Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting)

Torcuil Crichton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Q You talked about the objects within the scope of the law, about facilitating and encouraging, and about frontier innovation in technology and energy generation, but you also talked about de-risking. You did not mention onshore wind, so I am wondering whether that would lead also to onshore wind. There are also tidal programmes, such as the reef from Aberthaw to Minehead, that are stalled. Do you see these as part of helping to facilitate and de-risk within the scope of GB Energy, too?

Tristan Zipfel: For sure, yes, they could be part of the scope. Choices will need to be made, of course, on where those investments are directed, and I think it is important to direct the investments where they will have the maximum impact. When it comes to onshore wind, for instance, perhaps it could be a case not of investing where the private sector is already doing a good job on its own, but of looking at areas where there is a need to develop infrastructure to unlock these onshore wind opportunities, or of looking at Government-owned land that could be used to develop new projects. As you said, Alistair, it is going to be complementary to what the private sector is doing, but there will be pockets of opportunities for GB Energy to really make a difference, even in an area like onshore wind, I think—100%.

Alistair McGirr: I agree with that answer. The question would then be: where is the biggest bang for the buck? Is it building large onshore wind projects that actually have developers in that space and have a route to market? That is probably the question for GB Energy: is that the best use of taxpayers’ money, rather than other things that can be done in terms of investment in frontier technologies?

You mentioned tidal. There is the question there of an absence of a business model. If there was this supported business model, there might be an opportunity for private investors to come into that space. There is the issue that just because the private sector is not doing it does not mean that the public sector should do it, because ultimately, if it is a bad deal for private shareholders, it is probably a bad deal for taxpayers as well. I think this is about making sure that the technologies that are useful are brought forward with business models that provide a return for whoever the investor is.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

Q Welcome, gentlemen. In relation to clause 3(2)(a) and

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

you have welcomed state intervention and the role of GB Energy in that. How would you feel about communities taking a direct stake in your onshore and offshore developments—say, 20%, as they do in Denmark?

Tristan Zipfel: On our side—I am sure SSE does the same—we are definitely looking at that. We are trying to develop some schemes that go exactly along those lines. We have not done it so far. The link and the reward to communities have been through the community benefits fund linked to our projects. I live in Teesside: we have an offshore wind farm there, and I can tell you that the community benefit fund, over the last 10 years of operation, has helped dozens of local projects and initiatives. You are absolutely right to think the next frontier is to have more local ownership of wind farms. That could be through GB Energy, but it could also be through direct ownership schemes. We are looking at those options at the moment.

Alistair McGirr: As I mentioned at the start, we partner with a number of different organisations; I mentioned Equinor, which is a state-owned entity. We are open to working with any kind of party on a commercial basis, be it a community or another developer. In that sense, the communities taking a stake in some of the projects is something that could be done. The question is: what are the terms of that arrangement? There is the critical point that any community ownership should be focused on co-investment. It should not just be the case that 20% of a project is passed on to a community, because that will be value that is basically taken out of the project, which then inflates the cost of the project. So the co-investment piece is very important. Whether it involves another developer, another state-owned entity, GB Energy or a community, I think that is a useful way of bringing capital into the UK’s low-carbon infrastructure.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Q Thank you for answering our questions. In the morning sitting we struggled with the fact that although we all hope the Bill will do something, it has relatively little detail. We have already discussed the merits of not having too much detail, because then GB Energy would be hampered, and of having more detail. We have to try to find a balance in what we agree to in legislation. When you look at clause 4, are you content with the scope of the financial assistance provisions?

Alistair McGirr: Yes, frankly. I think there will be other protections in place—what was in old money called state aid protections but is now subsidy control. There will be wider provisions that ensure that GB Energy does not have adverse impacts on investment into the competitor space, be they state aid provisions or subsidy control provisions. That will ensure that what GB Energy is effectively legislated to be able to do does not adversely impact a competitive playing field. It is important to make sure that that is maintained. Ultimately, if there is a tilting of the playing field towards GB Energy, that will be a bad deal for either the taxpayer or the consumer.

Tristan Zipfel: I concur with what was said. It is really important that the establishment of GB Energy does not disrupt the dozens of billions of pounds that are going to be directed by the private sector into the renewables sector, or the clean energy sector in general, over the next decades. For that it is important to maintain trust in the fact that it is indeed going to be a level playing field and that GB Energy is not going to benefit from forms of assistance that would disrupt competition. That being said, I think GB Energy will have its own criteria, strategy and approach, which is absolutely fine. But it needs to be in the context of a level playing field from a competitive standpoint. That is really important.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I said that that would be the final question, but we have a couple of minutes left, so, very briefly, I call Torcuil Crichton.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Hello, Mr Labbad. I realise that Crown Estate Scotland is devolved and under different jurisdiction, but it was in the water first, so to speak, with its Scotland licensing round. What lessons did the Crown Estate learn from that Scottish experience, in terms of what came out of it and co-investing in future with the UK Government?

