Great British Energy Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

It is hard to overstate the importance of the energy sector to my constituents and, indeed, to the whole of north-east Scotland, so I am grateful to be called today. First, I must address the reports that Great British Energy might be headquartered in Aberdeen. The Government are still yet to confirm that, saying that it is speculation, but the manner in which they have managed this announcement speaks volumes. The ambiguity and the joking about when an announcement might be made, and then just saying that the headquarters will be in Scotland, do absolutely nothing to help the speculation and delayed decisions or give the industry any confidence. These layers of uncertainty are driving away investment and creating a less secure job environment in north-east Scotland. Aberdeen has always been the energy capital of Europe. It has been that way for half a century, so it is the most logical choice for the headquarters.

I have significant reservations and concerns, which I will outline today. The North sea oil and gas industry is not just part of the economy in Aberdeenshire, but the bedrock on which our communities and my constituents in Gordon and Buchan have built their livelihoods for generations. It is not just about the direct jobs in the industry and the associated services in the hospitality sector, for example. An overall economic ecosystem has developed, and that is why it is critical that we manage the energy transition properly, so that the north-east of Scotland does not become the next region to suffer industrial decline as the mining areas did. I am sure that the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Labour party do not want that on their record.

The Government’s plan for Great British Energy, coupled with the energy profits levy, puts the industry at risk at this vital time. The proposed increases and the removal of the investment allowances could be a death knell for investment in our area. Let me be clear: this is not about protecting the profits of large companies just for profits’ sake; it is about protecting the jobs and skills and futures of our communities. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the tax increase could see investments in the UK cut, and that they might fall from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion between now and 2029. That is not scaremongering; it is what the industry is facing.

We can take today’s figure of £14.1 billion of private investment and compare that with what the Government are suggesting: £8.3 billion of public investment into GB Energy just to create an investment vehicle. We already have an investment stream in the north-east of Scotland. It is not Government money that is needed, but a stable, fair, globally competitive market for our national and multinational companies. They will do the business. Public money to create GB Energy while simultaneously introducing these punitive taxation and other measures that are projected to drive away investment just does not make sense, because the same investment in capital, skills and personnel that we need for our energy security today are also vital for an effective and efficient transition to clean energy.

I have a number of questions for the Government about Great British Energy, and I will start with job security and creation. How will Great British Energy protect existing jobs in Aberdeenshire’s energy sector? We have already seen a significant loss of jobs due to the oil price downturn and market uncertainty. The Government boast that Great British Energy will create 650,000 new jobs, 69,000 of which are projected to be in Scotland, but we need specifics. Figures have been provided at a regional level across England, but we have only one figure for the whole of Scotland.

The distribution of jobs in Scotland is currently heavily weighted towards Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east, so no matter how many jobs might or might not be generated by GB Energy in Scotland, my constituents want and need to know where those jobs will be. Can the Minister confirm when he sums up how many of the jobs will be in Aberdeenshire and the north-east, what types of roles they will be and when they will be created? Already, oil and gas workers are losing their jobs and moving abroad to maintain or progress their careers. They are the workers we need for the transition.

Secondly, we must consider the economic impact on our local communities. For example, how will the wealth that flows into our local infrastructure and economy and community projects be replicated in the future under Great British Energy? Looking at the national picture, the Oil and Gas Authority estimates that the total revenue from oil and gas production in the five years to 2024 was £5.3 billion. Are the Secretary of State and the Chancellor willing to sacrifice that in the pursuit of an accelerated transition? That would be a significant dent in the £8.3 billion of public investment.

We need a balanced approach. We are not against the energy transition, and we recognise that the transition will take time, but rushing it could have severe consequences for communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan. We are after net zero, not absolute zero. They are different things, and we do not need to banish oil and gas from our energy mix immediately in order prematurely to be on the road to net zero.

The people of Gordon and Buchan and indeed all of north-east Scotland are not against change. We have been at the forefront of energy innovation for decades, but we need the transition to work for our communities and to build their strength, rather than dismantle them. We must protect jobs. I call on the Government to provide clear answers, not just high-level projections, on how we expect Great British Energy to benefit, not harm, the existing industry in Gordon and Buchan. Our communities have so much to lose if we get this wrong, and they deserve our help with a comprehensive plan, not ideology.

Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. We are moving outside the scope of the Bill.

Juergen Maier: Anyway, the answer to your question is the same answer that I gave for Aberdeen. There will be an HQ, a lot of the activities, project management, knowledge and engineering, but obviously when it gets to installation and port-type infrastructure work, there will be significant opportunity in Cornwall and anywhere serving the Celtic sea.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Q Good morning, Mr Maier. The Bill states that GB Energy will be involved in the supply and storage of clean energy. It goes on to say that clean energy is from

“sources other than fossil fuels”.

Where is the cut-off? With things like blue hydrogen, there is a crossover: fossil fuels are involved, but the product is not necessarily what you would call a fossil fuel. Where does GB Energy come in?

Juergen Maier: Our core focus will be on renewable energy that is not derived from fossil fuels, to be clear. However, there are obviously energy sources that are part of the transition, and the Bill so allows. Clause 3(2)(b) refers to

“the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,”

which would include blue hydrogen, for example. I believe that blue hydrogen is necessary as part of the transition, because you just cannot produce enough green hydrogen to get us going from the get-go, so you need a transitional way of getting there, as long as the clear purpose is to see it as a transition to ensure that the future is all green hydrogen.

[Harriet Cross]

In that respect, we would still need fossil fuels—oil and gas—going forward to help the transition.

Juergen Maier: Of course, yes.

[Uma Kumaran]

Q Welcome, Mr Maier. It is good to hear your reassurances about communities being kept at the heart of this. You have told us about renewables, about offshore and about clean energy. As we have heard, it is a short Bill, but I would welcome your thoughts on what the Bill tells us about the objects and the strategic priorities of GB Energy and whether, in your view, it gives you enough detail to carry out your work.

