Andrew Bowie MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q We have spoken with previous guests this afternoon about the necessity for the Secretary of State and the Minister here to have strategic priorities and plans to engage with Scottish and Welsh Ministers and all the devolved Administrations. Obviously, the Crown Estate is an area that is devolved in Scotland. You said that within the market right now there are different plans, priorities and timescales and people are moving in different directions. How are you co-ordinating with Crown Estate Scotland to ensure that your work with GBE will be uniform and joined up across the United Kingdom? Otherwise, none of the targets will be met. Dan Labbad: Consultation across the country is fundamental. In fact, if you look at our Celtic sea round 5 tender, which is live at the moment, you will see that we consulted heavily with the Welsh Government and with Welsh stakeholders. In fact, we evolved our approach quite considerably in the deployment of that tender approach through that consultation, adding a lot of value. I should say that to get a leasing programme out like round 5—which is the 4.5 GW floating wind programme that we have at the moment live in the Celtic sea—you engage with many stakeholders. The count in the case of the Celtic sea was more than 70 stakeholders from global and local environmental groups, developers across Government, the third sector again and a whole host of users of the seabed. Without doing that we do not deploy, because we do not get everybody’s buy-in. If we are talking other parts of the country, there is no difference whether it is Northern Ireland or Scotland. We enjoy a good relationship with Crown Estates Scotland and with the Scottish Government. They are partners in our marine delivery route map and we are co-ordinating on systems issues, because obviously some of the environmental issues and deployment and grid issues do not have borders, so that consultation is, as you suggest, fundamental.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I will be brief, because I know that others want to come in. Mr McGirr, you specifically mentioned Berwick Bank and planning and consenting. Obviously, Berwick Bank is in Scotland, and planning and consenting is a devolved competence. Clause 5(4) states: “The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers before including in a statement under this section anything which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”. As a company that has heavily invested in Scotland, did you realise that there was detail in the Bill about how GB Energy will interact with the devolved Administrations, given that so many aspects of what it is seeking to achieve are competences of the devolved Administrations, specifically in Scotland? Alistair McGirr: In terms of the premise, I definitely agree that the devolved Administrations have to play an important role in the direction of GB Energy. I do not think there necessarily needs to be anything in the legislation. I suppose it is also worth mentioning that there might be a view about how the investments are spread across different parts of the country. In reality, a lot of those will be up in Scotland because of the opportunities that Scotland has.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for taking the time to come and join us, Mr Prendergast. For the benefit of the Committee, could you elaborate on the overarching view of GMB members on the establishment of Great British Energy and on Government energy policy overall? Andy Prendergast: We see GB Energy as a long-overdue, desperately needed step. As a country, and as someone who works for a union supporting tens of thousands of energy workers and people who work in energy-intensive industries, there is a real problem at the moment when we look across the world at the investments being made in green technologies and what other Governments are doing to ensure that those investments lead to jobs and supply chains in their nations. What we see in Britain is a complete failure to match that, whether it is the Inflation Reduction Act in America, or European subsidies. As a union, we regularly sit down with investors who have shovel-ready projects that have the opportunity and potential to transform huge swathes of Britain in areas that we have called “left behind”, “post-industrial” or “red wall”, but we simply cannot get the support to get those through. The investors are telling us that if they decide to put their site in Philadelphia, they get huge subsidies and tax breaks; if they decide to put it in Germany, they get subsidies and Government support, but in Britain there is simply a void. I have heard quite a lot of people talk about the importance of supply chains. I will be honest: for my union, we do not necessarily see that to the same degree. If we look at offshore wind, we see jackets, technology and blades that are not made in Britain. We have huge swathes of the country where people are willing and able to work, yet they are sitting there watching this technology be imported in. In the case of the Methil fabrication site in Scotland, which is currently sitting without work, they are watching the wind turbines that they could be building being put up in the sea in front of them. We need to avoid that, and I think GB Energy is the first step to doing that—a step, frankly, that should have been taken a long time ago.