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.