Dan Labbad: We are looking to learn all the time from what happens around the country and around the world. One thing that it is worth saying quickly is that sometimes we are too focused on interior discussions and debates about how and what goes on where in the UK. The elephant in the room, in some ways, is losing the first mover advantage we have had in this sector to the rest of the world. It is essential to demonstrate that as a country we can do floating wind better than anyone else, and to build the integration and maintenance capabilities in this country, because that is what will bring the jobs, for example. We are always focused on that.

We have learned a number of things. Obviously, focusing on the supply chain is fundamentally important. That has been a learning over the past 10 years. The other thing that has been a learning is that we need to work to de-risk the sector for the private sector as much as possible, because in a world that has a growing offshore wind pipeline, even the companies that you are listening to today all work internationally, and we need to retain the UK as a competitive place for them to want to deploy renewable energy. The way that to do that is to build the pathway to the future, so that they can see the pipeline using the marine delivery route map. We must de-risk such projects up front so that they still put their capital in and earn the requisite return on it for the risk that they take, but we are not asking them to take a disproportionate risk on projects that are being stalled. Those are all learnings over the past 25 years.

I will also make a final point. The industry and Government—the Crown Estate and others involved in this sector over the past 25 years—have been exceptional at course correcting when things have not gone exactly to plan. The innovation capacity in the sector is there, and all we need to do through things like the partnership with Great British Energy is empower that capacity. Then, I think, we have every chance of meeting those deployment targets.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Mr Labbad, it may seem like a long way to have come for a very short period of time, but your evidence is extremely valuable to the Committee.

Examination of Witness

Josh Buckland gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Q I have one last question, if I may beg your patience, Sir Roger. Obviously, Mr Whitehouse, a lot of the members that you represent are in Aberdeen. In our very first piece of evidence this morning, we heard from Mr Juergen Maier, who is the new chair of GB Energy. It has been announced that the headquarters of GB Energy, established by this Bill, will be in Aberdeen. How important do you think that is, given the links that will have to be established to the existing energy sector and the importance of the supply chain to the success of GB Energy? How do you think the geographical location of the headquarters will affect the future success of the company, and indeed the energy sector in the UK?

David Whitehouse: The position we have always taken is that you have energy communities up and down the UK. We have a very proud energy sector, and in principle I think you could have put GB Energy in many places, but we welcome it in Aberdeen. The reason we welcome it in Aberdeen is because that is where you see a real density of high-quality operators, high-quality developers and high-quality supply chain. That is the right place to put it. We take confidence that this journey to net zero must be about inclusivity, and about breaking down barriers and building bridges. Having GB Energy centred in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent that this Government—it was also supported by the Scottish Government—recognise that as well. We need to make the most of our industrial strength. Placing this in Aberdeen is a good statement of intent, so we welcome that.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Mr Whitehouse, I hear what you say about the Bill and GB Energy being an opportunity, but I hear from some of your members that they think renewables are a threat. How can we change that language? To protect that world-class supply chain, what can the industry and GB Energy do to ensure that the supply chain and the jobs stay here?

David Whitehouse: Apologies: what was the word they were using?

[Torcuil Crichton]

Some see them as a threat, not an opportunity.

David Whitehouse: Okay. So I need to do a better job, because I do not see a threat whatsoever. In the UK at the moment, we are on a journey. The Climate Change Committee says that we must hit our net zero targets by 2050, and on that journey 50% of our energy under the balanced pathway will come from oil and gas. Today we produce only about half of what we need, so it is right that, in my opinion, if the industry is held to account, we should prioritise domestic oil and gas.

Our members see no threat from accelerating the path to renewable energy. It will take time, but it is absolutely the right thing to do. The only concern or consideration from our perspective is, “Yes, of course, accelerate.” Our members are actually investing in that, and our supply chain members are using their revenues from oil and gas to invest in that transition. It is an opportunity, not a threat.

What we need, though, is that balanced discussion with those who work in the oil and gas sector. We have a voice: we are Offshore Energies UK, not “Oil and Gas UK”. That is because companies, supply chains and people are evolving, and you want that big tent if you are going to be successful in bringing it forward. If you are getting that feedback from those in the sector, I hope that in the coming weeks and months you will not hear that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

My question has been answered.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Thank you, Andy, for your impressive evidence. I also declare an interest as a member of the GMB. You welcome the Bill, possibly the prescription part for renewables, but what would you write in that prescription part to ensure that the workforce is involved and that we retain that workforce as we move to green energy away from oil and gas?

Andy Prendergast: The role of trade unions is key. I have always had a very simple view: trade unions are about democracy at work. We are a country that believes in democracy so much that we invade other countries to give it to them whether they want it or not, and yet the idea of democratisation at the workplace is an anathema—certainly to what was over half of Parliament.

We need to listen to workers and ensure that they share in the success of businesses and ultimately that their sacrifices and those of their families are recognised. When we look at the work that is going to be coming out, we know that we have to do this. We have been asking for an industrial plan for years, and I think GB Energy is part of that industrial plan. That industrial plan has to be a road map of how we do this properly, how we engage those communities and how we provide the support necessary to make a transition.

I mentioned going to Denmark. When I was there, something fascinating happened: they closed a bacon plant, which was 1,000 jobs. You sit there and say, “That’s terrible. In Britain, we’d be fighting that. We’d be on picket lines.” In Denmark, because of the support given in social security and retraining, and the industrial strategy, it was seen as an opportunity for people to get better jobs. That was also helped an awful lot by the fact that those people were getting 90% of their salary paid for up to a year, so people thought, “Well, it’s a better job and a bit of a holiday in the meantime.” That shows what happens when you engage people properly.

What you ended up with is something that would decimate a community in Britain but rejuvenated a community in Denmark. That is because there was a tripartite strategy of listening to unions, talking to Government and talking to employers, and everyone put their heads together to come up with a solution to what would clearly be a problem. We have failed at that in Britain for years.

[The Chair]

Mr Prendergast, thank you very much indeed for your patience and for answering our questions this afternoon. The Committee is indebted to you. I am most grateful.

Would the Minister leading on the Bill like to meta-morphose himself and take the witness stand?

Examination of Witness

Michael Shanks MP gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

Q I would like to understand whether you see this as the missing limb in clause 3, on the objects. I heard you mention in the Chamber that the fifth objective of GB Energy is community energy, so we are missing the fifth objective in clause 3 around community energy. We heard from all the witnesses about how crucial this community piece is, both to de-risking and to reducing the delay. I wonder whether you would be open to an amendment and would consider putting it in here. I do not think that this would make it more difficult to hold the flexible, wide-ranging framework that we have had, so I want to see if you are open to that.

Michael Shanks: There are two separate things here: the objects in the Bill, which are around the restrictions placed on Great British Energy, and the five key functions, which are outlined in the founding statement. I was referring to the five key functions, one of which is the local power plan, which is how we think we will deliver a lot more community-owned energy.

The important thing about the Bill is that we do not want inadvertently to create a list of things that we think are good to have—I do not disagree with you at all about the importance of that—but that actually end up restricting it in ways that we do not expect. There is that danger with Bills like this; it was the same with Great British Nuclear and the UK Infrastructure Bank, where they have a clear, focused remit. There is nothing in the objects that prevents community energy projects—in fact, they are intrinsic to several of them—but we think that adding more and more detail, including the amendment that you propose, is not the right way to go. But it is clear in the founding statement, in the evidence from Juergen Maier and in numerous answers from the Secretary of State and me that this is something to which we are absolutely committed.

[Torcuil Crichton]

Q Thank you, Minister, for your assurances on the Bill’s commitment and your own commitment to investing in community energy schemes and municipal schemes. We have heard from industry witnesses today about communities taking a stake in their own projects and about not having an industrial strategy that is agnostic. That obviously means giving priority to communities and to getting community projects on to grid connections, and making sure that they get all the help they can get to bring their projects to fruition. Can you clarify how GB Energy might help with that?

Michael Shanks: That is really important. There are two strands to this. The capacity building point, to which you allude, is critical. A lot of communities absolutely have the possibility, the option and the potential for some of these projects, but just do not have the capacity to deliver them. We see that as a critical role that GB Energy could have, as a sort of one-stop shop of experts to provide that support, help with the essential pre-planning work and help to navigate the connections issues.

The second point around connections is really important, and it is something I am focusing a lot of time on within my wider remit as Minister: how do we clear the connections queue, while also prioritising the projects that we want to get connected much faster? Some of that will require us simply to build more network infrastructure to alleviate the pressures; some of it is building on the work that the previous Government did around prioritising the queue.

There are difficult trade-offs. Far be it from me to give credit to the former Minister again, but there are trade-offs because it is important for us not to say that one project is more valuable than the other. There might be, for example, mechanisms around saying that one is more likely to be connected faster, or is further through its delivery phase and should therefore get priority over something else. There are also a lot of projects still in the queue that just should not be there at all, because they are nowhere near ready to be delivered. It is important that we work on both those things, but GB Energy can be a real catalyst for communities to unleash the potential that they have. I am really excited about the opportunities that are there.

In closing, may I thank Committee members for their forbearance today? Can I also say that it is the first time since 2010 that a Minister has given evidence in a Bill Committee? I am glad that this Labour Government have brought back the practice of Government Ministers being responsible to Parliament and answering these questions. I look forward to doing more of that in future.

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