Great British Energy Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman surprises me; he is a brilliant set-up man, and he is welcome any time. I will now explain to him what state ownership will do. Here is why it is the right idea for our time. It is the right idea for energy security, because Great British Energy will invest in home-grown, clean energy that we control, and speed up its delivery. It is the right idea for jobs—this is the learning from all those other countries I mentioned—because Great British Energy will partner with the private sector to create jobs and make sure that we build the supply chains and jobs that the British people deserve.

It is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain. This is what I do not understand about the Conservative party, because state-owned companies from other countries are not investing in these assets as a charitable endeavour; they are doing so to generate wealth for their countries—wealth that flows back to their taxpayers. State ownership is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain, because Great British Energy, through its investments, will help generate return for the taxpayer. To answer the right hon. Gentleman directly, it is right for energy security, it is right for jobs, and it is right for creating wealth for our country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will not support this Bill tonight. The Secretary of State claims that it will put the British people in ownership of the renewable electricity supply market, but that market is estimated is £50 billion a year. He is proposing to invest £1.6 billion a year. Can he not see the difference that £1.6 billion will make to the overall investment? The infrastructure will still not be owned by the British people.

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have a long history on these issues, which makes me rather old. Indeed, we used to spar about them 15 years ago. He is wrong about £1.6 billion; it is £8.3 billion of investment over the Parliament—a significant sum. Great British Energy will not become EDF overnight—of course not —but the point is that this Government believe in creating a lasting, long-term legacy for Britain, which is what GB Energy will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on a really wonderful maiden speech. It is heartening to see how much love and passion she has for her adopted home in Cornwall—and who does not like Cornwall? I am sure her constituents will be tremendously well served by the passion we saw just now.

The Government must accept that the messaging around GB Energy was muddled at the very least during the election. It was almost as though it was rushed through as a manifesto headline, rather than resulting from the strategic development of careful, thought-out, optimised planning, but there we are. We understand that there will be limited co-production from the company, no retail arm and no public sector comparator role. It will be a provider that does not do much provision and a decider that does not make any decisions. Talk about net zero—there is zero detail in the Bill to give us an indication of what will actually happen on the ground. It was going to sell energy to the public, and then it was not. It was going to generate energy. Then it was not, and now it will again. I think we are still in that space.

I heard in the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that there has now been a modification to the brand: it is now GB Energy generating company. The “generating” bit has been shoehorned in there at the last minute to try to make it a little bit more believable. It that will not own any assets outright, but will make a return on the sale of energy from the wholesale market by the principal operator of the energy schemes it latches itself on to. Well, I can see why the Labour part never put that on a leaflet—goodness me. Why is it not considered a Government trading fund? It is not a company; it is a Government trading fund that they are branding as a company. It absolutely meets all the criteria of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, so it would be interesting to know why that is.

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment in this area. I have seen it over the past five years. I am sorry that his initial, much more ambitious plans for £28 billion have been torpedoed by the Treasury and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If he is feeling sorry for himself, he can speak to the millions of pensioners around these islands whose ambitions for the future have also been torpedoed by the Chancellor and the Treasury.

On a substantive note about the lack of detail in the Bill, it is a great pity that the Government want us to believe that clean energy means energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels. It is hard to imagine a more one-dimensional analysis and qualification than that. It is narrow and incoherent, and out of step with the science and the public. It does not really matter where or what carbon is locked into. If you burn it to release carbon dioxide in the process of making energy, then you are a carbon emitter contributing to the climate crisis. It is as simple as that. We should not be hostage to a technology where hundreds of millions of pounds in Government subsidies are used to create millions of tonnes of CO2 a year.

We know that subsidies for large-scale biomass generators in England will end in 2027—I know the Minister is up to speed on that—and the Government claim they are reviewing evidence on potential support beyond this. Will the Minister, in summing up, be clear with Parliament today? Does he believe that chopping down millions of trees on the other side of the world and shipping them to England, to then burn them to make electricity, is acceptable? If not, will he commit to ending public subsidies for large-scale biomass in 2027?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the chopping down of trees. Does he accept that in Scotland 13 million trees were chopped down to put up windmills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The first two months of this Labour Government have not been good news for electricity consumers. First, the promise to save £300 per year on bills was demoted in the King’s Speech to, “We will do it in due course.” Then, during the recess, there was the announcement that the £300 for pensioners to help with winter fuel costs would be removed because the Government placed the importance of rewarding their trade union paymasters above the needs of vulnerable pensioners.