Juergen Maier: It certainly gives me a very clear direction, along with the framework document that we will develop together with the Secretary of State and the Minister. The short answer to your question is that it is pretty clear. The purpose is clear, and that is the most important thing: the purpose, at the end of the day, is that we will accelerate the amount of clean renewable energy that we put on the grid, and that we will create as much prosperity and as many jobs through it as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. The Clerk is saying that we are straying from the scope of the Bill. We are okay for time because we have until 10.20 am, but it is getting a bit hypothetical about what will happen on top of the Bill, which, I am being told, is not really allowed.

[Harriet Cross]

Q This question is aimed at both of you. In terms of the job prospects for GB Energy, we have had figures such as 650,000 jobs, with 69,000 of those in Scotland as and when they come. However, I am sure that your members will be looking at not necessarily future jobs, but current jobs and the implication of the Bill for them. What would you like to see in the Bill to ensure that the jobs that are there today are protected? Do you think the Bill as it stands can and will impact them?

Mike Clancy: I am not sure. As extensive as the powers of Parliament are, I am not sure a Bill in itself can give any of those guarantees. I am not trying to avoid an answer; the reality is that the Bill will set up a company with certain objectives, and those objectives should address directly the generation of employment. You have already heard and asked questions about how many jobs there will be in Aberdeen, what that will scale up to, and what it will mean in terms of the supply chain.

We are seeing a lot of very considerable numbers in a lot of different energy spaces: potentially great demand and very high-quality jobs in both the public space and the private ownership of utilities. But it is all promise. Some of the numbers are so significant in aggregate that you have to wonder where they are going to come from, because there is pressure on different parts of the infrastructure. There are lots of synergies between this sector and others—the skills are the same in aviation, defence and so on—and the basic throughput of science, technology, engineering and maths skills in this country is a long-term inhibitor to our productivity and our delivery. In terms of the narrow focus of the Bill, this organisation needs to be the stimulus for that supply chain, with good employment conditions throughout.

One of the issues in a just transition is that you replace public and private structured, high-quality jobs with jobs that are flimsier, more fragile and more temporary. If GB Energy can be a champion for long-term, durable relationships with its workforce—and that is how you want the energy sector to go—that is your best bet for having the jobs promise to replace those that have to be removed due to the climate impact.

Mika Minio-Paluello: The easiest solution is to keep someone working in their current workplace, precisely because, as Mike explained, there is a significant risk that, in shifting across, you end up with more precarious work. A lot of the onshore supply chain for offshore oil and gas has been struggling; we have seen a big decline over the past 14 years both within the supply chain and directly. Chunks of that supply chain can be future-proofed to support offshore wind and other parts, and GB Energy has a significant role to play in supporting those supply chain sites. Whether it is Shepherd Offshore, Smulders or cable manufacturers, GB Energy should say, “We will be purchasing from you, and not just from China.” There is a big risk of China coming to dominate the offshore wind supply chain. We could end up in a situation with offshore wind like the one with solar at the moment, where if you buy a solar panel, it is 97% made in China. GB Energy can play a role in making sure the offshore wind supply chain is situated here, and that is part of the protection.

The other part is about what could be done in the Bill, although it will not necessarily protect jobs—Mike is right; the Bill itself cannot entirely protect individual jobs. In our submission, we suggest that there could be an amendment to the strategic priorities section and that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard for a just transition, job equality and job creation. It should be embedded as a core part of the statement so that, when the Secretary of State sits down to prepare it, they go, “Okay, part of what we are going to put in here is about a just transition, job equality and job creation.” That is a possible amendment.

We have also suggested an amendment on protection, particularly given that a lot of the job creation and economic impact will be in Wales and Scotland, so the Bill will play an important role for those nations. That means that those nations should probably have a say, through their devolved Governments, on what happens down the line to GB Energy. Let us say that down the line a future Government goes, “Well, actually we are going to privatise it,” or, “We are going to instruct it to dispose of a lot of assets,” Scotland and Wales should be able to have a say and go, “Well actually, this is about our economy here and we think that shouldn’t happen.” We suggest doing that through an amendment but you could explore different mechanisms, including golden shares for those devolved Governments that specifically say that.

[The Chair]

Order. Sorry, but I did tell off the shadow Minister for talking about jobs when they are not in the Bill. I think we are straying quite a fair distance away. We are meant to stick within the scope of the contents of the Bill. With that in mind, a brilliant example will be Josh MacAlister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

Q This is a follow-up for Ravi Gurumurthy, on the theme of autonomy and flexibility for GBE. For this to be a success, there needs to be some appetite for risk taken by GBE. Historically, Government agencies have not been known for being particularly free to do that. The Bill intends to provide a degree of flexibility for GBE to operate and respond with autonomy and pace. Given the work that Nesta has done in this space, Ravi, can you say a little more about what gives you the confidence that the Bill sets that up in the right way?

Ravi Gurumurthy: It is a very challenging question. As you know, good intentions in this area often do not translate. You can mandate and say you want to operate with risk appetite, but it does not really translate into behaviour. What do I think are some of the components? The capitalisation of GB Energy is really important, because that gives it some degree of resource to take risks. I am quite interested in whether, as well as investing in novel technologies with a high-risk appetite, GB Energy can either take cashless equity stakes or invest in more established technologies, because if you have a more balanced portfolio, it might give you the ability to take risks in some aspects.

That gets you into a conversation about the fiscal rules. The one thing I would say about this area is that if you compare offshore wind and other established energy technologies with roads or hospitals, the big difference in my mind is that for offshore wind we will build those wind farms whether the state invests or not, and we will pay as consumers, whereas roads and hospitals will not get built if the state does not. The point is that we are going to pay for it, and we will pay more through private sector borrowing than we will through the state.

