Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is about energy independence for Britain, and about becoming a clean energy superpower that can export energy and benefit as a country. The opportunities are huge, which is why we are getting on with it.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I think the Secretary of State is now arguing that energy bills will fall by £300 by 2030. A simple question: how much will they rise by before then?

[Ed Miliband]

I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I should not be surprised. The truth is that there is only one future for Britain that reduces bills for good: a clean power mission. We can carry on being vulnerable, and we can carry on with fossil fuels, but we will be in the grip of petrostates and dictators. This Government are not willing to leave us exposed.

Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in particular, direct Great British Energy that any revenues generated from activities of Great British Energy in relation to resources located in Scotland must be invested back into projects located in Scotland.”

Good morning.

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

Hear, hear!

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the shadow Minister for that warm welcome. What a delight it is to be back in Committee Room 10 on a Tuesday morning to discuss the Great British Energy Bill.

Last week, we all spoke at length about the massive opportunities in the renewable energy sector in the UK and particularly in Scotland. From fixed-bottom and floating offshore wind to green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, tidal and wave, pumped storage hydro, onshore wind and so forth, Scotland has a plethora of resources. I believe it was the chief executive officer of the Confederation of British Industry who said last week that Scotland’s renewables sector could unlock economic growth for the UK—imagine what it could do for Scotland’s economy.

It is important to reflect on the fact that over the past 50 or 60 years or so of North sea oil and gas, £450 billion has flowed from Scotland’s waters down to Whitehall. Can anyone seriously and reasonably argue that Scotland’s society reflects the magnitude of that wealth in our public environment, our infrastructure or our energy projects, which are in their infancy? They should be much further on, using the wealth that we had accumulated over many decades.

I do not want to see the same mistake repeated. I want to see the revenue generated from Scotland’s energy resources returned to Scotland so that we can ensure a society that is greener, more inclusive and fairer, and that delivers the continual economic growth that we so badly need. Scotland produces six times more gas than we consume, with some 28 to 36 GW of floating offshore wind coming down the pipeline—and that is before I get into all the other energies that are keen to come on stream should the Government finally put in the financial mechanisms to support them.

That affords Scotland the ability to have a competitive advantage, not to repeat what Ireland has done on corporation tax—we cannot all chase the same reduction, which would be a race to the bottom—but to create a competitive advantage that attracts big business to Scotland based on the energy that we consume. The prize is so great that we surely cannot miss out on it. I appreciate that Members around this Committee Room in the United Kingdom Parliament may not share my enthusiasm for Scotland to have its resources returned, but it is an important point to engage with.

[Andrew Bowie]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Flynn]

Always.

[Andrew Bowie]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he share my concern that—should the amendment be agreed to and should the Minister consent to any revenue generated from Scotland by GB Energy being returned to Scotland—the Scottish Government will not be competent enough to deal with it, given that in only six years they have squandered the £700 million generated from the ScotWind leasing round, which was returned directly to Scotland to plug gaps in their own Budget and was not invested in new energy projects, new technology or new infrastructure across Scotland?

[Stephen Flynn]

No.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s premise. If Scotland is granted this amendment, surely the Welsh and the Cornish—in Cornwall we have onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal, solar, tin and lithium, which are all critical to the UK’s move away from fossil fuels—will demand the same thing. The point is that it is GB Energy, not “Scotland Energy”.

[Stephen Flynn]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to clarify to the Committee whether he has just equated the nation of Scotland to Cornwall?

[Perran Moon]

Under national minority status—well, the right hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusion.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to see Committee members again. Having started the sitting with contributions from four Scottish MPs, we have gone through the greatest hits of Scottish politics, from the Thatcher Government to independence, Scotland’s wind and everything in between. It was a good way to start the Committee this morning.

Amendment 3 misunderstands not only the potential of Great British Energy, but how investments are already made in renewable projects in this country. The right hon. Member for Aberdeen South made a legitimate argument about the revenues from oil and gas over the past 60 years but, as hon. Members have already said, in more recent times and much closer to home, the legacy of the future of our energy story has already been squandered. What could have been almost £1 billion for our wealth fund to invest in future projects or in the inheritance of the country has already been spent to plug day-to-day spending. There is a danger that in such a short space of time we will repeat that oil and gas legacy in Scotland.

Great British Energy will invest in all four nations of the United Kingdom, and we are working closely with the devolved nations to make that a reality. Investments by Great British Energy will be made on the basis of the individual project, with decisions made at arm’s length from Government by an independent company. Clearly, with its leading role in renewables, Scotland will benefit from a great many of those investments, creating skilled, well-paid jobs in the process, with a genuine long-term investment in Scotland. That public investment is about crowding in private investment as well—and that is where I think the amendment misunderstands how the projects are delivered.

As much as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues might talk about how it is Scotland’s wind and Scotland’s waves, the reality is that without having crowded in investment through a publicly owned energy company such as Great British Energy, every penny that has already been spent on constructing projects in Scotland to generate electricity from our natural resources has gone offshore to private companies and foreign publicly owned companies. We greatly welcome that investment in Scotland and in the UK, which will continue in the years to come, but the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that a publicly owned energy company, owned by our taxpayers, can have a stake as well. The Bill, through Great British Energy, will allow some of that wealth to be retained for the benefit of our citizens.

It is our intention that the profits generated by Great British Energy will either provide a direct return to the Exchequer, benefiting the UK taxpayer, or be channelled specifically into measures that benefit the public, such as investment in more clean energy infrastructure. It is about benefiting people right across the United Kingdom, recognising that the investment came in the first place from taxpayers right across the United Kingdom. For those reasons, the Government will not support the right hon. Member’s amendment 3.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am incredibly surprised at the stance that the Minister has adopted. I jest, of course: it is no more than I expected. However, I do take issue with some of the points that have been raised.

