Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

You might have other ideas, Sir Roger. The legacy is the creation of Great British Nuclear; the beginning of the small modular reactor down-selection programme; the development consent order move in respect of Sizewell C; £200 million invested into high-assay low-enriched uranium fuels to be developed here in the United Kingdom; moving forward at pace with Hinkley Point C; and a commitment to build a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa—something that this Government have abandoned. It is not the Conservative party that the nuclear industry has a problem with; the industry is now worried about the go-slow on nuclear being implemented in this country by the new Labour Government, because of their obsession with putting all their eggs in one basket of renewables and not looking to the wider benefits of investing in nuclear as well.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the onshore wind ban, we delivered everything that I have listed while respecting the rights of communities in this country not to have the countryside where they live, and that they respect and enjoy, industrialised. That is why we had stipulations on communities having a right over what was built in them. I stand by that. It was a good policy and we still halved our emissions faster than any other G7 nation.

When we were in government, we established the nuclear skills taskforce to address the skills gap of 250,000 people that the nuclear industry alone would have were we to deliver all the projects we seek to deliver in defence and energy. We all know that clean energy technology brings employment with it. Estimates for job creation in the transition range from 136,000 jobs to 725,000 jobs by 2030. We all know how beneficial clean energy technology can be for local communities when it comes to employment. Projects such as Sizewell C drive investment—it will bring as many as 25,000 new jobs to Suffolk, and there are already 1,000 apprenticeships in the area. These are high-paid, high-skilled jobs that deliver for the community.

We have heard from the Labour Government that GB Energy will create 650,000 new jobs. On Tuesday, when I asked the chairman, Juergen Maier, about the number of jobs to be based in Aberdeen, he told us that it would be hundreds or even 1,000. I hope that Aberdeen will benefit significantly from being the base for the HQ of GB Energy and that that is not merely paying lip service to a community that is losing out in investment, prosperity and employment opportunities as a result of the energy profits levy increases, the lack of investment allowances, the disinclination to offer new licences in the North sea and the impact that that will have on investment in the transition.

I represent a constituency near Aberdeen, where a significant proportion of constituents are employed in the oil and gas industry directly, or indirectly in the supply chain. The potential for new jobs and the preservation of existing jobs are deeply personal to me and other MPs in the room. In fact, 65,000 people in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are employed in that industry and in the supply chain, so I know how impactful on communities those jobs are. I therefore move that we include the creation of 650,000 new jobs as a strategic priority for GB Energy, as well as including the requirement to report on the progress made towards that ambition. If we do not deliver the new jobs and do not ensure that as we move through the transition, those working in the oil and gas industry will have jobs secured into the future—as well as creating the new jobs by delivering the projects we were seeking to, as I know the Labour Government seek to—we will have failed in all our shared ambitions.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister’s amendment seems to be a bit of a fig leaf over the failure of the previous Government to secure good, high-quality, unionised jobs in the green energy sector. We need only look at offshore wind. I have cited these statistics before, but in 2010 some 70,000 jobs were promised from the UK offshore wind sector. Unfortunately, 10 years later, it had delivered only 11,900, which is only 5,600 more than were achieved by 2014.

The capacity of offshore wind went up by a huge percentage under the previous Government, for which they should be commended, but their strategy in the past 14 years meant that while they were building offshore wind, they were also offshoring all the jobs that went with it. There was no strategy to cultivate labour-intensive sections of the supply chain; the majority of jobs went abroad. Not enough went into supporting the creation of servicing jobs in the UK. Furthermore, in another element of policy, the embarrassment and failure of the green homes grant truly laid bare the fact that we did not have the right industrial strategy—we had no industrial strategy to support the creation of jobs in those industries or to support a Government intervention such as the green homes grant.

A lot can be said about the opportunities that GB Energy offers. On Tuesday, the TUC agreed that GB Energy would be an enabler for a just transition for those currently working, but it is also my belief that this is a real opportunity for new jobs for the next generation. We have real potential to lever in a huge opportunity going forward to be a main player internationally in some of our emerging technologies.