The second big difference is that unlike a road or a hospital, there was a guaranteed revenue stream through a contract for difference, so there is a really good rationale for why we should not have fiscal rules that bias us towards 100% private sector borrowing, rather than the state either taking a cashless equity stake via this development process or actually investing. If you do that, it will give GB Energy the ability to then take risks on the much more novel aspects of the portfolio and have failures. If GB Energy does not have failures, it will not be doing its job.

[Harriet Cross]

Q We have heard a lot about public investment and the importance of private investment for meeting net zero. Is there anything in the Bill that encourages you that the amount of public investment going in will attract the amount of private investment that is needed? We have to take this Bill in the round with other energy policies coming forward. How does it sit alongside those in ensuring that we continue to attract private investment into the energy sector?

Marc Hedin: I may be playing devil’s advocate here, but there is a slight risk if a public company were to invest in a utility scale project. At the moment in GB, we manage to attract quite a lot of capital to deploy renewable projects, for instance. There is also a risk of perceived unfair competition that would be detrimental to future capital attractiveness, so I would add that to the global reflection around this topic.

Ravi Gurumurthy: To come in on that, it is very common in other countries for the state to co-invest. I have spoken to a lot of other organisations, and we need to attract £350 billion to £500 billion of capital into power generation in the next 10 years. I think it is perfectly possible for the state to play a role in that. Everything that GB Energy is trying to do is to reduce the risk and increase the predictability of the investment environment. If you take the developer role, at the moment the private sector, when it bids in for a seabed lease, has to have the uncertainty of whether that project will ever get commissioned and the long delay in planning and consenting, grid connection and environmental surveys. If we can actually have the state do some of that and de-risk it, I think it is more likely to get that private sector investment. That is what happens in the Netherlands and it is what the Danes are moving towards, and it is also partly what happens in Germany. There is a good track record of these sorts of environments working well to attract private sector investment.

Shaun Spiers: That is right. You cannot dictate the culture of a company in a Bill. There was a criticism of the Green Investment Bank, for instance, that it invested in rather established technologies and had an insufficiently high appetite for risk. It will be important that GB Energy does pump-prime private investment and not replace it.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q You anticipated my question. To pivot back, Ravi, you talked about innovation, and you talked, Shaun, about closing that 20% towards net zero. What can this Bill and GB Energy do to drive that private sector investment?

Shaun Spiers: Ravi has written the report on it.

Ravi Gurumurthy: Your question is: what can it do to drive private sector investment?

Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

This will be the final question.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Q The aim of GB Energy, among other things, is to decarbonise the grid. The 2030 date has been thrown around. Practically, in terms of timescales, no matter what happens with GB Energy, the Crown Estate and land leases, it would not impact the Crown Estate’s ability to bring more wind farms online by 2030. What is in the Bill at the moment that can bring on the transition and help to decarbonise?

Dan Labbad: If you look at where we are today, we have just under 12 GW generating. The Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has about 42 GW in the pipeline. The first thing is: how can we bring as much of that to generating as possible? That is really important. Where and how do we remove immediate encumbrances? That is something we can work on immediately. From there, even to bring 20 GW to 30 GW to market by 2030 needs a lot of work and co-ordination.

To put it another way, we have delivered 12 GW of generating capacity in 25 years and if, as informed by the Climate Change Committee, we are to move up to 125 GW of generating capacity by 2050, that means we need a five to tenfold increase in the next 25 years. What we do in the next few years is incredibly important to ensure that we are laying the foundations for that to be a successful deployment.

[The Chair]

I said that that would be the final question, but we have a couple of minutes left, so, very briefly, I call Torcuil Crichton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake]

Q Is there anything that you feel is missing from the Bill that would provide clarity, or do you think it will be covered in subsequent documentation?

Josh Buckland: My personal view on financial assistance is that it is fine to keep it relatively broad. Having been a civil servant in government for a long time, I know that primary legislation, if it is relatively broad, gives you the ability to think commercially, and clearly the energy transition will be set out with a range of different technologies. Innovation will come through, and the ability for the Bill to be flexible will assist that.

There are other questions about things that are referenced less in the Bill—let’s put it that way. In some of the previous legislation—for example, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which set out the Green Investment Bank—the Government talked about the need for operational independence undertakings and gave more clarity on the importance of creating an independent institution that can act in a way that ensures it can partner with the private sector and can take investment decisions that mobilise private investment and do not distort the market. Although that is not necessarily linked to clause 4, there are some interesting questions around whether the independence framework set out goes far enough to give that reassurance to the private market.

[Harriet Cross]

Q The Bill, as we have discussed, is pretty light on detail at the moment, which means it could be all things to all people or not offer enough answers to give any reassurance to anyone. From your clients’ point of view, is there a different mechanism that they would prefer? How could this public investment be used in a different manner to actually help drive and retain the private investment coming in at the moment? In other words, is this the best mechanism for keeping and driving investment?

Josh Buckland: On the surface, a range of different countries have publicly owned energy companies of different sizes and scales. Therefore, I do not agree with the concept that private investors are either unfamiliar or concerned at a general level. It will all come down to your point around the design of the actual institution and how it operates with the private market.

I think you are right to say that the Bill is relatively high-level. Looking back at some of the precedents that exist, I would mention the Green Investment Bank again. That was operational for a number of years and was established and grown while the legislation was then taken later down the line. It was easier, if you were a private investor, to understand the role that the Green Investment Bank would play and then have the legislation to effectively inform and solidify that.

The challenge in this context is that the Government have obviously proceeded with the legislation early on, as the institution is being established. That does not mean to say that it cannot be created as an institution that is independent and galvanises private investment but, clearly, the current level of uncertainty around the design and the mechanisms that it will deploy will add to that challenge.