Just this week, the Government announced they would help the big energy companies and fill their pockets with extra money, guaranteeing those energy companies prices that are currently above the market rates for electricity. The companies will be guaranteed those prices for x number of years, but if the rates change to their benefit in the future, they can change the contracts and they will be guaranteed a market for their dear electricity. Who will pay for that generosity? The consumer.

Today we are debating a Bill that sets up a quango. Despite the fact there is a £20 billion black hole in the budget, the Government can find enough money to finance a new quango. All of this will be paid for by the electricity consumer. In his impassioned speech, the Secretary of State told us that it would be impossible to envisage anybody voting against the Bill and that, in fact, the country is clamouring for it. I have to say I have not had any constituents hammering on my door telling me, “Be there on Thursday, Sammy, and vote for this Bill.” In fact, I suspect if many members of the public were asked about GB Energy, they would probably think it is a new drink rather than some important Government Bill.

The Government have promised that they will create 17,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland, even though, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) pointed out, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Bill does not even cover Northern Ireland. If one considers the Windsor framework and the fact that Northern Ireland is still under single market rules, many of the provisions in the Bill and the subsidies the Government are claiming could not be applied in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm what role the Bill will have in Northern Ireland?

The Government’s main point is that the creation of Great British Energy will bring down prices for electricity consumers. The fact is that this Bill is all about having to spend money on new infrastructure to generate power well away from the centres of population, as well as putting in infrastructure to take that power to the consumer. That will require billions of pounds of investment. The Government say it will be done by the private sector, as if that solves it all. Of course, if the private sector puts in that investment, it will require a return. Where will that return come from? It will come from the consumer.

We already know, as it has been pointed out, that, according to Ofgem, two thirds of people’s electricity costs in the first quarter of this year were as a result of non-fuel costs. They included the cost of the infrastructure, the environmental policies, and the administration and the operating costs of the grid. Extending the grid, which we will have to do, will incur further costs and put up the price of electricity. That is why the Minister could not guarantee that the £300 saving will be delivered. He knows that the massive costs of changing our system will be borne by the electricity consumer. Whether we regard net zero as good or bad, let us not hide from the fact that it will cost people right across society. It will lead to industry facing higher costs, and consumers facing higher costs and greater fuel poverty.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Michelle Scrogham to make her maiden speech.

Great British Energy Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her statement of support for my hon. Friend’s work and for making the Bill better for nature recovery. I also thank her for her proposals on insulation and community energy, which we support. All those things are vital for the Bill’s success.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.

[Siân Berry]

I do not agree with all the assertions that the right hon. Member makes, but the duty is intended precisely to ensure that every single project would have a positive impact on nature. Under new clause 3, they would all be renewable projects.

The nature recovery duty under new clause 2 would help GB Energy invest only in projects that deliver significant biodiversity benefits and meet targets under the Environment Act 2021, by building nature-friendly design features into renewable energy projects and creating and restoring habitats on development sites in and around clean energy infrastructure.

The Bill Committee heard from Shaun Spiers of Green Alliance, who made a strong case for a nature recovery duty being created for GB Energy. The ensuing discussion saw the Crown Estate used as an example for how a public body could deliver for nature without having a statutory duty to do so. However, the Crown Estate is a highly relevant case study that demonstrates why non-statutory duties are not enough. The Crown Estate’s lack of a statutory duty to consider nature in its own decision making has led to its involvement in a number of environmentally damaging schemes.

For example, let us consider mining proposals in the Sperrin mountains area of outstanding natural beauty in Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate entered into an initial mineral extraction agreement with a mining company there in 2016, leading to proposals for goldmining. That has provoked significant environmental concern about harmful chemicals and waste from mining operations polluting nearby rivers and degrading the surrounding AONB. An application was submitted in 2017 and is now subject to a public inquiry, following nearly 40,000 objections from local people. So an abundance of warm words about protecting and conserving the environment, and about the Crown Estate’s status as a public body, did not inhibit it from playing a role in a project that threatens nature.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.

[Siân Berry]

I am sure we can have those debates in the context of a statutory duty. These are important questions to consider.

I want to give some other examples of public bodies damaging nature, because they abound—from the granting of new oil and gas licences in marine protected areas by the North Sea Transition Authority, to Highways England pursuing damaging road construction projects on the edges of national parks. Without legal backing, nature considerations can be and are brushed aside.