I am proud to represent a constituency in Sheffield, where we have a lot of research capacity in many different areas related to energy, from battery storage to hydrogen and new nuclear. A lot of research is happening. Such innovation is important to allow for manufacturing jobs to spin off from the primary research.

The amendment is all well and good, but I think it is a little bit rich coming from the Conservative shadow Minister, given the abject failure to deliver on the jobs that we were promised under the previous Government.

[Andrew Bowie]

I have said publicly on the Floor of the House and in other places that we did not see the creation of the jobs that we wanted as a result of our revolution in energy production here in the United Kingdom. As I said, we have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, which is a source of great pride, but the jobs onshore created as a result of that simply did not come about, hence why we were moving towards the creation of the sustainable industry rewards and were encouraging companies to invest and create the jobs. If the hon. Lady agrees that we should have done more to create jobs, surely she also agrees with the purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that GB Energy will have as one of its stated aims the creation of 650,000 jobs in new and emerging technologies.

[Olivia Blake]

I would not want to limit the possibilities of GB Energy with a number. It is a big number that the hon. Gentleman has put here but, to be honest, there are huge opportunities in all the energy areas—especially in the supply chain within the UK, but also in the transition of jobs. It is really important that we take it in the round and allow GB Energy to play its role. Not all jobs will come from GB Energy; they will come from the much broader investments that we will see over the next decade. We have had a lost decade in this regard, and there is a lot of skills work that needs to come.

Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

This is a really valuable discussion, even if the amendment does not make it into the Bill. In the last Parliament, I served on the Energy Bill Committee. Conservative Members will remember the hours and hours of debate—it felt like days, months, years—about wider energy policy, and unfortunately there was nothing on reducing home energy use through insulation. I pay tribute to the wonderful Alan Whitehead, who kept us all entertained as the shadow Minister on that Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] He was a very good man and gave a lot to this subject in particular.

Although I understand why the amendment has been tabled, this discussion is related more to wider energy policy than to the setting up of GB Energy. I understand why it has come up and it is good that we are discussing it, because it is a matter not just of energy efficiency but of human health. Sir Michael Marmot published a paper this year, reiterating the very human cost of poor-quality housing and the fact that so many homes in the UK have an energy performance certificate under level C. That is why I am pleased that in the run-up to the election we were championing the warm homes plan. I very much look forward to that, and I think it will cover the concerns of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.

The Bill focuses not only on reducing emissions, but on reducing the use of energy within the objects. We have covered the issue with the words “energy efficiency” in clause 3(2)(c). I know that that sounds quite limited, but there is much more to energy efficiency than loss within our homes; it is also about loss of energy within the system, so it is right to have a broader framing of energy efficiency within the Bill.

[Andrew Bowie]

I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to express the Conservatives’ support for the Liberal Democrat amendment, primarily because of our concern about the impact of the removal of the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners this winter, and the fact that the warm homes plan, as welcome as it is, will not be up and running until next spring, which leaves considerable concern over what might happen in and around this winter.

Those pensioners should be at the forefront of our mind as we look towards winter and as we are discussing an increase in the number of well-insulated homes in this country—on which, by the way, we had quite a good record when we were in government; we increased markedly the number of homes at EPC level C or above. For those reasons, we will support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

It was created as a result of the invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin, as everybody in this room knows. I know that out there in the country, constituents would like clarification that that remains an express aim of GB Energy, especially the cutting of £300 from their energy bills and particularly for the pensioners out there who are having that exact amount removed from them by this Government, as one of their first acts having got into power.

The Secretary of State has reiterated that clean energy will deliver cheaper energy; it has been repeated in the House, on the campaign trail, in videos and in leaflets. I believe it is important to enshrine accountability to that ambition in this Bill, which will create the institution of Great British Energy. We must introduce a mechanism by which the Secretary of State and GB Energy are accountable to households.