Therefore, the Government have said that alongside the Bill they will look to publish more detail on a framework agreement with Government, and how they will set that out and consult with private industry. That, in tandem with the Bill, is critical at this formation stage. That is not to say that it necessarily leads to all that detail being in the Bill itself, but it is critical that it goes alongside it.

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

Q It is good to hear you say that the Bill has the full range of mechanisms within it to mobilise capital. There has been a recurring theme today that the Bill should provide flexibility for future eventualities as the energy system changes dynamically. Do you have any reflections on the past 10 years, and looking ahead to the next 10 years, as to how the mechanisms that get chosen by the executive at GB Energy might have changed had it been in existence 10 years ago? Looking ahead as well, how might the mechanisms that it chooses change over time?

Josh Buckland: It is a fair and good question. I think your substantive point is absolutely right; the mechanisms set out under clause 4 give Great British Energy the opportunity to take different approaches as technology shifts and changes. We have definitely seen, over the past decade, a shift towards different mechanisms deployed by Government. At the early stage, they were largely bilateral, non-competitive and largely done on a kind of long-term contract basis. It is very instructive to look at what the UK Infrastructure Bank is now doing; it is now looking at different mechanisms—earlier stage investment, development capital at risk, and equity investments. Those are the sorts of things that Governments have not traditionally done at the scale that is necessarily required for the energy transition but that obviously Great British Energy could play a role in extending.

There is an interesting question around where you draw the line between Great British Energy and the role of other existing institutions. The Government have already talked about the fact that they are going to evolve the UK Infrastructure Bank to be the national wealth fund, and obviously that will have some crossover with the operations and focus areas of Great British Energy. For me—this may be an issue that is separate from the Bill—how the Government set out how the governance will work between the Department, the Government, Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and other institutions will be critical to making that a success over time, as the executive of Great British Energy looks at new issues and technologies as they come through.

I would stress—I imagine that this point may be made by other witnesses—that the fact that clause 3 is relatively broad, in terms of the sectors and areas that the entity can invest in, is really beneficial, because that also allows some level of independence for the executive to take choices as the energy sector evolves. Clearly, we know the many technologies that we have now, but there will be a range of different issues that come through. I therefore think that that flexibility under clause 3 is quite important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

Q In terms of the opportunities that exist in the Bill and GB Energy, would the appetite of your members for projects related to production or the generation of net zero energy be increased by the quantum that is available as part of GB Energy, which is relatively small in real terms—£1.3 billion per year, less the money that is already likely to be allocated to local plans and community projects—or by the ability to de-risk? If it is the latter, could you expand on your earlier answer?

David Whitehouse: I think we all recognise that on the journey to net zero a huge amount of investment is required to get us there—the Climate Change Committee says that £1.4 trillion is required. The lion’s share will come from the private sector, so GB Energy will help, but actually we need to create the conditions more broadly where we have investment in the energy sector that turns into enduring value. That is what we need to deliver, and we can talk about that.

Where GB Energy can play a role is in those opportunities that would not otherwise have happened, such as through the opportunity to de-risk projects. If we look at things such as carbon storage, de-risking and understanding the nature of the carbon stores and using that as an opportunity to buy into future investments is a role that GB Energy can and should play.

We have spoken about connectivity with Europe. Scotland and the UK’s future will be hydrogen pipelines to Europe, and there is a role for a state player to crowd in private sector money make those projects happen. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle but, if we work in partnership with industry, it should be much more than that. Getting money is difficult, but it is not always the most difficult thing that we have to do, so it is about unblocking the other issues. There are 13 years from consent to the delivery of the first electrons. It is in those areas where we can have a state player sitting with industry that understands our challenges and what we need to do. We often talk about GB Energy as an investment vehicle, but it should have a bigger vision than that.

[Harriet Cross]

Q The statement of strategic priorities set out in clause 5 does not have a timescale on it. I wonder how important it is from your members’ points of view that that timescale is narrowed down, particularly given that a lot of your members will be international companies. Obviously investment and personnel—that is, skills—flow abroad, and we cannot guarantee that they will wait for a strategic priorities document to come forward.

David Whitehouse: There is no doubt that the UK and Scotland are in a global race for investment, and we need to create an environment where we are attracting investment. I sit in a sector that has been battered to some degree by public perception and by tax changes. There are things that are happening outwith GB Energy that, as a country, we need to look at. We need to make a great environment for investment.

Time does matter; GB Energy will start to come to life when the Secretary of State puts forward priorities. The thing that we would ask—I think you have heard it from others—is about bringing forward the strategic priorities for GB Energy. The statement should be something that we are engaged in and are bringing forward now. It should come forward in a timely manner, but it must make sure that it has taken on board the necessary engagement with industry, Governments and other key stakeholders. Time is always of the essence.

[Perran Moon]

Q In relation to clause 4, “Financial assistance”, you mentioned unlocking capital investment. Can you elaborate on specific areas where the de-risking of unlocking capital investment could be particularly relevant to GB Energy?

David Whitehouse: For me, there are areas—I have touched on them slightly—where you look at the projects and their timelines, and if you have more data and more information up front, it massively shrinks the time from taking on a licence, or whatever it is, to turning that into carbon stored or electricity generated. There is an opportunity for an entity like GB Energy to invest in some of that up-front data gathering to de-risk those projects. GB Energy would then have the opportunity to trade that for a share in the future projects that come from that. We will see how that shows in the priorities, but that is a clear area where GB Energy can invest now to get data and use it to leverage equity stakes in projects moving forward, which I think is very much consistent with the founding principles of GB Energy.

We also touched on the infrastructure that is required in the UK, much of which is now being dealt with through the National Energy System Operator, and people will have spoken at length about the issues around the grid. There is so much more that we need to deliver a net zero future for the UK and for Europe. Again, a state investor with a long-term investment horizon can now be in the position where we start talking about what networks we need across the North sea to be successful. Having an entity like GB Energy crowding in private sector money is a great opportunity to unlock some of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

Q I would like to declare that I am the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals. That will be relevant in my question.