First, it does a great disservice to this Parliament and to the supposed Union of equals to try to diminish the status of Scotland as a nation and equate it to other areas within the UK. Secondly, I agree to an extent with the notion put across by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar that energy is not constrained by borders, but under the watch of multiple United Kingdom Governments, energy-rich Scotland has been left with people living in fuel poverty. We have missed out repeatedly on the opportunities afforded to many other sovereign nations that have had control over their energy.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Equinor. The reality is that Equinor can advance its cause globally and seek to grow globally because it has benefited from its nation’s own natural resources, which is something that Scotland has never been able to do. The supine nature of Labour Members in Scotland continues, and people in Scotland will remember that in the days, weeks and years to come.

Conservative and Labour Members have referred to Scotland and to the supposed squandering of resources. How dare they, when Scotland’s Parliament has had to face up to 14 years of austerity from this place?

[Michael Shanks]

That has nothing to do with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

If they had any desire to support Scotland’s cause, they would stand up against that and be truthful with the people of Scotland in that context. The Minister expresses dismay at that notion, but I am sure he was elected on a platform of fighting Tory austerity. Why is it different when it is Scotland?

Amendment 3 would ensure that Scotland benefits from its resources. That should not be too much to ask in this place. If the Minister and hon. Members around this Committee Room believe in respecting Scotland, they should agree to it, because it is the right thing to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think she is being slightly unfair. When I was Networks Minister, we commissioned and accepted every one of Nick Winser’s recommendations on how we could speed up connection times, improve the national grid, build new infrastructure and ensure that the queueing system was brought into a much better shape than we found it in when we came into office in 2010—

[Stephen Flynn]

Why did you step down?

[The Chair]

Order. Will you stop chuntering from a sedentary position?

[Andrew Bowie]

However, I accept that more work can be done.

[Stephen Flynn]

In fairness to Committee members who may not have been here, perhaps the shadow Minister will remind us why he chose to step down as the Minister with responsibility for the grid.

[Andrew Bowie]

When I was moved to the position of Renewables Minister, it was impossible for me to carry on also being the Networks Minister. It is clear what the right hon. Gentleman is driving at: namely, the situation in the country today, where many communities feel under siege because they are hosting this new energy infrastructure—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs at the words “under siege”, but they do feel that.

Communities in this country face the prospect of new pylons, new energy infrastructure, new substations and battery storage facilities being built in the countryside. That industrialisation of the countryside is the reason that we proposed a review to investigate the costs of other technology that would not be so invasive of their communities, their landscape and the land in which they live and work. That is why we did that, and that is what I was about to speak about, but the right hon. Gentleman provoked me into coming to it earlier than I had planned.

We need to get this right. We need to take the country with us and have a discussion with the country about consent and consultation. It is about doing things not to communities but with and for communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

It was inspirational. The Minister is absolutely right; they were inspirational speeches. Indeed, we talked about those issues at great length. When in government, I was proud to launch a consultation on community benefits, for example, which has still not been implemented. Although it is outside the scope of our discussion, it would be interesting to get an update from the Government on when they will bring forward the community benefits package and if any changes will be made to the package unveiled by us last November.

I return to the discussion on consultation and consent. In an attempt to reduce the burden on communities, we pledged to have a review into the presumption for overhead lines and to examine all other options that would be cost-comparable so as not to inflict that huge burden on communities.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am listening closely to the shadow Minister, and I am a little confused. On the one hand, he seems to be in favour of making sure that the grid capacity is there; on the other hand, he seems to be sticking up barriers to that grid capacity coming on stream and using terms like “reviews” and “consultations” that have no appropriate timescale attributed to them. What does he want to happen?

[Andrew Bowie]

Both can be achieved. Of course we need to improve the national grid and grid connectivity times. When I was in a ministerial position, not a day went past when a colleague did not come up to me on behalf of an individual, company or organisation that had been given grid connectivity times of seven, eight, nine or 10 years, and sometimes even more. That is an impossible place for the country to be in. It is preventing inward investment and holding back the economy, so we need to improve the national grid, review the queuing system and improve connectivity times, but we need to do it in a way that brings the country with us and does not inflict misery on the communities that are being asked to host this huge infrastructure on behalf of the rest of the nation. That is why we need to get it right and examine all the available options. We need to examine whether undergrounding or offshoring could be cost-comparable or preferable to overhead lines when we move forward.

[Stephen Flynn]

The shadow Minister is being generous with his time, as always. What sort of timeframe would he associate with that level of engagement going forward? He seems to lack certainty on what that new technology would be. Can he advise us of the cost savings that would go to the consumer from these new technologies, which I am not aware of and do not think that any Member in this room is aware of?

[Andrew Bowie]

It is precisely because we do not have all the answers that we commissioned that review in the very last days of the last Parliament, which we committed to in our manifesto and which sadly has been abandoned by the Labour Government.

It should be incumbent on Great British Energy to take into account the challenges that we all acknowledge we face to ensure that the investments that it undertakes give the best value for money on behalf of British taxpayers, whose money is invested in the funds for the company. It should also ensure that each project has grid connectivity available at the right time so that it is a worthwhile investment and returns can be realised as soon as possible from each investment.

Great British Energy Bill (Third sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

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

Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to be back in Committee. I will begin by addressing amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, before moving on to why clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

The amendment seeks to specify the time within which Great British Energy will set out its priorities. For reasons I shall set out, we will not support it. First, though, it is important to say that the Government have already moved at pace on a range of energy-related matters, but particularly on Great British Energy. We have shown very quickly, in not quite yet 100 days in office, that we are moving forward to set up Great British Energy, and there will be no further delays in doing so. It is in our interests—indeed, as the hon. Member rightly said, it is in all our interests—that we move quickly on setting it up.

We have said clearly that we want Great British Energy to deliver a publicly owned, operationally independent energy company, and we are here today, within 100 days of Labour forming a Government, to make that happen. That work will continue. With the progress we have already made, and with a commitment that we want to quickly get Great British Energy delivering what we are setting it up to deliver—it is not at all in our interests to drag our feet—there is really no need for a specific timeline. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not press her amendment to a vote.

Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to designate a company as Great British Energy. Legislation often provides for a company that is set up under the Companies Act 2006 to be designated for certain statutory purposes, especially when substantial amounts of public money are involved, or where the company is being asked to fulfil a particularly important role. A recent example from the previous Government is the legislation on the UK Infrastructure Bank, which includes a similar provision.

Clause 1 simply sets out in detail the processes and arrangements to allow the Secretary of State to designate a company as Great British Energy. Perhaps most importantly, the clause allows Great British Energy to be founded as a publicly owned company, which gets to the heart of what this Government are committed to doing: giving the public a stake in Great British Energy. The clause protects the principle of public ownership by making explicit that the company would terminate if it ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown. I therefore commend clause 1 to the Committee.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is grouped with amendment 8 and clause 1. It is very straightforward. It will be for Government Members to consider whether it is appropriate for the House of Commons to be in full knowledge and understanding of what the Government seek to do on energy efficiency. They must also consider whether the steps that the Government take in that regard should be reported to this House to ensure that we are fully abreast of the progress that the Government hope to make and how that meets the promises that they as individuals made to their constituents prior to the election. We as parliamentarians can collectively hold the Government to account on those promises and ambitions.

In discussions on further amendments, we will talk in more detail about the promises that were made, and hopefully the Government might be minded to agree to include some of those promises in the Bill. For now, though, I think it worth while for Members to consider the role that this Parliament plays in scrutinising this Government in a constructive fashion.

[Pippa Heylings]

No one can deny that, as the Minister said, we have seen huge progress coming through immediately, and commitment from the Government. I thought we would have heard from the oral evidence that certainty is critical, and therefore that giving a deadline and a timeframe in which people and businesses could expect to see the statement would be good reassurance. As the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South indicated, it would also be good to have some kind of revision. I hear from the Minister that the Government will not accept the amendment, so I will not press it to a vote, but it should be considered.

[Michael Shanks]

On the hon. Lady’s point, I reiterate our absolute commitment to move faster—frankly, far faster than in six months—to deliver the statement of strategic priorities. We will talk about that later in relation to further amendments.

On the point from the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South, we do not think the theme of the new clause is particularly important in this part of the Bill. It is important, of course, that the aim of Great British Energy is to be part of what will deliver cheaper bills for all, and efficiency, but it is only part of the story. Of course, in the election campaign we made it clear that across Government—yes, through Great British Energy, but also through a series of other measures, including our reforms to planning and including a lot of areas on which I am working closely with his colleagues in the Scottish Government to expedite progress—we will deliver cheaper bills.

The right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge, despite his not supporting Great British Energy so far—I hope that he and his colleagues will change their minds when the Bill comes back—that on this point it is in fact an important vehicle. [Interruption.] He looks as if he does not agree with what I said. He did not vote for the Bill on Second Reading, so I took it from that that he did not support it. It is important that he recognises that Great British Energy has a really important part to play in delivering what I have set out. His colleagues in the Scottish Government certainly think so, which is why we have been working so closely together on the matter.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am sure that the Minister, as an esteemed and well-versed parliamentarian, will understand that the voting system in this House means that should a Member choose not to vote in favour of something, that does not mean that they are against it, as he is outlining. I would hate for him to inadvertently suggest to the public that something is the case when it is not the case. As he knows, I of course welcome the set-up of GB Energy, but what I want to see is the scrutiny that the new clause would obviously provide.

[Michael Shanks]

I am delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s wholehearted support for Great British Energy. That is fantastic. I did not know that, so that is wonderful, and I thank him for that great support. It has really cheered my whole day, in fact, that I now have his support. Things can only get better, as we say.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about efficiency measures, we are already taking a number of steps on that matter in other areas. For example, our warm homes plan will transform homes across the country, making energy in individual homes cleaner and cheaper to run. We announced a local grants programme to support that. Of course, that does not apply in Scotland, where such work is devolved. I think the Scottish Government could probably do more in this policy area. The Scottish Government have made significant budget cuts to projects—£133 million was taken out of energy efficiency measures in 2022 and 2023—so I think work could be done across the board on the matter.

On the point about updating Parliament, it is really important that we are talking about a publicly owned energy company. It will be independent of Government, but of course it will be responsible to Parliament in the way that any other independent companies wholly owned by the Secretary of State are. A copy of the strategic priorities will be laid before Parliament. Any directions given to Great British Energy by the Secretary of State will be laid before Parliament. Of course, there are already several other mechanisms that the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South, as an extremely well-versed parliamentarian—far more so than I am—knows he can avail himself of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire has rightly and passionately outlined the scandal of people living in cold homes and poorly insulated homes. She is right that it is an absolute scandal.

[Stephen Flynn]

The Minister is being generous with his time, as always. It is a scandal that people are in cold homes. Why is he supportive of the Government taking away the winter fuel allowance?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman is combining two different things there.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Olivia Blake]

I think the right hon. Member is purposely misunderstanding my comments. It is obvious: is the cost of cheap, green energy lower or higher than the costs that we have seen in the oil, gas and coal markets? It is as simple as that. Is it cheaper? Yes, it is. Doing things like Great British Energy will help produce more cheaper, cleaner, greener energy.

[Stephen Flynn]

The hon. Lady misunderstands my point. I do not disagree with that; in fact, I would like to see the Government go further and separate the price of electricity from the price of gas as they promised. That is one of the reasons why the Tories allowed people’s energy costs to soar, irrespective of their narrative about extenuating circumstances far outwith all our control. The point that the hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam made, quite clearly, was that GB Energy would reduce costs. Juergen Maier, the chair, said that that was not the scope of GB Energy. Which is it? The two things cannot be true at exactly the same time. We cannot say that something is going to happen and then say that GB Energy is not going to do it.