There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments.

New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis.

The new clause would also bar public money from being spent on fossil fuel and unsustainable high-carbon projects such as biomass. We cannot ignore the facts: Drax, the largest biomass-burning plant in the UK, emitted over 11 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2023. Worse still, it receives nearly £900 million in Government subsidies a year. If we allow investments in projects such as Drax or new fossil fuel infrastructure, we risk undermining the very goals we are trying to achieve. The new clause would close the door on such contradictions.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport.

Fossil fuel infrastructure does not just burn carbon; it locks us into long-term dependence on dirty energy. Every pound spent on high-carbon infrastructure makes it harder and more expensive to transition away from fossil fuels in the time that we have. This amendment ensures that we avoid that trap, by making it impossible for Great British Energy to invest in projects that would limit our ability to end our reliance on carbon-emitting technologies.

Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership.

We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by further locking ourselves into harmful high-carbon infrastructure. These amendments reflect that. The stakes could not be higher. These decisions are about securing a liveable planet for future generations. I hope the Government will listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Bill’s job is to set up a new and unique public energy company, to work within the clear objects set out in clause 3(2)—not simply as an investment bank, but as part of a developing strategy for renewables across the UK.

Cornwall, where I am from, is set to benefit hugely from the investment from GB Energy into unblocking floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, which will create jobs. Cornwall was post-industrial a long time ago, and we need the kind of investment that GB Energy can bring. We also have a strong local area energy plan, which is an integral part of Cornwall’s renewable energy offer. It has co-operative, community and local authority energy as part of that plan, and as a Co-operative MP I support the local power plan that the Government are proposing, which will be part of GB Energy. We could have partnerships for deep geothermal energy on council land, which would bring potential for partnerships with local authorities and others. In Cornwall we have had numerous community energy schemes, such as the one in Ladock at the end of last Labour Government, before the Conservatives cut the schemes and the feed-in tariffs. We could invest in infrastructure with GB Energy, in partnership with the Crown Estate, for the cables, the grid and, potentially, even the ports.

The Bill offers a huge opportunity. There is so much that GB Energy can do in future as part of a developing strategy to secure clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it says in the Bill. As its ambitions and horizons expand, in partnership with the Crown Estate and others, so too must its object and its strategy be able to expand.

[Sammy Wilson]

I rise to support amendments 6 and 8. The Bill was promised in order to do a number of things. First, it was to reduce the cost of energy to consumers—during the election, the Government gave a specific promise that the reduction this year would be £300 per household. As others have said, and as the Government have accepted, that will not be delivered. That is not a great start. Secondly, it was going to deliver a certain number of jobs. Thirdly, it was going to deliver sustainable and clean energy, and energy security. The Government could argue that these things are in the Bill’s strategic objectives and priorities, but they are not. I do not believe that any of those things can be achieved, given the net zero strategy that we are pursuing.

Let us take the first claim: that costs for consumers would come down. We know that they will not come down this year, and given what needs to be done to deliver the strategy, huge costs will be imposed on consumers. We will turn our backs on a lot of the hard plans we already have in place, even though they are not defunct. We are going to build new power sources. Whether they are built by the state or by power companies, capital expenditure will be involved, and there will be a return on that capital. Who will give the return on that capital to the companies? It will be the consumers. We are going to build many of these power sources away from where people live, because the open areas for wind or solar are not beside centres of population.

We already know that putting in a totally new network will require a huge expenditure of billions—indeed, some have mentioned it here today. That will be costly and controversial. I have listened to Members today saying, “Oh, to ensure the lights are turned on and there is a supply of energy, my constituents will be quite happy to have huge pylons erected in their back gardens or down beside their houses.” Of course they won’t; it will be controversial. That is why the Government will have to change the planning system, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this debate would be much easier if the Committee on Climate Change had produced a year-by-year estimate of the costs of getting to net zero by 2050? The previous Government always promised to do a proper impact assessment on costs, but they never did. I believe that this Government should do that, so we can have an objective and evidence-based debate. Does he agree?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do agree. There have been variations on the cost, from £3 trillion to £10 trillion by 2050. Those Monopoly money figures mean nothing to people. Setting out the cost on a year-to-year basis, where people understand and Members who vote in this House understand what they are putting in front of their constituents by way of bills, would at least be honest. It would also mean there could be a proper debate.

