a very good question. We have been really pleased to see that the role of trade unions is incorporated in the Bill, although we do need to flesh out exactly how that works.

Your criticism of the renewables industry, particularly for members of the GMB, is absolutely critical. When people talk about our role in industry, what they are often talking about is the white-collar jobs—the ones in universities, getting the technology. They are not talking about the blue-collar jobs, which, at the moment, are the ones in the energy sector that are very well unionised, with good rates of pay and excellent terms and conditions, and which give the security that families and communities need for the long term.

What really concerns us about the renewables industry so far is that it came with the promise of mass jobs that simply have not materialised. Alex Salmond promised 30,000 jobs in offshore wind; 10 years later, fewer than 10,000 have been delivered. Particularly when you are looking at maintenance jobs, you are talking about jobs that are subcontracted with terrible terms and conditions and that are anti-union. When we look at the success that places like America or Europe have had in renewables, trade unions are at the heart of that.

What we have seen so far is a real willingness from the Government to work with both ourselves and employers. One of the bizarre things about it is that those coalitions really have an impact. One of the most surprising days in my job was attending a meeting here and being praised by a Tory MP, which I never thought would happen—it was one of those pinch-yourself moments. It was in relation to Hinkley Point: it was recognised that we had a huge role there in helping to develop the workforce and to manage the process of ensuring both that they benefited and that we got things done quickly and properly.

If we get that right, this is an opportunity to bring not just jobs but good jobs. In a lot of the areas that we are talking about, we have this constant debate about “red wall” and about “post-industrial”. It is not that there are no jobs there; it is just that the jobs being brought in are not very good ones. They are not jobs that offer permanent contracts. They are not jobs that offer good pensions, sick pay or opportunities for advancement. They are zero-hours contracts—got here today, gone tomorrow—that give people very little pride. This is an opportunity to reverse that 40-year decline in our industrial base and do something positive about it.

[Uma Kumaran]

Q I declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB. Thanks, Andy. The transition is one that we all care about, and it needs to be a just transition that takes local communities with us. In your opinion, what more can the Government do to ensure that workers and jobs are kept at the heart of the GB Energy Bill?

Andy Prendergast: Part of this is about listening without prejudice. Look, we are going to be absolute clear: we agree with the Labour Government on a huge swathe of things, but one thing we do not agree on is the ending of oil and gas licences. We look at oil and gas licences and every single scenario into the future requires us to have oil and gas. We as a nation have a choice. We either take it for ourselves, with high working and environmental standards, or we import it from a number of frankly disreputable regimes.

Part of that transition has to be listening to those communities and the people doing the jobs and actually take their expertise. We are absolutely clear—and I think it is obvious to anyone with half a brain—that global warming is happening and the speed at which is happening is quicker. It is the biggest challenge that humanity has faced, certainly in my lifetime, and we need to deal with it. The concern for us, and this relates to what I was talking about earlier, is that if we get this wrong and we do not listen to communities and do not bring them with us, we risk getting a reaction against that, which is what we have seen in America and Europe. Then, instead of doing it a little bit slower but in a demonstrable and deliverable way, we end up with an electorate being offered simple solutions and quick fixes, and ultimately due to a mixture of climate pessimism and snake oil salesmen, they take the wrong decision. We have to look at some of this from a pragmatic angle, ask what is best in the national interest and listen to the workers and communities who are currently benefiting.