I can safely say that the people of Cornwall are really excited about GB Energy. Expectations are very high. We are a post-industrial community that has suffered for decades from lack of investment. More recently, however, we have discovered that investment is now going into our tin industry; we have the third highest-grade tin deposits in the world. We also have lithium. We face the Celtic sea, so we have a huge opportunity with offshore wind and onshore wind. We have companies setting up in geothermal, solar and tidal, and we have the country’s largest ground source heat pump.

Can you elaborate on the potential benefits for communities such as Cornwall, where we have such a wide array of opportunity, and say how GB Energy will support those opportunities? And if I may be a little bit cheeky, we have heard quite a lot today about the head office being set up in Aberdeen with satellite offices being set up in Edinburgh and Glasgow, but I will just point out that there is another corner of the United Kingdom that would be delighted to have a satellite office.

Michael Shanks: May I thank you for the question? I think that, in asking it, you have successfully elaborated on all the potentials of Cornwall, which I am sure your constituents will be delighted about.

However, you make a really important point on two fronts. The aim of GB Energy is to crowd in investment in projects right across the United Kingdom. Yes, we are very proud to say that the headquarters will be in Scotland and—importantly—specifically in Aberdeen, as the Prime Minister announced. That is partly to recognise the energy story in the north-east of Scotland for the last 60 years in oil and gas, and the importance of the transition. However, it is also important to say that on the renewables journey Scotland has also been leading the way and will continue to do so in so many ways. It is right that the headquarters is in Aberdeen, building on the talent, experience and skills that are already there.

On the broader point, though, there are real opportunities for investments in every corner of the UK. To go back to some of the earlier points that witnesses made, this is a combination of policies; it is not just GB Energy in isolation. We have been really clear that we are a Government that are not agnostic about industrial strategy, and that we want to see manufacturing in the UK, and the thousands of jobs that could have been created by some of our offshore wind projects, for example, but actually went to other countries before we towed the projects into British waters. We want to see those jobs in this country and that will create opportunities across the country in the supply chains, in skill developments and in lots of other opportunities, including in Cornwall.

Although I absolutely cannot commit to opening an office in Cornwall and I would like the record to reflect that, I think there will be opportunities for your part of the world and indeed for the whole of the UK.

[Harriet Cross]

Q We have heard from various witnesses, particularly Ravi Gurumurthy, about the risk management of private investment and how that will sort of coincide within GB Energy. I am just wondering how the Bill is expected to ensure that GB Energy does not just effectively end up as a sink for risky investments, or is that okay? Is the prospect for GB Energy that it provides that full buffer? If not, how will we prevent that situation? Otherwise, we are effectively just making taxpayers’ money the risk management for private investment. I do not have a “yes or no, which side of that fence do I sit on?” answer; I am just wondering what is acceptable within the context of the Bill.

Michael Shanks: That is a really fair question. The question of risk appetite is important; that is partly why setting up GB Energy as a company, regulated by the Companies Act and with a fiduciary board made up of financial experts who have a responsibility as a board of directors for the direction of the company and for its financial results, is so important.

There has to be some risk appetite, and one of the earlier witnesses made a point that I would agree with—if there are absolutely no projects that do not have any risk at all, GB Energy is not really filling the gap. It is really important that GB Energy can move in the spaces where the current investors are not necessarily finding those opportunities. Crucially, however, GB Energy is obviously owned by the taxpayer and therefore, as a backstop, there is a real conviction that it will only invest in things that have a likelihood of producing a return for the taxpayer.

Of course, when we get into making individual decisions, that is partly why it is important the Bill does not go into a granular level of detail on every single thing that GB Energy will do, because it is really important that we give that board, those experts and everyone they bring in to advise them, the space to move into opportunities as they emerge.

If we were to go back five or 10 years, we would not have thought that we were about to have the world’s biggest floating offshore wind farm off the coast of the UK. That would not be on the face of a Bill like this, but actually it is a huge potential opportunity for us and we would like those kinds of opportunities to be open to GB Energy to explore.

[Olivia Blake]

Q If we are to learn the lessons of coal and the 1980s, South Yorkshire would be a perfect location for a satellite office—just to put that on your agenda, Minister.

Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

They cut more than £100 million last year to plug gaps in their own budget. If we are looking at energy efficiency, the right hon. Gentleman could look closer to home at what his own Government in Scotland are doing.

To return to the Bill, I want to address both paragraphs in the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 10. First, the new object proposed in paragraph (e) would mean that Great British Energy’s objects included facilitating and participating in emergency home insulation programmes. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that although those programmes are incredibly important—I will come in a moment on to what the UK Government are already doing on the issue—it is important to detach the Bill from every other part of our energy policy. Although I totally understand the perspective that says, “These issues are important. Let’s put them on the face of a Bill to say so,” it is really important to say that the Bill itself does matter. This is about setting up and delivering the Great British Energy company. It is not the answer to every single part of the energy system. There are places where we are already moving forward on home insulation programmes, such as the warm homes fund, and it would be more appropriate to talk about those matters in that connection.

That is not to downplay the importance of the issue. As a Government, we are committed to taking bold action. Within the first 100 days, my colleague the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has outlined the work that we will do on this. The warm homes plan that we have announced is the most ambitious such plan ever. It will be implemented from the spring, delivering cleaner, cheaper energy in the process and ensuring that people, particularly in those low-income households where fuel costs already account for a disproportionate amount of income, can spend less money on them because their home is insulated and warm. That is a right that everyone should have.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the Minister appreciate that although in the run-up to the election it was assumed, or said, quite often that GB Energy would save households £300, that figure seems now to have been dropped? Is this not a mechanism to ensure that low-income households see some benefit from the Bill? They will not necessarily take the Government’s word for it that it may come later, when we have already seen announcements such as the figure of £300 being dropped.