[Olivia Blake]

Surely the shadow Minister agrees that Great British Energy will reduce the costs of energy, because the types of energy projects in which it will be investing will be of lower-cost energy production and we will be less reliant on foreign fuel markets, which have been very volatile for a range of reasons. I accept what he says about what he did as Minister in the last Parliament, but this Government, in our first piece of legislation, are acting to create a vehicle that will enable us to get much further.

We have had a very successful auction, compared with the absolute farce of an auction at the back end of the last Parliament, for clean energy projects that are cheaper and will hopefully deliver on a scale never seen before in this country. I am proud to stand here and say that I think the amendment is not necessary. It is playing quite cute with the rhetoric around this question; it should be withdrawn, because it is playing politics rather than tackling the substance of what the Bill is intended for, which is very serious, as we face a climate and nature emergency.

[Andrew Bowie]

I do not disagree entirely with the hon. Lady. I think we should be aiming to reduce the cost to taxpayers, and that investing in new cleaner technologies, including nuclear, will see energy bills fall in the long run—so why not have that as one of the objects of the company in the Bill? The Bill states that the objects of Great British Energy will be

“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy…the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from 15 fossil fuels…improvements in energy efficiency, and…measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”

There is not one mention of reducing consumers’ bills. Surely we want to enshrine that in the legislation, if that is indeed one of the aims of the creation of this company.

My amendment 12 would include the necessity to present

“a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years.”

Transparency and accountability should be key to the operation of GB Energy, particularly when the investments and activities that the organisation undertakes have a potential impact on household bills for every family in this country. Thank you for allowing me to speak to the amendment, Dr Huq; I do so to ensure that the Bill makes provision for GB Energy to be held accountable on its aim to reduce energy bills for households.

It is in the best interests of GB Energy and of the British public that the company have a clear directive to ensure, through investment in clean energy technology, that the cost of household energy is reduced. Labour MPs made clear the intention of GB Energy to reduce bills—indeed, they campaigned extensively on the £300 reduction—so I hope that they will support amendment 12, which would support them in achieving that goal, along with including provisions on accountability and transparency to the public on the overall impact of GB Energy’s investments on consumer bills.

[Stephen Flynn]

I rise to support amendment 24, which is broadly similar to the shadow Minister’s amendment 11. I am intrigued by the discussion that we have had, various aspects of which appeared to disagree with evidence we have heard.

First, the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam, if I picked her up correctly, made great play of the fact that GB Energy will reduce costs. Yet just a couple of days ago, each and every one of us was in the room with the chair of GB Energy, who was very clear that reducing bills

“is not the scope of Great British Energy”.––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q5.]

We can all watch the footage online, and we can all read Hansard.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar made the argument that the £300 promise was not actually a promise. Which is it? Will it or will it not reduce costs?

Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Q Thank you very much for joining us, Mr Buckland. Obviously you come from the perspective of a company that is investing—alongside others that are investing—in the future technologies that will guide us towards net zero and a clean future. One of the objects of Great British Energy, as clause 3 states, is that it should be involved in

“the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”.

Do you see the Bill and the creation of GBE as an assistance in unlocking private capital and the investment that we need in the new technologies, or are you worried, as some are, that this might be a blockage and get in the way of the private sector?

Josh Buckland: I think that that is the right question to ask. Ultimately, the amount of capital we need to invest in the energy transition is so significant that we will have to deploy and leverage in private finance at a scale that has not really been seen before, and any intervention from Government needs to play a role in unlocking that private capital. The Government have set out that Great British Energy will be mobilised with £8.3 billion of public capital. On the surface, that is a significant amount of money, but in comparison with the hundreds of billions that we will need to deploy through the overall transition, the way that it crowds in greater levels of private investment will be the key test of its success.