The crux of all this is that the public have expectations that GB Energy will reduce their energy bills by £300. Government Members can argue that that was not the promise; if that was not the promise, they were very quiet about it when they let the public believe that during the election campaign. If the public believe that, the Government need to deliver on the commitment that they made, and they should learn a lesson. The Conservatives made promise after promise after promise, and they failed to deliver when it came to energy. [Interruption.] Does the Minister wish to intervene?

[Michael Shanks]

I am very happy to. The right hon. Member talks about promises in an election campaign. He may distance himself from some of the promises that his Holyrood colleagues make—at least at the moment, until he makes his move—but it is important to say that, time and again, his own party made promises in its 17 years in power. We have committed to lowering bills, and as I will outline in a minute, we will continue to commit to that. GB Energy is the vehicle for doing that. I am delighted that he has pledged support for it today. That, along with all the Government’s policies, is how we will reduce bills in the long term.

Perhaps the right hon. Member should take a bit of a lesson from us about promises in election campaigns and how to win them, which is not to promise to set up a publicly owned energy company in Scotland and still not have done so 15 years after it was announced. We are doing it now within 100 days.

[Stephen Flynn]

I admire the Minister’s attempt to compare GB Energy, as supposedly a producer and generator of energy, with an organisation that could have sold electricity—

[Michael Shanks]

Could have! It did not do anything.

[Stephen Flynn]

Of course it did not do anything, because the capital was not there to do that. If it had existed under the price shock that the Tories brought in for all of us, it would not have been able to function, in the same way that so many others in the private sector were not able to function. The Minister is trying to equate two things that are not comparable. When he rises to his feet, as he seems very keen to, perhaps he will confirm, first, when bills will fall by £300, and secondly—as he failed to do the other day—when they will come down at all.

Before the Minister interrupted so pleasantly, I was pointing out to Government Members that the Conservatives made promises on energy that they failed to deliver. The public have high expectations—so get on and deliver.

[Michael Shanks]

We will not support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister or that of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South, but it is important to say why. As several of my hon. Friends have made clear, putting specific figures into a Bill is not what any Parliament does, but it is important to set out the objects, purpose and vision of GB Energy, as it will play a crucial role in bringing down bills in the long term and preventing the price spikes that we and our constituents still face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

[Stephen Flynn]

I do not think that my Commons colleagues and I would suggest that the Government should have reduced energy bills within 100 days, but, my goodness, they have just gone up by 10%. The Minister says that it will not happen within a year or two years, so I would be keen, as would the public, to know broadly when he expects energy bills to come down. I do not say that from an angry position; I want the public to have a bit of clarity about his objectives.

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

Great British Energy Bill (Fourth sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Shanks]

I will start where the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam left off. It is a bit rich for the Opposition to talk about fixing the issue with jobs in the renewables sector that they failed to fix for 14 years. First, I take the issue that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine raised about jobs in Aberdeen, because it is an extremely important subject, but I think he confuses two things— I would suggest perhaps deliberately. Juergen Maier clearly said on Tuesday that the headquarters of Great British Energy in Aberdeen will have jobs in the hundreds, perhaps expanding in the years ahead, but that the jobs created by Great British Energy are much more than the headquarters. We have always said that it is the investments that Great British Energy makes that will invest in jobs in Aberdeen, in the north-east of Scotland and right across the UK, in the tens of thousands. That is important to separate out.

The hon. Gentleman’s point about the transition is really important, both to the Bill and more broadly. He is right: long before this Labour Government were elected, there was a transition under way in the north-east of Scotland. It is a declining mature basin. It is important that we now take seriously what that transition looks like, and that will require tens of thousands of new, skilled and—crucially, for the north-east of Scotland in particular—well-paid jobs. That is what we are attempting to do with Great British Energy but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says, Great British Energy is not the only vehicle for it. We have deliberately said that we will set out an industrial strategy, because we are not a Government who think that manufacturing jobs in this country and an industrial strategy are an irrelevance. Actually, they are critical to our economic future.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Minister has tempted me to have a look at what Juergen Maier said. I asked him very clearly how many jobs would be in Aberdeen. His response was quite clear:

“It will be in the hundreds; it may eventually be 1,000 or more in the HQ.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q4.]

The HQ is, of course, Aberdeen. That would run contrary to what the Minister has just said.

[Michael Shanks]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Division 7

Ayes: 3

---

Conservative: 3

Noes: 10

---

Labour: 10

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A statement under subsection (1) or a revised or replacement statement under subsection (2) will not take effect unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Before I begin my remarks, it is probably best that I correct the record on behalf of the shadow Minister. It is not just in relation to Great British Energy that I have expressed some positivity; I did once watch “The Great British Bake Off” as well.

That aside, it was put to me by some members of the Labour party back in Scotland that I was not supportive of GB Energy, because I did not go through the Lobby with the Government some weeks ago, as I think the Minister referred to in his remarks today. The reason I did not go through the Lobby with the Government that day was that I was not entirely sure what GB Energy was going to do.

In fact, based on the information before us in this Bill, I am still not entirely sure what GB Energy is going to do in practice; it seems to be all things to all people. In principle, perhaps that is not a bad thing, and those who gave evidence to us put forward a number of positive arguments of the necessity for that to be the case, whether in relation to production, generation, the supply of energy or the community projects that Members have spoken about at length.

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the House of Commons is fully apprised of exactly what the Secretary of State intends GB Energy to achieve. That will be hugely important, particularly in the context of Scotland, because much of what has been discussed in relation to GB Energy, and the opportunities that may or may not exist, will ultimately be intrinsically linked to the success of projects in Scotland, where the majority of the UK’s renewable energy resource sits. Indeed, I think the director of the Confederation of British Industry said that it is a “golden ticket” to economic growth for the entire UK. Imagine what an independent Scotland could achieve in that context.

The point of the amendment is to ensure that the House of Commons is able to fully appraise the direction that the Secretary of State wishes to take. That might cause Labour Members some consternation, because they have just been elected with a massive majority and may well be able to set out their strategic vision, but they need to remember that they will not be in government forever. They will at some point be replaced—I am not entirely sure who will replace them; there is a decent suggestion that it will probably be by the Lib Dems rather than by the Conservatives, based on the leadership candidates.