[Michael Shanks]

We have not dropped any announcement on reducing bills, but GB Energy was not going to be the single thing that would deliver that; it was the Government’s whole energy strategy. It is important to say that. I said in my evidence to the Committee on Tuesday that GB Energy is an important part of delivering that, but it is not a silver bullet. It will not be the thing that deals with every single aspect of our energy policy. It is also about what we are doing, for example, around increasing the renewables auction to get more cheaper energy on to the grid. It is about what we are doing around planning, consenting and connections. All that work is related to bringing down bills in the long term.

The Conservative party—the party that was in government when all our constituents suffered some of the highest price spikes that we have ever experienced—has to recognise, as it did for many years until it moved away from this policy, that the only way to reduce our dependence on the volatile markets that have led to increases in bills is to move towards greener, cheaper energy in the long term. That is what GB Energy is about delivering, that is what will bring down bills in the long term, and that is what we continue to deliver through this Bill.

I turn to paragraph (f) of amendment 10, which I am afraid we cannot support today, partly because it says what is already in the Bill on expanding renewable energy and technology. The Bill itself facilitates exactly those points and defines clean energy as

“energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels.”

That existing object already enables Great British Energy to drive the deployment of clean energy, helping to boost our energy independence, create jobs and ensure that communities reap the benefit of home-grown energy. Therefore, as a whole, amendment 10 is unnecessary, as the Bill already enables all of those points in clause 3.

The words of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire are heartfelt and have been genuinely heard; I hope she gets that sense from all my hon. Friends and me. Such initiatives are an important part, not of GB Energy in itself, but of the whole Government’s mission to make communities in their households much safer from the lack of insulation and cold homes from which they are suffering at the moment. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Lady will not press it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

He stops short of that.

The shadow Minister spoke earlier about the rising bills caused by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, as if somehow the UK had no vulnerabilities that particularly exposed us to that invasion. Of course it was an external factor, but it led to huge price spikes in this country, and we are still exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets. We are determined to push towards energy security through cleaner green energy. That is moving at pace—our recent renewables auction was the biggest we have ever had, with 131 projects—and Great British Energy will drive that forward.

[Harriet Cross]

We have already discussed the financial assistance in the Bill. It is therefore anticipated that there may be financial strain. Given that the objects in the Bill do not include reducing bills, what guarantee is there that reducing bills will be a priority if and when finances become tight?

[Michael Shanks]

On the financial point, the Bill is an enabling mechanism, like a number of other pieces of legislation, including the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023, which the hon. Lady’s party introduced in government to allow the Secretary of State to give additional funding to companies. We said throughout the election that we would reduce energy bills, and we stand by that, but we cannot flick a switch. The idea that some Members have put forward that somehow, after 14 years of chaos from the Conservative party, a Government can come in and, within 100 days, turn everything around overnight is simply and deliberately disingenuous. Conservative Members take no responsibility for the actions of the previous Government.

We are putting in place as quickly as possible the basis for delivering energy security in the long term and removing volatility from our energy market, so that we can deliver cheaper bills for everyone in the long term. We made no pledge during the election that we would do it in 100 days, a year or two years, because we know fine well that that commitment will take time. But it is the right journey for us to be on, and it is right that we have started by building the energy resilience we need in the system.

[Michael Shanks]

It is an important point, and I take it in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman says he intends it, but nobody is in a position to say what will happen to bills on a particular date. They will start to come down as our exposure to more expensive forms of energy is reduced, but the price cap has already increased because we continue to be exposed to those international markets, and there are actions taken by the previous Government that will continue as we move into the winter. We are doing everything we can to turn that around as quickly as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that at the next election we will absolutely be judged on this and on a whole series of commitments that we have made, as any party is judged on its commitments in elections. We stand by that. We are doing everything we possibly can to deliver the change that is necessary. It will bring down bills in the long term. It will be difficult— I am not suggesting that it will not—but it is a commitment that we have made and it is one that we will work towards.

[Harriet Cross]

Just for clarity, will the other changes that Labour is bringing in, such as ending North sea licences, increasing and extending the windfall tax and ending investment allowances, make us more or less secure in the meantime, before GB Energy is set up? Will they expose us more or less to the international market?

[The Chair]

Order. There is a scope issue here.

Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

That is not what I said at all. What I said a moment ago is exactly the same, which is that in the short term—in the start-up phase of the company—there will be a few hundred people. That is exactly what Juergen Maier said. In future, our aim—particularly with the right hon. Gentleman’s support, which I was not expecting at the start of today—is that it will grow even further, into a much bigger company. As a result, we expect that there could very well be thousands of jobs in the headquarters in Aberdeen. I am not ruling anything out or limiting the potential of Great British Energy, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not either. I make this point again, for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman: critically, that is not the limit of the jobs that will be created by Great British Energy. It is important to recognise that the jobs potential will come from the investments and partnerships that it makes.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

The second part of the amendment states that the jobs should be created by 2030. That timescale is really important, because it ensures that the expertise we have now can be retained to help build these jobs of the future. Even if the Government will not commit to the figure, will they look at the timescale, which will give the industry certainty?

[Michael Shanks]

For reasons I will come to in a moment, we will not agree to the amendment because we will not put timeframes and numbers in the Bill—we do not see those in any piece of legislation from the previous Government or any other Government, and for very good reason. However, the hon. Lady is right that this decade is absolutely critical for this issue. That is why I am taking it very seriously, and will happily have conversations with her about how we get these jobs as quickly as possible. The timeframe for that is important, but it is also important that we start with building things such as Great British Energy, which I hope she will support, and our broader policy around the office for clean energy jobs, our industrial strategy and our increased investment in things such as the renewables auction.