The Bill sets out a range of roles that Great British Energy could play, some of which could have a bigger impact on mobilising capital than others, and a range of different mechanisms that it could deploy. It is probably too early to tell whether the structure and the decisions it makes will mobilise capital at the scale that the Government intend, but the framework set out in the Bill will definitely give it the potential to do so.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Q I am interested to know whether there are any conditions that you would like to see put on the financial assistance provisions and their scope under clause 4, given your unique placement within the system.

Josh Buckland: The financial assistance statements set out in clause 4 are relatively broad; they give Great British Energy the ability to invest in a variety of ways. It comes back to the question of how you create value through Great British Energy. One of the key tests will be whether it can drive additionality, so whether it can deploy capital in a way the private sector cannot. That usually rests on two issues. One is whether it can invest earlier in the development curve when private investment at scale is tricky, so where there is technology risk or development risk. An alternative is whether it can invest on a sub-par basis, so effectively whether it can create catalytic capital—that is the terminology often used—in a way the private sector would not be able to.

Clause 4 could potentially do those things, and there is no restriction on its ability to do them, but obviously the Government have not yet said much about exactly what format these investments will take. That is not necessarily an issue from a legislative perspective. I have looked back at the legislation that underpinned the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Green Investment Bank, which I was involved with when I was in government, and both those Acts are relatively high-level in terms of the interventions and mechanisms that they can deploy. On the surface, there is nothing that restricts that. As the Government think about the deployment of Great British Energy, I imagine that they will want to set out how it will give more clarity to the private market on the sorts of interventions and mechanisms that it will look to deploy at scale.

Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Q Do you think there is enough provision in the Bill to allow for the Secretary of State to be publicly accountable for the decisions that he or she may take in the future, in regard to the concerns you have just raised?

Adam Berman: I do not think there is a deficit in terms of accountability, and I do not think there are 500 bodies that should be consulted before any decision is made by GB Energy; if you look at things like the planning system and statutory consultees, you can see how that is an issue. That being said, there is a list of organisations that any Secretary of State should consult, through their due diligence, which is everyone from the National Energy System Operator to the Climate Change Committee to industry to devolved Administrations. We would very much assume that the Secretary of State and the Department would do that due diligence themselves. However, I do not think shackling GB Energy through the legislation to having to do that to make every decision is necessarily the right approach.

Dan McGrail: I fully agree with that.

[Olivia Blake]

Q I wanted to ask about the definition in the Bill on clean energy. Do either of you have any thoughts on whether that definition is clear enough?

Dan McGrail: From my perspective, the definition is probably good enough. It is quite tricky to go too narrow and say renewable energy only, because there are certain areas, such as long duration storage, where the sector would like GB Energy to participate in, or at least to have the freedom to participate in, which, if it is too narrowly constrained or defined, may prove problematic later down the line.

One thing I think would be advantageous in the definition, or in the objects, is to clearly set out the guard rails, such as ensuring the carbon budgets are referenced. If we reference the carbon budgets, future Secretaries of State would need to make sure that any investments that were made were in line with the delivery of the carbon budgets. That is comparable to what was done with the set-up of the Green Investment Bank, where there were specific references to what the Secretary of State would need to go back to primary legislation to change, and what would be foreseeable within secondary legislation—not directing the Green Investment Bank to invest in fossil fuels, for example, would have required a complete change of mandate. I think some similar thinking, therefore, would be helpful here.

Adam Berman: I do not completely agree. I do not think there is a big problem of definition, but I would say that we need to ensure it is consistent with the CCC’s existing language and with the technologies that it thinks are consistent with the sixth carbon budget. Clean energy may encapsulate all of them, but I think we would have to make sure that it includes established mature renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, utilisation and storage and hydrogen, just to leave those options on the table. I do not disagree with Dan that there needs to be a focus, but GB Energy needs to at least be given the option to engage in the technologies where it thinks there may be additionality in terms of bringing in GBE’s involvement.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I lose track of where the Liberal Democrats sit on nuclear. I know that their current leader was against it, then he was for it, and then against it again. Right now, I am not quite sure.

I do take issue with the hon. Lady’s insinuation that we are not leading the world in renewables. We have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth—and, soon, the sixth—largest offshore wind farms in the world generating power right now for Great Britain. We are investing at pace in solar and in a host of new and emerging technologies because, unlike some parties, we believe that we should not invest all our time and money in one technology. We need a broad range of technologies if we are ever to meet our legally binding net zero commitment. I look forward to the day when the Liberal Democrats can hold a policy for more than five minutes and come to the House and actually support us on the journey to our net zero future.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, what lessons will be learned from previous and current projects on value for money? The National Audit Office was scathing about some of the decisions that had been taken on those projects. What more can be done to support manufacturing in this area right across the UK?

[Andrew Bowie]

Building up the UK’s supply chain is essential. One of the huge benefits that will be accrued through this biggest-in-70-years investment in new nuclear is the ability to build up our manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, creating those high-wage, high-skilled jobs that we want to see in more communities around the entire country. Of course, lessons will be learned from previous projects. We are always looking at value for money for the British taxpayer, which is why, for example, we are using the regulated asset base model for funding Sizewell C.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. It is the first time, I think, that we have been in the room together for this Bill. New clause 86 requests that the UK Government commence withdrawal from the outdated investment provisions of the energy charter treaty, which risk undermining our Climate Change Act 2008 targets, internationally agreed emissions reductions and duties in this Bill in respect of the impact of energy production on habitats, species and the climate.

As many Committee members are aware, the energy charter treaty is an investment agreement between 50 countries for the energy sector. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty allows foreign companies to sue Governments outside the national legal system in somewhat secretive tribunals. The amounts at stake can be in the billions, and the ECT has already generated at least 135 claims, making it the world’s most litigated ISDS agreement. In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, UN climate scientists warned of the risk that ISDS agreements are

“able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”.

The report even name-checked the energy charter treaty, yet the UK continues to be party to it.

The treat is not just a potential risk. There have already been several high-profile cases of fossil fuel companies suing Governments through the treaty. For example, German energy giant RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4 billion over its coal phase-out. The UK oil company Rockhopper won a case this summer against Italy over a ban on offshore oil drilling. It won more than £210 million—more than six times what it had spent on the project. UK fracking firm Ascent Resources launched legal action against Slovenia over requirements for an environmental impact assessment, which is quite a benign ask of any project. It has also launched legal action over Slovenia’s subsequent ban on fracking, introduced by its Parliament, and that case is still pending.

The energy charter treaty poses a huge threat to climate action. As states take the necessary steps to phase out or phase down fossil fuels, more and more fossil fuel giants will turn to such mechanisms to sue Governments. It has been estimated that if the UK Government follow the International Energy Agency’s recommended pathway and cancel oil and gas projects that are in the pipeline, they could face claims of up to £9.4 billion from the ECT alone.

Globally, there is a risk of up to $111.5 billion in claims, but that is clearly not the only risk. The most recent IPCC report warns that there is a risk of regulatory chill from investment agreements, and again it particularly highlights the ECT. The fear of being sued is causing Governments to delay or decide against taking the necessary action on climate. Last year, two countries acknowledged that that is already happening.

Countries across Europe are seeing the risks for what they are and are already taking action. Towards the end of 2022, there was a cascade of announcements from countries planning to exit the ECT. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Denmark all said that they are leaving, and Italy has already left. The European Parliament has voted for a co-ordinated withdrawal of all EU countries, and the European Commission is now recommending that as well, because reform of the treaty has not worked and will not work. Current proposals for modernising the treaty are weak and do not have the support of many countries. They will mean that existing fossil fuel projects will remain protected for at least 10 years, and that some gas projects will be protected until 2040. Projects that have just been given new or extended licences, such as the Cambo oilfield, will be protected and all existing projects can still continue.

Reform has ultimately been a failure, and exiting the treaty is now the only option. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia have all referred to the incompatibility of the ECT with the Paris climate agreement and climate goals, and the EU Council recently decided that it will not support reform. If countries exiting the ECT do so in co-ordination, as seems to be happening, they could agree between each other not to apply the 20-year sunset clause, as has been suggested by several countries that are leaving.

In June, the Energy Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said:

“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.”

That was stated in a press release on 24 June 2022. Back then, the Government wanted to put their trust in the reform proposals to fix the problem, but we have since seen country after country doing its own assessment and concluding that reform is not possible or has failed.

If the UK does not step up and become part of the vanguard for exiting the ECT, it could be left behind in an obsolete and collapsing treaty, bearing all the risks while others move on. Put simply, while we are still members of the ECT we will not be able to achieve the aims of the Bill and meet our net zero obligations without facing huge costs from the agreement. A co-ordinated withdrawal is the most effective way to protect taxpayers’ money, the planet and our future from this damaging treaty, and I urge the Minister to have a rethink.

I will not push this probing new clause to a vote, but I hope that it will allow the Minister the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this very important issue. It is right that it is considered in this debate, but I accept that I probably will not get the support of Government Members in a vote.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, on the last morning that we gather together in this room to debate the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for tabling her important new clause, which relates to an issue that I addressed in a Westminster Hall debate not that long ago.

The UK is committed to addressing the urgent need for climate action at home and abroad through our ambitious net zero targets and international commitments. The new clause would initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. His Majesty’s Government completely recognise that the treaty needs to be updated to reflect the current energy landscape, which is why we worked hard for two years at negotiating to modernise it; hence, the comments to which the hon. Lady referred—by the former Energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands)—were absolutely correct.

We wanted to bring the treaty into line with modern energy priorities, international treaty practice and international commitments on climate change. Unfortunately, the European Union and its member states were unable to endorse the adoption of modernisation at the energy charter conference. Yes, the European Parliament has voted to update the treaty, and the European Commission is advising that member states or the organisation withdraw, but the EU Council was unable to reach an agreement on modernisation, which is why we are where we are today.

Since the energy charter conference, we have engaged with stakeholders across business, civil society and Parliament, and we are carefully monitoring the positions of the other contracting parties—including the countries to which the hon. Lady referred—and the EU, in relation to the adoption of modernisation. In a context that continues to develop near weekly, we are carefully assessing how to take forward our priorities in relation to the treaty, but we cannot accept the new clause, which would require the UK to initiate procedures to withdraw. As I said, we will carefully consider where we stand.

The new clause would also require the Government to lay before Parliament a report detailing UK investment treaties covering the energy sector and the risks that they pose to the Secretary of State fulfilling their duties under the Climate Change Act. The UK has investment agreements with around 90 trading partners, and the agreements are the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade. The Government’s right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards, is recognised in international law, and the Government are clear that when negotiating trade and investment agreements we will continue to protect our right to regulate.

I hope that that provides the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam with the reassurance she needs, and I humbly ask that she consider withdrawing her new clause.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that I am not satisfied with it, but I will not press the new clause to a vote. There are many risks in this area. Other countries have already taken the lead, and we are being left behind, which exposes us to a higher level of risk. I hope that the Minister will not only continue to consider the modernisation of the ECT but consider withdrawing from it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 87

Government support for community energy

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the financial, policy and other support that the Secretary of State plans to make available to widen the ownership of low carbon and renewable energy schemes and increase the number of such schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) all policies, programmes or other initiatives with which the Secretary of State plans to support the development and construction of new low carbon community energy schemes;

(b) the level of financial support which will be made available for—

(i) the Rural Community Energy Fund,

(ii) the Urban Renewable Energy Fund, and

(iii) any other fund or support package designed to support the development of new low carbon community energy schemes;

(c) all policies, programmes or other initiatives the Secretary of State intends will increase community ownership of local low carbon energy schemes through shared ownership schemes;

(d) the steps the Secretary of State is taking to develop new market rules to make it easier for low carbon community energy schemes to sell the energy they generate;

(e) the number and the capacity of the new community energy schemes the Secretary of State expects to be constructed as a result of the measures set out in the report.

(3) Not less than twelve months after the publication of the report, and not later than the end of each subsequent period of twelve months, ending five years after the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish an assessment of the progress made by the policies, programmes and other initiatives set out in the report.

(4) The assessment must set out—

(a) the total amount of financial support provided by the policies in the report;

(b) the number and capacity of low carbon community energy schemes —

(i) completed, and

(ii) in development;

(c) the number and capacity of new shared ownership schemes;

(d) any changes the Secretary of State proposes to make to the policies, programmes and other initiatives included in the original report.”—(Olivia Blake.)

This new clause is intended to replace clauses 272 and 273, if those clauses are removed as indicated by Government Amendments 15 and 16. It would require the Government to report annually for 5 years on the support it is providing to Community Energy schemes and the number and capacity of such schemes that are delivered.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Far be it from me to spoil the enjoyment for hon. Members! I said this when we debated it last week, and I say it again: we continue to work on this. We continue to look at what more the Government can do to support community energy projects across the United Kingdom, and I will commit to provide an update on the next steps ahead of Report. I hope that is suitable for hon. Members. I do not believe that this new clause would add any value, so I encourage—indeed, I humbly beg—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw her new clause.

[Olivia Blake]

Beg the Minister might, but I will be pushing this new clause to a vote. The comments made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, show why we are not completely confident that information from the Minister will be forthcoming, but I welcome his comments and his statement that he is currently looking at this and that there will be something ahead of Report. However, I truly feel that this new clause is the bare minimum requirement in this space, so we will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and point him to the remarks that I just made regarding the huge investment that we are already making in the transition, the fact that we were the first G7 nation to sign a transition deal, and the £100 billion of private sector investment by 2030 that we hope to see, and that we are driving into British industries, supporting 480,000 green jobs by the end of the decade. We are looking to meet that target, unlike the Scottish Government’s green jobs target, which of course they have not met—alongside failing in four years out of five to meet their climate change targets, as was announced just last week. Since delivering a net zero workforce transition needs joint action by Government and industry, as I have said, we are continuing in that regard.

With respect to the scrutiny advised in the new clause, the Government already report progress on delivering our net zero ambitions through multiple channels—through parliamentary Select Committees, the Public Accounts Committee, independent bodies such as the National Audit Office, and—under the Climate Change Act 2008—the Climate Change Committee. I should point out that the hon. Member’s colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), has recently taken up the chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and will, I am sure, ably hold my Department to account. I hope that that provides the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun with the reassurances that he needs to withdraw the motion.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I have asked a few written questions in this space and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that the just transition should have already started for many workers. A survey two years ago found that workers were looking to move from the fossil fuel industry to renewables but that they were being put off by training fees. I have asked repeatedly about that.

I asked the Department whether it knew what the average cost of retraining would be for oil and gas workers but was told that it does not know or does not hold that data. However, I have heard at first hand from oil and gas workers who want to move into renewables that they face training costs of many thousands of pounds and that the quality of such training is questionable in some places. Government inaction risks leaving those workers behind when they want to be part of the transition and already have transferrable skills in those industries. I also recently asked a question about the Department’s discussions with the offshore wind industry on recognising an energy skills passport to help oil and gas workers, but was told in response that no such discussions have taken place.

I thank the Minister for his kind words about a transition. However, when will we see action for oil and gas workers? When will the inaction turn into action and delivery so we can get on with developing the green skills we need in this country to deliver net zero and compete in a global market?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for the tone of her words. The Government believe that the best way to secure jobs for oil and gas workers is to continue to give them support and, indeed, to support investment into the North sea, which not only provides secure employment for them now and into the future but provides for our energy security needs, which is something the Labour party might take note of moving forward.