However, the amendment would ensure that future parliamentarians and future groups of politicians will be able to apply the same scrutiny that I expect of Government today. I think it is good practice. In years to come, should the Conservative party, the Lib Dems or perhaps some other nefarious party come to control the UK state, they should not be able to do anything contrary to the wishes of Parliament without its having the ability to shape the future of what will hopefully be a successful intervention into the energy market, albeit one with very small amounts of money to drive forward the multiple goals that it seeks to achieve.

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman tempts me into discussing both independence and the future of the Conservative party, but for your sake, Sir Roger, I will not go into either, although I hope there will be such opportunities in the future. I will make two points in response to the amendment, and there is a broader point, which I will stay off for the moment, that we will return to in the next series of amendments around the role of the devolved Administrations—

[Stephen Flynn]

Governments.

[Michael Shanks]

The devolved Administrations in terms of the Governments—I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

The first thing to say is that the statement of strategic priorities cannot overrule the objectives in the Bill. If an incoming Government—I will not say “nefarious” or otherwise—were seeking to use Great British Energy for a whole other purpose, they would not be able to, because the legislation sets out exactly what it will be used for, and that will be in the articles of association. Those objects set the overarching framework for Great British Energy’s activities and it is right that this framework is in legislation passed by Parliament and debated here today in clause 3.

Were we to move to a point where we required parliamentary approval of the statement of strategic priorities, which is only designed to provide direction in the priorities that the Government sets for the company, we would create unnecessary burdens on the company. Going back to the points in the Lib Dem amendments from earlier, I am concerned that, rather than Great British Energy getting on with delivering, we would end up in a constant cycle in which people add various things—I think someone said “baubles” earlier on, but I am not sure that I will continue that metaphor—into the statement of strategic priorities that would take away from it actually delivering the objects that we will hopefully pass in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I gently suggest that, if he were still sitting on the Opposition Benches, his view would be slightly different. I simply remind him in that context that he will not always be sitting on the Government side. If a future Secretary of State decides to change the strategic priorities of Great British Energy, then I am sure, at that point, he and his colleagues would like to have the ability to review, revise and discuss that within the democratic structures that we have. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

[Stephen Flynn]

Aye.

[Several hon. Members]

No.

[The Chair]

I think that we can safely say that the Noes have it.

Question accordingly negatived.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 5, page 3, line 12, leave out “consult” and insert

“seek and gain consent of”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out “(4) to (6)” and insert

“(5) and (6) or to gain consent imposed by subsection (4)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a process by which consent can be signified under subsection (4).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

[Stephen Flynn]

These amendments are hopefully self-explanatory to Members. I am extremely keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on them. As I referred to in my initial remarks, much of the success of the UK’s energy sector will be derived from the success of renewables projects in Scotland, whether that is the continuation of onshore wind, further development of fixed-bottom offshore wind, floating offshore wind, pumped storage hydro, green hydrogen, blue hydrogen, tidal, wave, and so on. The sun sometimes shines as well, so we might get some solar panels in there too—perhaps just in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, though, as opposed to Aberdeen.

I know that the Minister has been engaging proactively with my colleagues in Scotland, that there have been a lot of positive discussions, and that Mr Maier was up with the First Minister in recent weeks to discuss the future outlook for GB Energy. If the respect agenda that the new Labour Government appear to have put in place is to mean something, it is important that they are willing and confident enough in their arguments to seek the fulsome consent of the Scottish Parliament—not just the Scottish National party, because I am conscious, as I said earlier, that it may not always be the Scottish National party that is there.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I rise not just to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the sun does shine in the Western Isles, but to note that these amendments seem quite complex—blocking amendments, actually, that would prevent the business and progress of GB Energy. They read a bit like last year’s script because, as he mentioned, the Scottish Government and the UK Government work hand in hand now. My friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, who is a frenemy, speak on a regular—daily or at most weekly—basis. The Governments work together, rendering these clauses unnecessary.

[Stephen Flynn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although I am a bit disappointed that he regards seeking the consent of Scotland’s nationally elected Parliament as a blocking amendment. That is quite a Westminster mentality that he has adopted already in the few short weeks that he has been here—perhaps that is an indication of where his party intends to go in the months and years to come. Notwithstanding that, because I do not believe it was a necessary or helpful intervention in that context, I would be very keen to hear from the Minister on why he does not believe he should seek the consent of Scotland’s Parliament.

[Michael Shanks]

These are very important amendments, as I alluded to when discussing the last group of amendments. Since I became a Minister, I have worked very hard to reset the relationship. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s first official visit was, deliberately, to Scotland. He has set a clear expectation that all Ministers should be engaging with not just the Scottish Government but the Welsh Government and the Administration in Northern Ireland. That is particularly important in the energy space, because our priorities are broadly aligned. There are slight differences in targets and projects, but we all want to move in the same direction across all Governments of the United Kingdom, which is beneficial.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I reiterate another earlier point: we want to avoid any additional governance arrangements that prolong uncertainty. We want to move as fast as possible for the benefit of the whole of Scotland and the whole of the UK so that Great British Energy can start to deliver these projects and see benefits as soon as possible. What we do not want is to create burdensome regulation that ties us in knots and does not help with the critical engagement with the devolved Governments and Parliaments in the months and years ahead.

[Stephen Flynn]

I do not know whether I misheard the Minister’s last point, but I am not sure that we should view consulting the Scottish Parliament as burdensome. In fact, with both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd, and indeed with the Northern Ireland Assembly, there is a benefit for the United Kingdom in being proactive in its positive engagement with the devolved Governments and Administrations on these isles.