To come back to what the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine said about offshore wind, he took some credit for it, but of course his Government have to take responsibility for the complete failure on offshore wind in the last auction. We have turned that around with some really successful projects and want to build considerably more in the future. He gave an absolute masterclass for a new Minister like me on how to speak to something—the onshore energy ban in England—that I know he does not believe in, because he is a smart guy.

The reality is that that was ideology over delivery of something critically important. Now, we have inherited not just a lack of projects that would help us towards clean power and deliver jobs right across the UK, but an empty pipeline of projects, given the length of time where wind in England was banned. It is a ridiculous policy that I do not believe for a second the hon. Gentleman supports, but it was a very good example for me on how to deliver a line.

As I said earlier, this clause is specifically about giving very particular, rare directions in urgent or unforeseen circumstances. It is not a clause we expect the Secretary of State to be using regularly. That is important, because I suspect that if it was phrased in any other way, the hon. Gentleman would quite rightly propose an amendment limiting the powers of the Secretary of State to doing exactly that. This clause is about ensuring that Great British Energy has the space to fulfil its strategic priorities. Amendment 16 would widen that intention by adding a long-term goal.

More broadly, and relevant to both the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, I repeat that the aim of Great British Energy is to be operationally independent from Government. The Bill focuses solely on making the absolutely necessary provisions to establish the company. Adding further unnecessary detail—detail I know the Conservative party would not dream of adding to any of its own legislation—risks restricting the company in carrying out its activities and goes against what we have said. That sentiment was supported by almost every witness, including on specific questions about this matter, where I think people were hoping for different answers. Every single witness confirmed that the Bill is in the right place here. For those reasons, and many others, we will not be supporting the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the supply chains that we have are used to delivering large-scale multimillion-pound projects? That is important not only for home-grown jobs, but for the success of GB Energy and any infrastructure and skills that will come out of it. We need our home-grown supply chain, which is world renowned, to help deliver this.

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. I completely agree. She is a doughty champion for supply chain jobs based in her constituency, in mine, in that of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South and in others across the country. One reason that we have been so critical of this Labour Government’s North sea policies—the extension and increase of the energy profits levy, the removal of investment allowances, the removal of further licences in the North sea—is the impact on the domestic supply chain jobs that exist already and, by the way, on the high-skilled jobs that will deliver the cleaner energy future that we all want to get to.

That is why I and others in Committee have been so critical in the past—it is not that we do not want to see the transition; it is that we want the oil and gas industry, and those people in the supply chain who are employed by it now, to be a part of that transition. Without a successful domestic oil and gas industry or domestic supply chain, we will not deliver any of the projects that we are speaking so glowingly about in Committee and over the past few weeks, months and years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan says, it is critical for the supply chain to support net zero transition.

Security of supply chain is absolutely relevant to the objectives of GB Energy and should be included as a strategic priority, hence the amendment. I also tabled amendment 18, which would introduce the direction for GB Energy to report to the Secretary of State on the progress being made towards developing domestic supply chains.

Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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”.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I understand that in some constituencies this might not seem to be an issue, but in the north-east of Scotland it is a massive issue. For example, I have a town in my constituency called Kintore, which is next to a place called Leylodge. It is getting a 3 GW hydrogen plant next to an extended substation, with at least four or five battery plants and all the new pylons coming in to feed that. If the residents of Leylodge, where there are about 40 houses, and Kintore, where they number around 4,500—and similarly those in New Deer, up in the north—do not feel under siege, how do they feel?

[Michael Shanks]

I think that doubling down on the language is not helpful either, but I will come back to both those points.

I recognise the importance of the point about communities and a more strategic approach to infrastructure to ensure a balance. That is why we have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to look at the strategic spatial energy plan, which is important in how we look at energy in a strategic way. To say that communities are under siege is not the right language. This is nationally important infrastructure.

The Opposition do not support Great British Energy, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said, Great British Energy is one mechanism whereby communities can benefit from infrastructure where they are not benefiting at the moment.

Great British Energy Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore appreciate why Conservatives are so concerned that the plans coming forward from the Labour Government will do exactly the same to north-east Scotland if this is not handled properly?

[David Chadwick]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. De-industrialisation has been happening for a very long time across the United Kingdom, and we are yet to see a real industrial strategy that would restore the wealth, prosperity and jobs that used to exist across our industrial areas in the entire United Kingdom.

Wales stands ready to play its part in powering the United Kingdom once again, but this time Wales would like to experience the tangible benefits from these projects. In my constituency, Llangattock Green Valleys has the ambition to develop plans for a large, community-owned renewable energy scheme to supply premises in the Crickhowell region. The scheme will have a mix of technologies, such as solar, hydro, wind and storage, to give a year-round supply of energy. It will be developed from the start in consultation with the community. It will be managed by the community and the profits will benefit the community itself.

We Liberal Democrats are firm believers that this is exactly the model of community ownership that will provide communities with security and prosperity well into the future. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to support amendment 5 and ensure that the Bill puts the principle of community ownership at the very front and centre of what the Government are trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

To finish, let me say that it is not too late for the Government to do the right thing: speak with Unite the Union and listen to what it says, and engage and negotiate with Ineos to deliver a proper and true just transition, and to keep Grangemouth working until the new industrial cluster is ready at the site.

[Harriet Cross]

There are few areas of the country that are as reliant on, and therefore as vulnerable to, the energy industry as my constituency of Gordon and Buchan and wider north-east Scotland. It is because of this that I want the Government’s energy strategy to be a success. Indeed, my constituents need it to be a success. However, that is why I have severe reservations about the Bill and why I believe that we must view the Great British Energy Bill not in isolation, but alongside the Government’s wider energy strategy.

I begin by considering the public money involved—the £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money going into Great British Energy. Labour has cited international examples, such as France’s EDF, as inspiration for Great British Energy, but let us examine EDF’s recent history, which reads like a cautionary tale of state intervention gone wrong. In 2022, the French Government were forced to fully nationalise EDF, costing €9.7 billion, and in 2023, they had to inject another €13 billion. That huge expenditure of taxpayer money did not even solve EDF’s problems; the company now faces debts exceeding €64 billion. Therefore, is £8.3 billion of investment into Great British Energy realistic?

Let us move on to Labour’s wider energy strategy—perhaps there are assurances there that can help mitigate the apparent inadequate funding. Let us not forget that the UK will be using oil and gas for years to come, which is not disputed. The expectation that we should get this from our domestic oil and gas supplies should not be controversial, yet our energy security is being put at risk through the Government’s actions and words. Jobs and investment in Gordon and Buchan and across north-east Scotland are being lost, and a home-grown energy transition is being made ever more difficult. It is incoherent to pump public money into the energy sector, while at the same time scaring away private investment from the very companies that will be vital to the energy transition, whether by announcing that there will be no new North sea licences, extending and increasing the windfall tax or removing investment allowances.

Offshore Energies UK has warned that expected tax changes could see investments in UK projects by oil and gas producers fall by about £12 billion by 2029. Last week, Reuters reported that a North sea producer is looking to sell stakes in its North sea assets and relist on the US stock exchange. The same article quoted the chief executive officer of TotalEnergies, who said that his team had halted exploration in the basin, and that:

“With this political landscape, even if you find something you’re not sure you can develop it… The situation in the UK is very problematic.”

The CEO of Deltic Energy also announced plans to cut spending, telling Reuters:

“The clear message from key investors was ‘do not invest in the UK’.”

That is just a snapshot, but it puts the Government’s £8.3 billion into context, alongside the other decisions that they are making.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Does the hon. Member accept that my constituents and hers have earned energy security for this country for the last two generations, and will do so in the North sea for another two generations?

[Harriet Cross]

I certainly hope that we will have the opportunity to do so, but as I am setting out, the Government’s proposals for the North sea in respect of taxation and cutting down on licences do not guarantee that. As much as I and the hon. Member want and need for that to be the case for our constituents, we cannot guarantee it. That is why it is so important that we get the transition right.

The Bill must include consideration of the impact on the public. Communities such as Leylodge and Kintore in my constituency face unprecedented infrastructure pressures. Those communities have seen a 3 GW hydrogen plant, an expanded substation, multiple battery facilities and new pylons. What are their statutory protections? What assurances are there in the Bill that certain communities will not be over-saturated with an unsustainable amount of infrastructure?

Before the election, the Labour party claimed that GB Energy would reduce household bills by £300. Since then, Ministers have not repeated the promise and have not explained when or how it will be achieved. I am sure that the Labour Government would not want us to think that that promise was simply a headline-grabbing figure before an election, so I look forward to their clarifying that commitment and voting for our amendments on that figure.

Let me move on to the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. We hear that GB Energy will create 650,000 jobs—apparently, 69,000 of them will be in Scotland, which, if delivered, would be welcome—but as is the running theme in this Bill, we do not have sufficient detail to offer even a grain of certainty to comfort those whose jobs are on the line now. Existing oil and gas and supply chain businesses in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east need a timeline so that they can plan their business and workforce. How, when and where will jobs be created? What kind of jobs and skills will be required?

Of course, we now have certainty that one job will not be coming to Scotland, as we hear that the CEO will be based in Manchester. Is Aberdeen a headquarters in name but not in nature? We already know that there will be satellite sites in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Which other executive management jobs will not be based in Aberdeen? We in north-east Scotland are not buttoned up the back, so will the Minister confirm today that Aberdeen is still the headquarters for GB Energy—and I mean that in no other way than the meaning that the general public would understand?

The funding may not be sufficient, the overall energy strategy is incoherent and there is no clarity on the delivery of jobs or any mention of £300 energy bill savings, but surely the Bill offers certainty to the very industry that will deliver the energy transition. That brings me to the strategic statement. One thing that we know for sure is that we do not know all we need to know about what GB Energy will do. As a result, the uncertainty will continue. For communities such as mine in Gordon and Buchan, and for businesses, supply chains and those working in the existing energy industry, that is profound. We need to know how those communities will be brought with us in the transition—if it is, indeed, to be a just transition.

GB Energy will not generate energy, but it cannot instead generate mass redundancies across north-east Scotland. As has been mentioned, the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive power to dictate what is in the strategic statement, and he has given himself the huge responsibility of ensuring that GB Energy delivers its aims. The work of the existing energy industry, and of communities such as Gordon and Buchan, must be taken into account. If it is not, the transition to cleaner, greener energies will be less efficient, less affordable and less possible. As such, I sincerely ask that the Secretary of State prepares the strategic priorities in a timely manner, taking account of stakeholders in the industry, the impacted communities, the current jobs and skills, and the existing businesses that are the bedrock of our future energy generation.

Because the Bill gives us all but no clarity on what is going to happen, the strategic statement—which we are all waiting for—is going to be the key document in dictating whether it will or will not be a success. As I said at the start of my speech, I want it to be a success; I want the UK to be a clean energy superpower, just as we are, and always were, an oil and gas superpower. If we get this right, that superpower status will drive the economy and jobs of the future. We cannot allow investment to be lost, because that means that investment in new technologies will be lost.

If we lose the expertise, the supply chains and the private investment because of the way this Bill is handled and how GB Energy is handled—there is no guarantee that private investment will stay in the UK just because GB Energy has been created—we will look back at this time and wish we had done things differently. I really do not want to be in that situation, because it is my communities in Gordon and Buchan and in north-east Scotland who will suffer the most.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

In a debate like this, it is important for Members to ensure that they link their contributions to the amendments we are addressing. I call Polly Billington.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Harriet Cross]

Does the hon. Member appreciate that the issue is not legislating for jobs but the lack of accountability in the Bill?