As a representative of a constituency in the north-east of Scotland, I am fully aware of the pressures that workers in the North sea oil and gas industry face and the desires of many of them to transition to new green jobs. We see that in the city of Aberdeen, which is transitioning from being the oil and gas capital of Europe to the energy capital of Europe. That is why we have set up our green jobs delivery group and why we are identifying recommendations and actions for central and local government, industry and business, and the devolved Administrations.

We are also exploring how we can support local areas to deliver a successful transition, and the Department for Work and Pensions is expanding sector-based work academy programmes to help those who are out of work develop the skills they need to re-enter the job market. The programme runs in England and Scotland and is developed by jobcentres in partnership with employers and training providers. The Government take that incredibly seriously and I have a particular interest in the matter.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but we are clear that it is very important to support people who are reskilling and upskilling from traditional oil and gas jobs into new green jobs, while also investing in our oil and gas industry to ensure that investment continues to support the traditional jobs that will be needed for some time yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, and for Sheffield, Hallam, for their impassioned contributions to the debate. There has been talk of apocalypse and catastrophe, and there has been some idea that the country is not taking the issue seriously. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggested that we were just setting a date and hoping for the best. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 nation. Off the coast of this country are the first, second, third and fourth-largest offshore wind farms in the world. We created an entire Department to focus on the challenges of net zero, and we are passing this Bill, which will enable us to unlock so much of what we need to do to move this country forward even more quickly.

There was talk of economic illiteracy, but it is economic illiteracy not to support our outstanding British offshore oil and gas industry as it continues to produce the oil and gas that is required to keep the lights on in this country as we transition to a net zero future. It is the safest, most responsible offshore oil and gas sector in the world. Indeed, by 2035 we will have the first net zero offshore oil and gas sector, and the North sea will be the first basin in the world to be a net zero basin. I urge colleagues to stop talking down this Great British success story and start talking it up, as it contributes so much to our energy security and net zero ambitions.

[Olivia Blake]

I think the Minister completely missed the point of what I was saying. I am in no way doing down the industry. I am saying that there are financial risks linked to our climate risks, and they must be brought into this debate. That is fundamental, and future Governments will not thank us if we do not discuss and address that now.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more that there are financial risks. That is probably why, just this morning, so many businesses expressed their worry at Labour’s Just Stop Oil plans, which were outlined a couple of weeks ago and which the former Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council described as even worse for an industry than the actions of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. That is from a member of the Labour party who resigned due to Labour’s policies on oil and gas.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Andrew Bowie

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I should say that I am a member of the GMB union.

I rise to support the amendment, which is very reasonable and is an attempt to help the Minister. I am sure he will stand up and say that the Secretary of State would never knowingly try to give directions in contradiction to the measure that we have tabled, but the point of the amendment is to get that on the statute book and make it clear to the industry, and those who are employed in it, that that safety net would be there, because “anything” is a very broad word, as outlined by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test.

There have been great relationships within the industry for many years, and as it is such a critical industry when it comes to health and safety, the working rights of those employed in it are critical to maintaining that safety. I hope the Minister will look on the amendment kindly and understand the reasons for it.

[Andrew Bowie]

The powers in the clause are important to ensure resilience and address disruption in the core fuel sector. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his amendment and reassure him, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, that the powers are not intended to interfere with any rights to industrial action or any other employee rights. The Government have maintained a good working relationship with the industry over the years and aim to be aware of proposed industrial actions and to work collaboratively, as we have in the past, to understand the impact and potential mitigations for the risks that might arise.

Clause 224 enables directions to be issued for particular purposes only: to improve and maintain resilience, to restore continuity of supply or to reduce the risk or impact of a disruption. In a situation in which a proposed industrial action is assessed to cause a significant risk of disruption, the direction power could be used to ask core fuel sector participants to make contingency plans to mitigate the risk. It is not intended to cut across the rights in the legislation that the hon. Members have highlighted.

I emphasise that the Government will always seek a voluntary solution in the first instance before issuing a direction and, of course, we believe that industry participants will have a chance to make representations before a direction is made and to appeal a direction when issued. I therefore ask that the hon. Member withdraw his amendment.