Notwithstanding that, I am pleased that I have been able to get this matter on the record. It is not unusual for this sort of provision to appear in legislation that applies across the UK that may carry implications for the devolved areas. In that regard, I will not press the amendment to a vote. However, I say to the Minister that my colleagues and I will hold him to account on this. As he knows, the delivery of projects relies on the Scottish Government and the UK Government working in practice on planning, consenting, the Crown Estate Scotland and the associated infrastructure. I would hate to see a situation where the strategic priorities of GB Energy, and the whole of the UK Government, change and they seek to impose their will on the Scottish Parliament in the way the previous Government did, which is why we did not have positive relations.

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with the broad arc of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but there is no mechanism for Great British Energy to impose anything on the Scottish Parliament. The whole point I was making is that it is important to recognise that Great British Energy has to operate within whatever framework any Scottish Government set for it.

[Stephen Flynn]

Forgive me, Sir Roger; I think the Minister and I were in agreement there. The point I was making was that a future Secretary of State may seek to change the framework of GB Energy, and that would cause me concern in that regard. However, as it stands, I am content with the Minister’s comments and will not seek to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

I am satisfied that matters arising from clause 5 have been adequately debated, so I do not propose to call a stand part debate.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna Turley.)

Great British Energy Bill (First sitting)

Stephen Flynn Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Q Welcome, Mr Maier. It is great to meet you—thank you for coming before the Committee. In Monmouthshire, we have seen the benefit of a lot of community energy projects, such as solar power on the Bridges community centre in Monmouth. In Wales, we have also seen lots of hydro projects in community energy, such as Ynni Ogwen in Bangor. Can you share how you think the Bill’s provisions will support community energy projects in the whole of Britain and Wales?

Juergen Maier: Community energy is definitely a priority for Great British Energy. If you want to point specifically to the Bill, clause 3, “Objects”, refers in subsection (2)(a) to

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

I see community energy as a core part of that. As Great British Energy, we definitely want to support the schemes that you have been talking about, whether those are in Wales, Scotland, England or Northern Ireland. We will definitely be doing that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning, Mr Maier. May I go back to your answer to a previous question? I do not think you quite clarified how many jobs would be in Aberdeen. If I picked you up correctly, you said that you expected those jobs to be operational engineering jobs. Could you elaborate on that? Could you give a steer or a little clarity on what you expect GB Energy to do in practice? The Bill states that the Secretary of State will provide clarity subsequently, but there is a lot of discourse in the public domain about what GB Energy will actually do.

Juergen Maier: Indeed. You are right that I did not answer your first question directly. The reason, obviously, is that we have not been able to put a direct number on it yet. It will be in the hundreds; it may eventually be 1,000 or more in the HQ. You will now say, “That is not going to help manage the energy transition,” but the reason is that the large numbers of people we will be helping to employ will be in the supply chain. If we look at some of the numbers already, by the end of the decade 100,000 people will be employed in offshore wind. I hope that many more of those will be in floating offshore wind, and floating offshore wind will happen off the coast of Aberdeen and indeed the whole east coast of the United Kingdom.

The jobs will be the sort that work with supply chains and the private sector to determine how we will enable floating offshore wind. What is the technology? What are the innovation challenges? What about project-managing the schemes, helping them to get through planning permission and making sure that they get on the grid? There will be all those sorts of questions. I very much see the role of Great British Energy as that of an enabler to get such new technologies on to the grid, and as that of an investor and co-investor. It will take quite a team of people and skills to achieve that.

[Stephen Flynn]

Am I okay to ask one more question, Chair?

[The Chair]

A quickie.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q In that context, when do you expect GB Energy to bring down energy bills, as promised?

Juergen Maier: The only way to get energy bills down and to get greater energy security is to get more renewable energy on the grid. We have to keep reminding people that the reason why energy bills went up was not renewable energy; it was a global oil and gas price crisis. Every megawatt and gigawatt of renewable energy that we put on the grid will help to bring bills and prices down. The exact mechanism by which that happens is, of course, a matter of policy—how you decide to bring those bills to the consumer. That is not the scope of Great British Energy; it is not the scope of the Bill, either.

[The Chair]

We are straying from the scope, yes. I call Torcuil Crichton.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. The Whips are saying there is something wrong with the mics—nobody can hear me either. You need to speak into the mic because nobody can hear what anyone is saying.

Mike Clancy: It is unusual for a trade union official to be asked to increase their volume; none the less, I will run counter to type and try to do that.

We welcome the creation of GB Energy and we welcome the Bill, but the reality is that communities are facing job losses now. The promise of jobs tomorrow is where the challenge lies. As we are talking about the Bill, I should say that we certainly want to see GB Energy created as an exemplar in terms of social partnership, job creation and turning the promise of quality green jobs into a reality. That is the pathway that the Bill has to provide for communities that are directly affected by technological and other changes. I guess that in other questions we will bring out further things about organisational design, because we certainly have some views on whether the Bill leads to an organisational design that will enable that.

Mika Minio-Paluello: You asked, “Will it ensure?” We very much welcome the Bill, but will it, in itself, ensure a just transition? No. Does it provide a mechanism and a tool that the Secretary of State and the Government can then use to help to deliver that? Yes. We also think the Bill is good because it creates a basis for GB Energy to grow. Ultimately, if we are going to see that successful transition, and all the jobs and the prosperity that we need to see in the UK, GB Energy needs to be on a par with the equivalent companies that we see in other countries, such as Ørsted, Statoil or Equinor, Vattenfall, or EDF. That is a long-term process, and over time, it can be good for workers and it can make the whole country richer.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q Thank you both for coming. In relation to that specific point, which is also in the written evidence that you provided, you referenced Ørsted, EDF, Vattenfall and Statkraft. GB Energy will be capitalised with £1.6 billion per annum. How does that equate to the delivery of projects similar to those of Ørsted, EDF, Vattenfall and Statkraft? Is that not quite a leap?

Mika Minio-Paluello: I mean, you would not build an Ørsted in one, two or five years. ESB, the Irish state-owned company, moved into offshore wind gradually, step by step. It took it about four or five years to get well inthere. We think we should aim to get there by 2040 or 2045. You start somewhere, so you start with the capitalisation. We can all talk about whether the Government could access more borrowing, and the fiscal heritage, but you can start with that. It will not be on that scale by 2030, but it can put in place the mechanisms and a plan so that by 2040 or 2045, we are a more powerful and richer country because we are finally on a par with our peers.

Mike Clancy: We have made some commentary about the treatment of public debt and this space in relation to GB Energy, and whether the debt rules, which are subject to current debate, should be adjusted so that public investment companies are appropriately excluded because they will provide a return to the Exchequer. We are also interested in the structure of GBE arising from the Bill in this regard. Clearly it is going to be a public investment vehicle, but if it is going to be an operator like Ørsted and so on—obviously we heard Juergen talk about the nature of the assets that it may bring under its control—these are significant engineering assets and propositions. If you are going to build a company in that respect, you had better start now, and you had better think about the labour markets in which you are going to obtain the skills, which are very competitive. I could keep you all morning talking about how that will not happen if it is constrained by public sector pay constraints.

A serious point is that there is more than one pathway for this entity, and if it is going to have a dual pathway, it needs to be thought through pretty early. That is because realising the floating offshore wind proposition—whatever sea it may be in—is a very significant endeavour, requiring an operational, management, engineering, construction, planning, and indeed operating capacity that need to be thought about right now, at the Bill stage.

[Andrew Pakes]

Q Thank you both for coming in. This Bill and GB Energy are a hugely exciting return to public steering, which we have not seen before for our energy system. One of our big challenges, before we even start building new systems, is the skills shortage we face, and the real challenge we have had in nuclear, renewables and other forms of energy production. I ask you both: how do you feel the Bill can stimulate and relate to the need to develop skills, deliver new jobs and ensure skills development in different regions of the country as well as in traditional areas?

Mike Clancy: Andrew, you are absolutely right. There are various things that need to be brought together that the Bill itself probably needs to consider, in terms of the skills profile generally and other forms of generation that are within this space. There is going to be an office of nuclear jobs developed by the Secretary of State, and so on. Our view is that it comes down to the extent to which the Bill can specify that GB Energy should be an exemplar company, and that it sets objectives for its board in relation to not only its community engagement, but how it conducts its processes to ensure that the short-termism that sometimes emerges from the private sector form of energy ownership is not characterised by a public company, which should be an absolute champion in these areas.

It comes down to governance and to the objectives and how they are set for a public company, and knitting them into the other parts of the skills landscape. That is why I also make the point—not in a usual trade union way, may I say—that we have to think about the labour markets in which GBE is going to play because they are very tight and very demanding, and there is a whole range of infrastructure that this country needs to invest in to deliver the growth mission.

Mika Minio-Paluello: There is good practice to learn from other countries: from Ørsted, Statoil—now Equinor —and Statkraft. They took a proactive role and identified where they thought the country needed to be in 10 years —not just where they might need to be from a minimalist, reactive position, but where the country needed to be—and then how to invest for the long run in those skills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Q I think we are all agreed that

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

should include nuclear energy—very important to your members, Mr Clancy. But to build on the point from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, I think there is a lack of clarity in the Bill at the minute over the operational independence and the autonomy of Great British Nuclear. Are you seeking that from the Government? Is it something that we should seek to have in the Bill as it moves through Committee?

Mike Clancy: That is not just in terms of the Bill, I think; the actual future of Great British Nuclear has a degree of uncertainty around it, per se, because, again—I am in danger of repeating myself—we have been here before. I used to be a member of the Nuclear Industry Council some moons ago, and we are rightly evangelists for our members, who deliver nuclear energy. We recognise that there are lots of controversies down the back end, in terms of decommissioning, but nuclear is an essential part of the future energy mix and the achievement of our climate goals. Therefore, there has to be a range of certainties in response—that is not a glib remark at all—and, in the GB Energy area, it is about companies knowing that they can invest and get the return. The Bill needs to be consistent with that.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q You have spoken eloquently and rightly about the energy transition, jobs, skills and STEM, but I have double checked and the Bill contains absolutely no detail about any of those things. Is that correct?

Mika Minio-Paluello: My understanding is that it is not currently in there, but it will be contained in the statement of strategic priorities. There are questions about how much should be added in. We understand that the logic is that the Bill will create an enabling vehicle—it will enable GB Energy to act and do things—so is it useful to put in many, many limitations? Probably not, because adding in too much detail will slow it down. Is it, on the other hand, useful to put in a clause that says that the statement of strategic priorities should have regard to a just transition and job creation? That could be a consideration.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q But, for clarity, the things that have been spoken about in this context are not in the Bill. Similarly, is there anything within the Bill that gives you certainty that energy bills will be brought down by £300?

Mika Minio-Paluello: Bringing energy bills down is a complicated process that depends on lots of things, including—

[Stephen Flynn]

Q Is it within the Bill though?

Mike Clancy: I suppose my response would be, “How could it be within the Bill?”

Mika Minio-Paluello: Theoretically, the Bill could say, “We will cap energy bills at a certain level,” but it would not be part of GB Energy’s role to cap energy.

Mike Clancy: You cannot divorce this from the fact that GB Energy will operate in a still-privatised energy asset environment, and consequently there are much broader questions about how bills are composed, the energy mix and so on. Those issues are not in the Bill, and I am sure the Chair would stop me going down that path. But I was the field official in energy, so if anyone wants to talk about that we can spend hours on it and the construction of the energy sector. I understand why you asked the question, but GB Energy is one entity within a much broader firmament of energy assets, owned in different ways.

Mika Minio-Paluello: Does the Bill enable the creation of a company that can, over time, grow to be something like EDF, Ørsted or Vattenfall? EDF brought bills down significantly during the energy crisis, when we had soaring bills. Does the Bill create the capacity to do that? Yes.

Mike Clancy: Often the focus in energy policy is on retail, because it affects domestic consumers more than wholesale when things are going a certain way. The biggest thing for us—we represent engineering and science staff—is where the generation is going to come from, what is going down the pipes and how we ensure that consistently and for the long term so that we have energy security and energy down those lines at a competitive price. Clearly, a public sector champion in that regard can be a significant contributor to changing the trajectory of energy prices and giving us indigenous energy security.

[The Chair]

Are there any further questions from Members?

[Stephen Flynn]

If there is still time, I am happy to come back.

[The Chair]

Well, we are not going to fill the time for the sake of it. If you have a genuine question—

[Stephen Flynn]

Q With all due respect, asking a question is not just filling time; it is my job.

For full clarity, you have clarified that it is possible for these things to happen—I do not think anyone would disagree with that—but as it stands the Bill does not provide any certainty about any of those points.

[The Chair]

Order. Is this a repeat of the previous question? I think—[Interruption.] Okay, there is a minute left. Go on.

[Stephen Flynn]

Again, just for clarity—because you pushed back and said that EDF brought down bills—there is nothing in this Bill, unless you tell me otherwise, that says that GB Energy will do likewise. Is that correct?

Mika Minio-Paluello: I do not think it forces GB Energy to do likewise, but I doubt the legislation that set up EDF forced it to do that. I think it probably set up EDF as a company to operate and gave it freedom to act. The question for Members is: “What do we do to enable the UK to finally be on a par with our peers elsewhere?” Does this create a basis for that? Yes. Then, yes, can you please push and hold the Government to account—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask this section of questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee.

Examination of Witnesses

Shaun Spiers, Ravi Gurumurthy and Marc Hedin gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran]

Q Thank you, panel. We have been hearing a lot today about the mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower, moving away from fossil fuels. I want to touch on something that Shaun, Marc and Ravi have all mentioned, about leadership, ambition and innovation. In your view, does the Bill give investors increased confidence to invest in the UK in the energy sector?

Ravi Gurumurthy: You have to think about this as a whole package. If you have absolute clarity and conviction around the 2030 decarbonisation target and the pathway beyond that, and if you translate that intent into a strategic plan—with clarity about the technologies and their location through the NESO—and if you then have an enabling, activating agency like GB Energy clearing away some of the barriers, then the combination of that overall ambition, that plan and GB Energy does I think hugely accelerate investments into the sector. But you have got to do all three.

Marc Hedin: I think that is right. I think there are two key components here. One is identifying gaps in the market, where Great British Energy can provide a lot of value and can reinforce confidence from investors, and thinking hard about where it makes sense for Great British Energy to invest. We have mentioned points like local power plans, innovative technologies. I think there is a range of areas in which it makes a lot of sense for the state to co-invest through Great British Energy to develop those industries. The last point is around supply chain, to really support the whole energy transition.

Shaun Spiers: I agree with that. This is a part of a bigger picture. We keep coming back to the scope of the Bill. The Bill, in its objects, talks about

“measures for ensuring the security of supply of energy”

One area that really has not been given sufficient attention is critical raw materials, where we import 100% and then we export 100% for recycling elsewhere. There are 37 lithium recycling factories in the EU but none in the UK. This is the sort of industry that Great British Energy could help pump-prime, if that is seen as within its scope.

[Stephen Flynn]

Q Again, you have spoken very eloquently about the opportunities that may or may not exist under GB Energy, particularly with regard to the risk appetite that needs to be there. You have perhaps delved into some areas in relation to planning and Crown Estate; where they sit within the devolved competency of the Scottish Parliament. I will not ask you to comment on that because that would be deeply unfair, but what you and others have done is delve into the strategic priorities and what you think they could be. Do you think it is helpful or unhelpful that at this juncture we do not have a full understanding of what those strategic priorities are, given that the Bill is going through in its current form?

Shaun Spiers: I think the more that can be done to set out the strategic priorities, the better. I do not think it necessarily needs to be in the Bill. The explanatory statement and the introductions and so on I think do give a reasonably good steer on what the strategic priorities are, but obviously this body is being set up at pace. The more clarity there is on what it is going to do, the better. I would not set unreasonable expectations of a body that is being set up really quickly, with a pretty clear short-term aim of 2030 power decarbonisation and of supporting that. However, in the longer term the priorities clearly need to be set out.

Ravi Gurumurthy: The NESO will be producing its plan in October, and you have then got the next carbon budget in February, so the actual pathway to 2030 and to 2050 will start to become even clearer in the coming months. It will need to be flexible, however. There will be technologies which emerge that shift our sense of what to focus on. You need priorities, but you do need quite a lot of flexibility in this system.

Marc Hedin: I made the point, I think, at the very beginning that we need a very flexible scope because there will be challenges to the energy transition. We need room to adapt. If this vehicle is to facilitate the energy transition, we need that scope to be relatively broad. I did mention a couple of safeguards, more like accountability, and I think that is still reasonable to ask. However, in terms of strategic priorities, I think the scope is broad enough and makes sense.

[Perran Moon]

Q As a proud Cornishman, I am very excited about the reopening of our tin mines and our lithium mines. I was very pleased to hear you mention critical minerals. Can you elaborate a little on how you think GB Energy can support the UK’s domestic critical minerals industry?

Shaun Spiers: By investing in it. It is more a question of the recycling, because there is a big recycling industry elsewhere. When the UK was the pioneer in offshore wind, it was easy to import critical raw materials and then not bother about reusing them and just import more. As the Foreign Secretary was talking about in his speech at Kew, there are now real concerns about the shortage of critical raw materials across the world. Because they are needed for so many technologies, and so many technologies that are essential to the transition, we need a plan for the transition that includes recycling plants. Lithium mining in Cornwall is great, but we also need not be exporting our critical raw materials to be repurposed elsewhere, and then reimporting the repurposed ones. There are 37 recycling plants in the EU, while in China there were 61 waste lithium battery recycling and processing companies two years ago, and it is a growing industry. It has not grown in the UK, it has not had attention, and I think that if GB Energy is committed to long-term energy security, which it is, then it could play a part in getting that industry going in the UK.