I support amendment 6, which includes the price commitment. The second commitment was on jobs. We are told there will be 650,000 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) who said that we cannot legislate for jobs. That is quite right. But if a promise is made about the job implications of a policy, there should be no fear of sticking it in the Bill. Not that the Government are going to produce those jobs; the companies are going to produce them. We could then measure that. If the Government cannot legislate for jobs, they should not promise that they are going to create 650,000 jobs, especially at a time when we know that jobs are being lost as a result of commitments relating to North sea oil and energy-efficient industries. The emissions trading scheme means that there is little or no investment in Grangemouth, for instance, and the place is going to close.

[Luke Murphy]

Successive Governments have made commitments on jobs, but can the right hon. Gentleman name any Government who have legislated for a jobs target? Can he specify a single Bill that has contained such a measure?

[Sammy Wilson]

As I have just said, it cannot be done. What I have said is that a Government should not make a promise if they believe that when the Bill in question is scrutinised, that promise will not be fulfilled—especially here, when it is known that the policy will cost jobs, and unions have already made that point.

I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) in respect of the impacts on nature. I come from one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom—the Antrim coast is famous for tourism—and I am already seeing the impact of net zero policies on the landscape and the flora and fauna of the Antrim plateau. When I look out of my window in the morning, there is the wind farm that has been erected on top of the plateau, which involved stripping off 3 metres of peat and destroying a bird habitat; every year these windmills chew up birds and bats. I have already mentioned the admission that 17 million trees had been cut down in Scottish forests, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was unfortunate to mention the Sperrins, another beautiful part of Northern Ireland of which I have some knowledge and which has been totally despoiled by hundreds of windmills.

Let us not pretend, then, that the policy of renewables is a green, clean policy, because it is not. Let us be honest: any energy production will require the extraction of fuels and materials from the earth, and that in itself will be destructive, so let us not describe it as nature-friendly or green. Let us just accept that what we need if we are to bring about economic growth and reduce the cost of living for our constituents is the cheapest, most available fuel that we can have. That will drive economic growth and decrease the cost of living, and that is the kind of energy policy that the Government ought to be following.

[Perran Moon]

The Conservatives are generally adamant that there very are few Labour Members with any business experience, so having spent more than 30 years in business—latterly in electric vehicle charging infrastructure—I was reassured to learn while listening to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that there is at least one Conservative who is not a renewable-energy Luddite, and I am glad to see him back in his place. I wish that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) would spend a bit of time understanding a little more about geothermal energy, which does not require the wind to blow or the sun to shine.

I was honoured to be part of the Committee considering the Great British Energy Bill, a core plank of this Government’s policy programme whose benefits will be felt in every corner of the UK, including my own constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), for their diligent work on and defence of this transformational Bill. Let me also put on record my thanks not just to my right hon. and hon. Friends who sat on the Committee, but to other Members on both sides of the House who contributed to it.

I will refer to the amendments. In Committee we heard from experts and stakeholders, and we extensively debated the issues, from oversight to community benefit. Opposition Members who were on the Committee know that, because they were there. As I said when I made my maiden speech on Second Reading, my focus will be on using the opportunities of this Bill to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.

Renewable energy—onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal and solar—and critical minerals such as tin, lithium, tungsten and manganese are fundamental for our transition away from fossil fuels. There is no silver bullet; we need a mix of renewable energy, which will form part of our policy going forward. That is what GB Energy will give us the opportunity to do.

There are few areas of the UK where there is a greater distillation of renewable energy and critical mineral opportunities than in Cornwall. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about human rights and the opportunity to produce domestically an awful lot of the energy and the critical minerals that we currently import from places such as China, Indonesia, Australia and South America. As a result, there are extremely high expectations in Cornwall for local jobs in industries that support community initiatives and domestic supply chains in one of the most deprived areas of northern Europe.

Given the distillation of raw materials and natural resources in Cornwall, the fact that the new Centre for Critical Minerals, which will accelerate the move towards a green economy, opened very recently in Cornwall, and the fact that Exeter University, which has a campus in Penryn, has the largest number of top-100 climate scientists in the world, it will not come as a surprise to the Minister that I ask him to consider opening a satellite office for Great British Energy in Cornwall. They may not want it in Aberdeen, but we want it in Cornwall.

I support the Bill as it is. We discussed the amendments in Committee, and I look forward to the opportunities that this Bill will bring to the people of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle.