Great British Energy Bill

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It has been a great privilege to listen to so many maiden speeches this afternoon, with so many Members of Parliament, pretenders to the throne, representing what they claim to be the most beautiful constituency in the country. Everybody, of course, knows that is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but listening to everybody was a great reminder of the fact that there is so much more that unites us than divides us. We are all privileged to serve in this place, and we are all privileged to serve the constituents who sent us here for however long or short.

However, reading through the list of the 18 constituencies whose Member gave their maiden speech today felt like reading the list of all the parts of the country where I either spoke or campaigned over the last year. The fact they are now all represented by parties not my own perhaps says something about my campaigning ability: Clwyd East; Northampton South; North East Hertfordshire; Eastleigh; Stratford and Bow; Cheadle; Truro and Falmouth; Camborne and Redruth; Stroud; Barrow and Furness; St Austell and Newquay; Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire; Caerfyrddin; Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock; Frome and East Somerset; Carlisle; Ynys Môn; and Leeds South West and Morley—all fantastic maiden speeches. Welcome to the House of Commons. It is just unfortunate that, on such an auspicious and a proud day for those Members, we had to spend our time talking about an unnecessary and costly gimmick that will not improve our energy security and will do nothing to reduce consumers’ bills or our carbon emissions.

We heard the Liberal Democrats claim that we left a mess for the Government to clean up when it comes to energy. Well, if having the first to fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, the fastest reduction of carbon emissions in the G7, an end to coal-fired power production and net zero in law is a mess, I would like to see a good job well done.

We heard great claims from the Secretary of State that GB Energy will incentivise investment and speed up the deployment of new technologies while scaling up more mature ones, all of which is debatable to say the least. As the public out there watch their bills go up again, the Labour party claimed through the election that creating this company will automatically lead to lower bills. We heard again and again that bills will be £300 lower. Funny that we do not hear that figure bandied around as frequently today. That is the most questionable claim.

If not £300, as the Secretary of State used to claim, by how much will bills fall as a result of establishing this company, and by when? How will this company speed up deployment? What will it do differently, given that we already have the first to fifth largest offshore wind farms generating power here right now without this costly gimmick? Although I respect the ambition and agree that we need to see more jobs for British workers and the establishment of a UK-based supply chain, which is why we created the sustainable industry rewards that will come in at allocation round 7, does the Minister acknowledge that this will take time and that we are hundreds of thousands of workers short of the plans that we have to build right now, and that this will make no difference to the Government’s 2030 plans?

The Secretary of State’s claim not to be neutral about where things are made rings hollow to the supply chain in and around Aberdeen, which is worried about the future of North sea oil and gas because of his Government’s decisions. The announcement, with much fanfare, that GB Energy will establish an unprecedented partnership with the Crown Estate is fantastic, but what does that mean for Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved? The private sector projects are, in the Secretary of State’s words, guaranteed to return a profit, so why do they need to be de-risked by the taxpayer? What will be the cost to the taxpayer when, inevitably, some of these new technologies fail? What will be the company’s final bill for taxpayers?

Although £8 billion is a large amount of money—just think how many pensioners could heat their home for that amount, for example—the TUC, no less, conducted an analysis last year that found that GB Energy will need around £61 billion to £82 billion of investment between 2025 and 2035 to scale it up to the level needed to do all the miraculous things that the Government claim.

This initial £8.3 billion capitalisation, large when we have such pressure on public finances, seems a little on the low side if the Government really want to create a British Ørsted or EDF, bailed out annually by the taxpayer, especially given that £3.3 billion is planned to fund local authorities and provide low-cost loans to communities, leaving £5 billion to do everything else. When does the Minister expect his boss, the Secretary of State, who has returned to the Chamber, to go cap in hand to the Treasury asking for more money? What exactly does he think the Chancellor’s response will be?

How will the establishment of GB Energy impact the independence of GB Nuclear? Will GB Energy now have the final say over the small modular reactor drawdown process? How is that process progressing anyway? Do we have a timeline for a final decision on that or on a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa?

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman—apologies, the right hon. Gentleman—for giving way. Some 18 years ago, a younger Member for Doncaster North approved land at Moorside, next to Sellafield, for new nuclear use, but 18 years on we are now at the eleventh hour, thanks to the indecision, chaos and confusion of the last Government, who were unable to make long-term decisions about the nuclear future of our country but are now lecturing this Government. Why is the shadow Minister defending the last Government’s approach when it is so apparent that a new approach is needed?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He was right the first time—hon. Gentleman, not right hon. Gentleman. I was very pleased to visit Sellafield and Moorside in his constituency, and I was proud to be the first Minister for nuclear in the history of this country. I was proud to launch Great British Nuclear, and to announce the small modular reactor drawdown scheme, our route to market for alternative energy, that we would build a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa and that we would carry on with things at Sizewell. Now it is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman’s party to take the decisions necessary to move the nuclear industry to the next level, moving forward on our proud, world-leading agenda for reinvestment and our revolutionising of this country’s nuclear industry, of which he is rightly proud.

Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

I am also a member of the GMB.

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

I am also a member of the GMB.

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

I am not!

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Josh MacAlister]

Q Welcome to you both. Mike Clancy, this is a question for you. The Bill allows for future flexibility in the relationship between Great British Energy and Great British Nuclear, which is welcome. Can you share a bit about your and your members’ reflections on the Bill in relation to the establishment of Great British Nuclear under the last Government and any lessons for the autonomy and operation of GBE under this Government, as enabled by the Bill?

Mike Clancy: We are always dealing with very long-term propositions when it comes to energy assets. Whether it is public or private, you need stable investment conditions so that the entity can build confidence and recruit the staff it needs to deliver its mission. I will keep coming back to this: it is an extremely challenging space if you create uncertainty, and even more so for a public entity, in terms of whether high-calibre people wish to commit their energies and talents in what is a globally competitive environment for their skills.

The most important thing we can do is create that stable investment circumstance. For Government, that means accepting the different challenges there are fiscally and in terms of spending. We would say that there can be no successful transition without a nuclear component, and we are obviously advocates of that. Therefore, we are strong advocates of Great British Nuclear. It will need to have—shall we say—that ability to operate within its own circumstances. Nuclear is particular; it has to be done to time and cost, and that is the big issue. The most important thing that the Bill can do is ensure that you have that stable investment and that you make the commitment.

I have been around for a little while. I have probably been involved in more nuclear and energy renaissances than anyone else in the room put together, and I think we need to get to the actual renaissance and get building. If you can give that stability, people will come to this because they are mission-driven, committed individuals who will want to be part of that renaissance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Q My question was exactly on that point. Thank you all for coming here to present your evidence.

Can you explain a little more your concerns? First, given that innovation needs to pivot, but also given that we are being asked to allow for the objects to be so broad to allow for flexibility within them, Shaun, can you explain a little more why you think there should be consultation on such broad objects? Secondly, can you discuss any concerns you may have around environmental requirements for what GB Energy is going to do? That is also absent at the moment from the objects of the Bill.

Shaun Spiers: On the concern about the ability of subsequent Secretaries of State simply to change the strategic direction of the organisation, you can look at recent history to know that there can be radical changes. It does not seem to me to be too demanding; it is just good governance to suggest that that should be consulted on, and that you do not give absolute powers to a Secretary of State to do that. I do not see that as a particular constraint on innovation; I just think of that as good governance.

The Chair is keen that we do not lever in lots of other things on the Bill, but there is a concern. Clearly, 2030 power decarbonisation is an imperative and we need to achieve net zero, but we also have a nature crisis and there are concerns about whether GB Energy will seek to enhance nature or whether nature will take second place. Both the Secretary of State and Chris Stark, the head of mission control, have emphasised that there will be a role for considerations of nature in energy planning. But, again, that is not in the Bill, and it would be nice to see it there or to see some statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box to ensure that it is central to how GB Energy will behave. There are lots of public companies that do not prioritise nature—they prioritise bills or the delivery of their main objective—and we see the consequence of that, for instance, in the water industry.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Good morning, gentlemen. Dan, you have argued in the past that GB Energy should have a very focused mission. What is your view of the objects for GB Energy set out in clause 3?

Dan McGrail: I firmly stand by the idea that GB Energy, at least in its initial phase, should do three or four things excellently, with some fundamental underpinning. It should champion the UK supply chain; it should act to promote skills; it should enable innovation. The market segments in which it operates should be focused on and defined early. Its budget of £8.3 billion is a lot of money, but to get value from that in the context of the energy sector, GB Energy needs to focus on two or three areas in which it can really deliver additionality. I think the place for that is in the business plan, rather than in the legislation. As the legislation is currently framed, it allows the team the space, when they begin the work of the company, to define those two or three areas; it does not narrow them down. My view is that the legislation as drafted gives it that space.

[Josh MacAlister]

Q Dan McGrail, this is a question for you. What are the views of your private sector members about the role that GB Energy can play in de-risking investments and crowding in private sector investment? What are they saying at the moment?

Dan McGrail: Occupying space where there is a highly liquid market for private capital is unlikely to bring much additionality. Offshore wind is one of those places —fixed-bottom offshore wind, to be precise. That is a mature market; there is capital that will flow to projects if the wider investment conditions of those projects are right, and that is more Government policy-related. However, there are other markets. For example, onshore wind in England has basically been under-invested in for the past decade. There will still be nervousness within the private sector: “Do I want to be the first developer to test local planning? What does the risk profile of that look like?”

I see a clear role for GB Energy to partner with the private sector to help to accelerate the return of investment in that market, or for example within the growth of the floating offshore wind market, where there are clear opportunities that go beyond just the energy sector and into transition, such as floating offshore wind in Scotland or in the Celtic sea, where we know that there is a much bigger economic growth story. Those are areas where I think we could see public and private capital working very comfortably together.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Q We had a line of questioning around research and development. Do you think it is important that the Bill is future-proofed in that way—that GB Energy really focuses on those markets and those projects where the private investors would not come in behind? Is there any way in which the Bill could strengthen that? Research and innovation is probably one of the main focuses of what GB Energy can deliver successfully.

Adam Berman: A fundamental conundrum with GB Energy will be the extent to which, through legislation, you want to constrain its investment activities. Clearly, from an industry perspective, we are very keen that there be an emphasis on additionality, on complementing and not duplicating private sector capital that is already there.

Dan mentioned wind. The recent CfD allocation round 6 auction crowded in about £20 billion of private sector investment—that is one year and one auction. That is not to say that £8.3 billion capitalised over a Parliament is not a significant sum of money; it is to say that if we want the most bang for buck, it is absolutely about thinking about those areas where it can be complementary to the private sector. On the one hand I am saying that, yes, industry would be very happy for GB Energy to have that as a focus, but it is also fair to say that it would be a restriction in GB Energy’s activities if it were only to engage in a space that enabled additionality, because it would restrict some of the investment portfolio that it could end up with.

Dan McGrail: The private sector and the industry in general have been quite clear that we see a real benefit in the participation of GB Energy in emergent technology, such as tidal energy. However, even within the five founding statements, there is nothing specific about fostering UK home-grown innovation. I would err on the side of caution within legislation, or at least I would not put it as a boundary condition. It should not be the only thing, but if it were somewhere in the plan—either in the founding statements, if they get modified, or in the plans brought forward by the Secretary of State—that would be healthy.

Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q Following on from what you were saying about uncertainties, and how we have the Bill but then there are all sorts of other questions, it is about creating certainties for us as legislators, to some extent, as well as for investors. Clause 5 says that

“the Secretary of State must prepare a statement of strategic priorities”.

Do you think that it would be important to have a timescale for that, so that we know when the Secretary of State is preparing the strategic priorities, and so that it happens quite quickly? That is something that we can do: put a possible time limit or timeframe into this Bill.

Josh Buckland: That is a very good question; I look back to my time as a civil servant. Sometimes timelines can be very useful because they give clarity, externally, as to when priorities will be updated and when there will be new interventions from Government, but sometimes they do not necessarily reflect the external environment as things change. If there were to be a decision to include an additional requirement around the timeframe, I think you would still want the ability to respond to external events as the world changes, to ensure that the priorities set out to the institution could adapt as the external world changes. Obviously, that is very true in the energy transition.

Clause 5(8) states that Great British Energy must have the ability

“to publish and act in accordance with”

that statement. The thing for me—again, it may not be an issue for the Bill itself, but it will be interesting to watch—will be how bound Great British Energy is to the specifics of the Secretary of State’s statement and what latitude it has beyond that, because clearly it will want to take its own commercial decisions. Fundamental to its independence and ability to crowd in private finance will be that it is taking commercial decisions with strong justification. That is an area that may not need any greater clarity in the Bill, but it will be one thing that private investors will look at quite closely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely. By the end of the year would be great.

[Josh MacAlister]

Q Welcome, Andy. Thousands of your members are at Sellafield, involved in one end of the energy system, doing brilliant work in the decommissioning field. You have touched on the relationship between GBN and GBE. The Bill does have flexibility for future involvement with nuclear. What I imagine the Government have tried to do, which I think the Bill achieves, is to get the relationship right so that GBN can continue with its programme of work without being disrupted, while opening the door in the future for a bringing together of the two endeavours. Does the GMB have views on how best to enable the multi-gigawatt-scale programmes in the future, and reflections on the experience with GBN today that would inform the Bill?

Andy Prendergast: The most important thing to say about nuclear is that the nuclear industry in Britain is, to a degree, a tragedy. We invented it. The first civil nuclear site in the world was British, and yet when we came to Hinkley Point, we had to import the know-how and technology and reinvent the wheel. What we have done in Hinkley Point has been amazing. The site employs tens of thousands of people and provides real, skilled jobs—the kind of jobs people are proud to do, which is very important.

If we look at the lessons we learned from Hinkley and transfer them to Sizewell, we start speeding up the process. If we then go on to Wylfa, it becomes easier to take them through. The key thing it shows is that we cannot have those huge gaps. When we have gaps, we lose the skills. What is frightening for us in so many areas is that we are talking about an energy transformation, but we simply do not have the skills to transform at the speed we need to.

There is an estimated lack of 40,000 welders in this country. In the near future we will need more pylons, a huge amount of work on the water mains, SMRs, CCS and hydrogen. I sat on a load of Government bodies with the last Government, and all I kept hearing was, “We need more welders.” You had to take a view that, sadly, repeating “We need more welders” does not magically lead to a lot of welders showing up. We need the investment in the skills and in the supply chain to ensure that we get the right people in the right place.

It is important to say that welding jobs are fantastically well paid. They are jobs that get paid more than most people in this room. There should not be a problem employing welders in this country if we simply resort to capitalism, so if there is a problem, how do we identify it and how do we get around it?

[Josh MacAlister]

Thank you. I think I should have declared an interest at the start of that question as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy.

[The Chair]

Thank you. That is a matter of record, and I gently advise any other Members who have a similar interest to declare it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Josh MacAlister]

He has had this from every Scottish MP for the past six months.

[Olivia Blake]

Well, we have not heard enough about God’s own county here today.

There has been a lot of positivity from witnesses; some of them seemed quite excited about the Bill. I want to understand, from your perspective, why it has taken a change of Government to see this sort of Bill come forward, and what your ambition is for it.

Michael Shanks: That is really important. Last week, I visited Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, the last coal-powered station in the UK, and it was a good example of the just transition in practice. It was the right thing that we phased out coal; the TUC itself confirmed that that was exactly how to deal with workers in such a difficult situation where you are moving people from one industry and transitioning them into something else. It was a properly planned process, which is what we want to see in industry.

You are right: we absolutely want to avoid what happened with coalmining in the 1980s. It goes back to what I was saying earlier: this Government are not agnostic about the future of jobs and manufacturing in our industrial communities right across the country. It is important that we invest in them not only because, frankly, we are in a race against the world for all the parts we need to deliver the future of energy, and we will need to produce some of them in this country, but because good, well-paid, skilled jobs are how we will manage the transition in a fair and prosperous way. It is critical for us.

I think it matches other policies. Yes, GB Energy will be a key part, but the industrial strategy will also be important. The national wealth fund and a whole range of levers will be important. The office for clean energy jobs is all about saying that, as a Government, we are committed to the future of this workforce and to creating tens of thousands of new jobs that do not currently exist.

Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting)

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

The witnesses we heard from on Tuesday demonstrated a near-enough consensus that the Bill provides the chair, the board and the executive of GB Energy with the necessary flexibility to make sensible decisions, which include—and as has been backed by the Government and the current chair—the ability to back projects such as community energy. All of us should take reassurance from that.

There is a bigger point of principle on the amendment. We as Members should have the humility to recognise where the limitations of our own expertise reside. We do not want MPs setting the details—dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s—of how GB Energy should operate. The whole purpose of this legislation is to set up an autonomous, dynamic and fast-moving company, wholly focused on the 2030 mission and the Government’s wider aims and objectives for the net zero, energy transition and energy security agendas. We want to provide GB Energy with the full flexibility and freedoms to enable it to do that, and we heard that point from witnesses.

My constituency of Whitehaven and Workington demonstrates the full range of opportunities that GB Energy could support, whether in the earlier stages of research and development of projects, or by linking with nuclear—not just decommissioning but hopefully new nuclear energy. We were home to one of the first offshore wind farms at Robin Rigg, which is an RWE wind farm. That will come to the end of its life, and there are big questions about its future. All the opportunities of west Cumbria demonstrate that we need GB Energy to have full scope and freedom. It should not be for Members of this House to set that scope in detail. The Bill, backed by the witnesses and with the wisdom of the Government, is set up with that intention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and a privilege to be back in another Committee Room debating a Bill on energy—we did not do enough of that last year.

Amendment 11 would provide a specific strategic priority for Great British Energy to reduce the average household energy bill by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030. Amendment 12 would require an annual report to be laid before Parliament on how GB Energy activities are affecting household energy bills. The often repeated claim that the purpose of GB Energy was to save each bill payer £300 on their energy bill seems to be conspicuously absent from the legislation before us, which states that the objects of GB Energy are only to facilitate, encourage and participate in the production of energy, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in energy efficiency and measures for ensuring security of supply.

This morning, we checked the Labour party’s website. It still says:

“Great British Energy is part of Labour’s Green Prosperity Plan”,

which will

“cut bills by £300 on average and deliver real energy security.”

On 19 June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Twitter:

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.”

On 24 May, the now Prime Minister said on ITV’s “Good Morning Britain”:

“Well, we want to, as you rightly say, set up Great British Energy. That is a publicly funded, publicly owned company, which is owned by the taxpayer, making money for the taxpayer”,

and that it would reduce household bills by—he claims —£400. It is a little surprising that this has not made it into the legislation setting up Great British Energy, given that it was a prime reason for the delivery of this company in the first place.

[Josh MacAlister]

Can the hon. Member cite any legislation from the past 14 years that included a specific financial saving, to illustrate his point that it would be appropriate to put that in a piece of legislation? Does he not accept that his quote from the Labour party’s website includes the words “part of”—the point that the Government have made all along?

[Andrew Bowie]

The fact is that the Labour party has brought forward this legislation and is creating this company—a company that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Labour candidates, now MPs across the country, claimed time and again through the election would cut bills by £300. It was one of the reasons why Labour is creating the company in the first place, so it is surprising that it did not want to put the £300 as a specific object in the Bill, given that it was so proud of the fact that this would deliver the savings it said it would.

Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting)

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for her well-made point. Across the UK, we are resetting the way we do these relationships. It is not just the visits and set-piece moments; it is the day-to-day engagement and agreement. There is fulsome discussion and disagreement, but it leads to the view that, actually, we generally agree on the same outcomes and want to work out how to work co-operatively to achieve them. That is what the public would want us to do across these islands.

I will point out some of the engagement we have already had. The First Minister met recently with the start-up chair of Great British Energy and the Cabinet Secretary. I have met the Cabinet Secretary almost every week that I have been in post. It is important to talk through these issues and we think that consultation on the statement of strategic priorities is incredibly important.

I object to the amendment to move to a consent process for exactly the same reason that I gave in answer to the previous point. It is not that I do not want any engagement, but that I do not want us to get tied up in a process. In our engagement with Scottish colleagues, the challenge is how the Government reflect the view of the Scottish Parliament without everything going back through a process in committees. My real worry is that we get tied up in months and months of engagement, trying to find dates in calendars to discuss elements of the strategic plan, and do not actually get on with delivering things.

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

The right hon. Member for Aberdeen South made an important point about elected representatives from Scotland having a role in the strategic priorities for Great British Energy. But this is the United Kingdom Parliament, in which we have good and appropriate representation of Scottish electors, and very strongly and proudly so on the Labour Benches. Surely the UK Parliament and the UK Government are well-positioned to reflect the interests of the whole United Kingdom rather than, as the Minister is indicating, going through multiple repetitive processes that would hamper the ability of Great British Energy to achieve the goals that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South surely wants for his own constituents.

[Michael Shanks]

I take that point. I will come back to the role of the UK Government in Great British Energy in a moment, as it is important. Of course I want to engage with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues in this place, but I also want to find a way to engage constructively with the devolved Parliaments and Administrations, not just on the statement of priorities but far beyond that. We have already had conversations about how the board of Great British Energy might engage with the Scottish Government on a more regular basis. We are very open to those ideas, but—to come back to this point briefly—it is important that Great British Energy is funded and directed by the UK Government and therefore ultimately responsible to the UK Parliament.

Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[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.