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you, Sir Roger. Good afternoon and thank you for joining us today to help our deliberations on the Bill. My first question was going to be to Ms Powis, but I will expand on it to Ms Dawes to begin with. The Carbon Capture and Storage Association has written to the Committee expressing concern about the definition of technologies that GB Energy might be able to invest in and work on. It would like to see an extension of the definition from “the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy”, to include technology that might be involved in carbon capture and storage. It is not set out clearly within the Bill that that is the case. Ms Dawes, as somebody who works with the companies involved in the extraction and production of fossil fuels in Aberdeen and the drive to transition to net zero, do you share the concern with the narrow prescription of what GB Energy will be allowed to invest in and be involved in? Myrtle Dawes: I understand their concern. From my perspective, I understood that that would be covered under clause 1(2)(b), which concerns the reduction of greenhouse gases. Fundamentally, the storage or utilisation of carbon dioxide comes with the reduction of greenhouse gases. [ Interruption. ] As Olivia is here, she could probably respond.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This is my very last question, Sir Roger, as you will be pleased to hear. Earlier on, Juergen Maier, the chair of GB Energy, committed the headquarters in Aberdeen to employing in the region of hundreds of people—he did say over 1,000 people—in time. Will you be drawn on any specific numbers of people who will be based at the headquarters in Aberdeen? Michael Shanks: No, I will not be. To be fair to Juergen Maier, what he said very clearly was that in the initial set-up phase and for some time afterwards, we are talking employees in the hundreds based in the headquarters. Eventually, we think it may expand beyond that in Aberdeen and in the satellite offices, and indeed in any other set-ups that we have across the UK. I think the critical point on jobs is that the role of GB Energy is to invest in projects where we are creating new well-paid, trade-unionised jobs in the UK. That is critical. The jobs are not necessarily going to be in the headquarters of GB Energy, but they will be created by GB Energy’s investment. That is where the tens of thousands of jobs right across the UK will come from.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In the case of the Methil yard in Scotland—I think it is Burntisland we are speaking about—the UK Government and, I think, the Scottish Government did attempt to save that yard and ensure that it works moving forward. I do not know how GB Energy would have been able to do much more, but I take your point that we need to build up the domestic supply chain and ensure that there are manufacturing jobs here. Do you think that the aims and objects of this Bill go wide enough? Do you think that there is broad enough scope for the different technologies that GB Energy will have to invest in? We have heard the CCSA raise slight concerns that there might not be the scope for investment in carbon capture, for example, where a lot of new jobs are going to be created, and presumably a lot of those will be members of the GMB. Andy Prendergast: We fought for carbon capture to be included. As far as we are concerned, having checked the wording, we think that is covered. An issue we have on the scope is whether the funds are sufficient to back the ambition. Before the election, we were talking £28 billion at one point. What we have offers a huge scale and a huge opportunity, and while ultimately we would like to see more money, this is genuine, real money that was not there before. That is a step in the right direction. From a trade unionist point of view, I very frequently argue about a lack of money—we do it on a daily basis everywhere. Another concern with the Bill, which I think the Bill itself addresses, is the relationship between GB Energy and GB Nuclear. We desperately need new nuclear. We are waiting for the decision on Sizewell and we would like to see the decision on Wylfa as well as small modular reactors. There is a genuine question about whether SMRs fit under the remit of GB Energy or GB Nuclear, and it needs to be resolved. SMRs are another of those technologies that British brains created but, if we are not careful, we will see the supply chains go overseas. It is an industry that is likely to be £180 billion within a decade. The choice we have with that is either to support British companies such as Rolls-Royce or, as with wind, to import this key technology that should be supporting companies and jobs throughout Britain.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for giving us your time this afternoon, Mr Labbad. How do you foresee the Bill and the creation of GB Energy impacting on the offices of the Crown Estate? In your answer, could you give some detail on the recent agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, and what that will mean moving forward? Dan Labbad: First, thank you for having me here this afternoon. The Crown Estate has been operating in the offshore renewable energy space for a long time—roughly 25 years—and, working with Government, the private sector and the third sector, we have created what is the second largest offshore wind capability in the world. That is something that we as a country should be very proud of, but obviously what got us here will not get us where we need to be. When you look at the Climate Change Committee’s report on what is required from offshore wind and other renewable and zero-carbon technologies into the future, you see that we need to accelerate our deployment in a way that is balanced with other marine uses, including the environment, and ensure that we are deploying at a rate that meets the targets that were set for good reason. We have been organising the Crown Estate for the last five to 10 years in order to do that, accelerating leasing and starting the de-risking process for developers. We also have a Bill before Parliament to enhance our powers to do more in this space. For example, we have something called the marine delivery route map, which looks at all uses on the seabed to ensure that we can create spatial co-ordination for different uses. That is fundamental to being able to achieve deployment, but even with our new powers we cannot do it alone. We need support, certainly support from Government. There are three key areas that we would have called on had GB Energy not been announced, but Great British Energy offers a number of things. First, there is the co-ordination of all the agents involved in what is a very complex energy sector, both within and outside of Government. One of the big encumbrances at the moment is that everyone is working in slightly different directions; you do not achieve targets if everyone is working in slightly different directions. Secondly, there are the increased investment powers to ensure that we are additive to what the private sector needs and ensure that we can achieve the acceleration throughput that we are talking about and invest in new technologies. Finally, it can ensure that we are evolving policy around areas that are not limited to planning and grid, for example, so that we have the pathways not only to lease seabed for renewable deployment but to deliver generating capacity. We see GB Energy bringing those things.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In the context of the Bill—the objects, the financial assistance and the strategic priorities and plans—it is quite clear that you are seeking to develop a company in the mould of an Ørsted or an EDF. I just quoted you on the target of 2030 for the decarbonisation of the grid. Some of the other witnesses have said that it will take 10 to 15 years and many billions of pounds more than has already been allocated to GB Energy even to begin to compete with an EDF or an Ørsted. How on earth will this company assist on that journey to 2030 decarbonisation if it will take as long as some of the other witnesses have said to begin to compete? Michael Shanks: I think there are two different questions there. If you look at the rest of Europe, there are fantastic companies—EDF, Ørsted, Statkraft—that are delivering many of these projects in the UK. It is a model that clearly works, and that delivers economic and social benefits to those countries and to the people living in them. If we look at the price spike when Ukraine was invaded, EDF was able to mitigate some of that significant rise in bills for people in France. We are not saying that within six months of setting up GB Energy, it is going to compete with Equinor or Ørsted—of course we are not—but it is important that we start that journey. Of course, all these publicly owned companies started somewhere. They have been able to invest in the future to get to the scale that they are now, and to deliver significant projects in the process. The second point of the question is important. GB Energy is not designed to displace any of those companies—or any other companies, incidentally—in delivering projects in the UK. It is about crowding in additional investment. We know that 2030 is going to be a real challenge. We have been very clear that we have set a target that we think is extremely ambitious, but achievable. When NESO publishes its road map shortly, it will give the detail on how we are going to get there. But we have to start somewhere, and I think GB Energy is a critical part of delivering that and will play a significant role in getting us to 2030—and, crucially, beyond 2030.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Ms Powis, do you suggest that if we do not make those changes to the Bill, it might be prohibitive to further investment in CCUS, or do you think that the words from the Secretary of State on announcing the Bill were enough to calm any jitters in your industry? Olivia Powis: No, we would recommend that the wording is changed in the Bill so that it is future-proof. We welcome the words that came alongside it, but we want to ensure that it is future-proofed for when people come back to this legislation in five years’ time. It must be on the face of the Bill.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I could not agree more. There will be 70,000 jobs created by SMRs alone over the next few years if we get it right. Would you like to see clarification in the Bill of the relationship with Great British Nuclear? Andy Prendergast: I am not necessarily saying that it needs to be in the Bill, but it needs to happen quite quickly. The Bill refers to the fact that it needs to be bottomed out, and every route we look at to net zero requires a huge increase in the amount of nuclear power. We need that decision on Sizewell quite quickly. I do not look at that as key to GB Energy, but it needs to be resolved.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think it is fair to say that at the recent TUC congress some scepticism was expressed about the current Government’s plans for the energy sector, not least in respect of fears about the tens of thousands of jobs that are currently under threat in the oil and gas sector. How do you see GB Energy fitting into the overall piece when it comes to seeking to protect those jobs through the transition? Mika Minio-Paluello: It is true that trade unions want to see good-quality jobs going forward, and that there are concerns about how we deliver a just transition, because we see the reality that transitions are not easy. To make that happen, we need some levers—some tools that can help to ensure that workers either have their existing jobs future-proofed or have transfers to new places. GB Energy is a tool that can help to make that possible that we currently do not really have in the UK. In France, Norway, Denmark and Germany there are a lot more institutions—the public sector effectively has a bigger stake—and we do not have that. As Juergen said earlier, GB Energy can be part and parcel of enabling the supply chain growth that we have not seen in recent years, because CfDs have not delivered that as they are. It can also deliver the co-ordinated collective pathways for workforce, as well as upskilling, which does not really happen given the piecemeal way it is working at the moment. It can also play a role by ensuring that renewable jobs will be good jobs, both through procurement and through, in effect, ensuring a race to the top. That is all part of a plan, and what came out of our congress recently was that we need to see a plan. To have that plan, we need institutions like GB Energy.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, Mr Maier, and thank you for joining us this morning. Congratulations on your appointment as chair of Great British Energy. It was announced with great fanfare at the Labour party conference that the new headquarters of Great British Energy would be in Aberdeen. What does that actually mean? What will the HQ actually do? How many people will be employed at the HQ? Juergen Maier: The HQ is where we will centre all our operations. That means that all the key staff will be there, including the chief executive when we get around to appointing one. We will probably start with an interim chief executive who might not be located there, but eventually that is our plan. There will be other locations. We would also like a location in Edinburgh and one in Glasgow, in particular to help on innovation and maybe financial services. I see the main role in Aberdeen as being particularly around operational engineering jobs. Ultimately, those are the jobs that are in abundance in Aberdeen; they are the well-paid jobs and the ones that are in greater quantity.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have enough clarity thus far, through this Bill and the creation of GB Energy, to give confidence to those people in the sector who are worried about their jobs—

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The overarching aim of GB Energy is to speed up the transition to invest in new and emerging technologies. When your time as chair has ended and you look back, what will you judge as success? Juergen Maier: There are two very simple answers. The first is how many renewable energy and clean energy projects Great British Energy has been a part of, as a co-investor, an investor or an enabler, and how much more renewable energy we have thereby managed to get on the grid. The second is how many jobs and how much prosperity we have created as a result, making sure that as much of the supply chain is Scottish/British, rather than overseas.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q For the record, can I say how nice it is to see Dan again? And also to thank you, Adam, and Emma for the support and, indeed, challenge you posed when I was sitting on the other side, talking through the Energy Bill last year. I ask of both the panellists: the strategic policies and plans are set out in the Bill—are they adequate for GB Energy and indeed the aims and ambitions of your organisations as you seek to see them progress? Dan McGrail: It is good to see you too, shadow Minister. First, I think there is a trade-off in legislation like this, between the focus you want to provide, and the guard rails put into the Bill, and giving the entrepreneurial freedom to the organisation to invest where opportunities arise. We believe, and the report we wrote prior to the release of this was quite clear, that focus is important, but is legislation the place to put the focus? Our view is that the business plan that is set up and put in place by the chief executive and their team, once appointed, is the place to put that focus. It will be much more predictable if it is developed by experts in the sector who have conducted a thorough analysis of where the opportunities are for investment, and where the real additionality is. One additional point that is important to detail in the statement, when it comes, is how the investment priorities of GB Energy would be different from those of the private sector. Would GB Energy take a longer view on returns on investment? Would it have a different rate of return? That would help to clarify the role of GB Energy within the ecosystem of the sector and with other private investors so that there is understanding of where real partnership opportunities lie. In short, the answer to your question is that it is important to have a focus, but do the focus in the plan rather than in the legislation. Adam Berman: I certainly agree with Dan. My one reservation with the legislation is that GB Energy will face two distinct competing priorities: the first is making money, which would probably primarily come from established mature renewables, and the second is solving distinct problems within the energy system that are a result of market failures. There is some overlap—although not complete overlap— between those two priorities. The question is whether there should be more clarity in the legislation over which strategic objective GB Energy should be solving. That is not an issue for industry to resolve, but it is something that, without stronger guidance in the legislation, GB Energy may struggle to reconcile once it is formed.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you think there is enough provision in the Bill to allow for the Secretary of State to be publicly accountable for the decisions that he or she may take in the future, in regard to the concerns you have just raised? Adam Berman: I do not think there is a deficit in terms of accountability, and I do not think there are 500 bodies that should be consulted before any decision is made by GB Energy; if you look at things like the planning system and statutory consultees, you can see how that is an issue. That being said, there is a list of organisations that any Secretary of State should consult, through their due diligence, which is everyone from the National Energy System Operator to the Climate Change Committee to industry to devolved Administrations. We would very much assume that the Secretary of State and the Department would do that due diligence themselves. However, I do not think shackling GB Energy through the legislation to having to do that to make every decision is necessarily the right approach. Dan McGrail: I fully agree with that.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not!

• 8 Oct 2024 · Clean Electricity Generation · Hansard source

  More

  One way to increase clean electricity generation in the United Kingdom would be to invest at pace in new nuclear. We left government with a clear plan to get to 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. Does that target remain?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Clean Electricity Generation · Hansard source

  More

  Our record on nuclear speaks for itself. We launched the small modular down-selection process and Great British Nuclear, and invested £200 million in new advanced nuclear fuels. We consulted on a new route to market for advanced modular reactors and new technologies, and granted a development consent order for Sizewell C. There is concern that there is a go-slow in the Government right now, so when can we expect a final investment decision on Sizewell C? Will it still be this year?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who gave a fantastic maiden speech. I join him in his kind words about his predecessor, who was indeed an incredibly affable man who served my party, this House and this country with diligence while he was a Member of Parliament. I know he will continue to do so now that he is in the other place. It is also a pleasure to speak in the debate named after Sir David Amess. My only sadness is that the many new Members will not have the benefit of his wit and wisdom, unlike those of us who first came to this place earlier—in my case in 2017. I particularly welcome the new hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). I got to know her predecessor, Alan Whitehead, incredibly well when he was my shadow in the last Parliament and we spent hours and hours taking the Energy Bill through Committee. I completely agree that there was nothing he did not know about the energy brief—he was a giant in that field—and she does indeed have big shoes to fill. I cannot quite agree with her when she makes a comparison with Taylor Swift, so while she has a hard act to follow, I am sure she will “Shake It Off” in time. As my new hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) said, there are indeed weeks in which decades happen. I can almost prove that point. The last time I addressed this House from the Back Benches was on 11 July 2022, when I spoke against my Government’s introduction of the energy profits levy. By the time I returned to address this House, I was on the Front Bench as a Minister, we had had two changes of Prime Minister and one new monarch, and I had gained a daughter. That is by way of saying to new Members that things happen fast here, so be prepared for that. Yes, I spoke about the introduction of the energy profits levy back in 2022, and although my Front-Bench position precludes me from speaking about that measure from the Back Benches, I take this opportunity to beg Ministers in charge of the new taxation and licensing policy in the North sea to remember that people in my communities are very worried about their future in the oil and gas industry. As these changes are made, Ministers should remember that local people—because of their livelihoods—and indeed those in communities in many part of this country, are watching and waiting, and they are worried. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you agree that West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom, despite having heard so many Members say the same about their part of the world. People across the world saw it in its full glory two years ago this week, when, after the death of Her late Majesty the Queen at Balmoral in the constituency, my constituents and people across our region turned out in their thousands to line the roads along Royal Deeside. I do not think anybody will forget the scenes of the horses and tractors lined up by the side of the road, and of local people paying tribute to one of their own, as she left for the very last time. On that day, people around the world saw what Her late Majesty saw and what her son, His Majesty the King, continues to see: the majesty, magnificence and unspoilt beauty of north-east Scotland. That is one of the reasons why there is such concern and worry about the plans for new energy infrastructure across the countryside in the constituency that I am proud to represent. Tourism is so important to my constituents, and indeed wider north-east Scotland, but the hospitality and hotel sectors have struggled. Visitor numbers are good, but the cost of doing business has increased markedly over the last few years. Energy prices, higher staff costs and the lack of workforce have all contributed to the difficult and challenging environment in which some of Scotland’s best hotels and restaurants continue to operate. When we were in government, we took action to protect hospitality businesses. In last year’s autumn statement, we extended the 75% business rates relief for firms in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. That meant that £230 million extra would be sent to Scotland due to this policy area being devolved, but the Scottish Government did not pass that on to the hospitality industry in Scotland. Hospitality venues in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and indeed in the rest of Scotland, suffered because of the mismanagement of the Scottish public finances and, sadly, because of the ignorance in the Scottish Government of how best to support that vital sector. I very much hope that the situation changes, and that any support for hospitality in the coming Budget will be passed on in full to the Scottish businesses affected. Hospitality brings me on to another sector of vital importance not just to West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but to the United Kingdom: whisky. On my regular visits to local distilleries such as Fettercairn and Royal Lochnagar, I have experienced at first hand the real quality produced by these world-recognised brands with world-class taste. Whisky is important not just to my constituency, but to the United Kingdom economy as a whole. It is our biggest food and drink export by a long way: 100 bottles of Scotch whisky are exported on average every second from the United Kingdom, with gross value added of £7.1 billion per annum, and it alone directly supports 66,000 jobs, so today I join the Scotch Whisky Association in calling for this sector, which is iconic and economically so important, to be championed and listened to by those at the heart of Government. Let us redouble our efforts to reduce remaining tariffs worldwide, and let us protect whisky by ensuring a fair advertising landscape. Let us introduce a duty freeze in the forthcoming Budget, so that this world-leading Scottish and British success story can grow still further. West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, as well as being the most beautiful constituency, the energy powerhouse of the UK and the home of the finest whiskies, is also the breadbasket of the country. From Cambus o’May cheese to the Aberdeenshire highland beef farmed near Banchory, and the farming of potatoes, cereals and malting barley across Laurencekirk and the Mearns, many of my constituents are directly or indirectly employed in the agriculture sector. It is the lifeblood that not only sustains our local rural economy but provides so much security in the national food supply chain, feeding our nation. My constituents are immensely proud of this, but it is not without its challenges. There is the challenge of persevering with producing and delivering food for this country, despite unpredictable weather and rising costs of energy and fertilizer. I echo the calls of the National Farmers Union Scotland for annual ringfenced funding to support Scottish farmers as they continue to deliver for our nation. It has been a great privilege to speak in this debate, and now that I sit on the other side of the House, it is a daily inspiration to see Sir David’s coat of arms looking down on us. I know that he, like us, would be working as hard as possible to ensure that we Conservatives return to the other side of the House at the earliest available opportunity, in four or five years’ time.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  On 11 February 2021, the temperature in Braemar in my constituency sank to minus 23°. Some 17,000 pensioners there will lose their winter fuel allowance through a decision taken by this Labour Government. Can the Minister explain to those pensioners in one of the coldest constituencies in the country why they have to surrender that important support at the same time as the Government have found £11 billion to give pay rises to their union paymasters?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because that will eat into his own Minister’s time to respond. Oh, maybe I will as it is the hon. Gentleman who is asking.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  “Truth” is quite an interesting word coming from the party that has decided to prioritise train drivers over pensioners and that, on the very day it announced a 22% increase in junior doctors’ pay, told the pensioners of this country they would be going cold this winter. To go back to the matter at hand, what will be the relationship between GB Energy and UK Industrial Fusion Solutions or the International Atomic Energy Agency? How will that affect the plans for STEP—the spherical tokamak for energy production—at West Burton? The Secretary of State wants the UK to export more energy, but has he done an analysis of the impact on bill payers of building the required infrastructure and interconnectors? Will GB Energy and not Ofgem now be the final decision maker when it comes to the approval of new international interconnectors to the continent? If so, how will it be held responsible for those decisions by the Department and by Parliament? I know the Minister is a respectful person, so I ask him sincerely to please end the disrespect being shown to the people of Aberdeen, with the “will they, won’t they” game being played around the location of GB Energy’s headquarters. Politics aside, that area of the country is already worried about its economic future. My plea to him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked earlier, is to end that situation and make an announcement as soon as possible. Ultimately, the simple question the Minister will have to answer, after having considered all the points made by hon. Members this afternoon, is why? Why are the Government doing this? Britain is already a world leader in clean energy production. We are already leading the world in cutting our carbon emissions. We already export energy. We are building new technologies at unprecedented rates. We have halved our emissions and done so while growing the economy. The Secretary of State regularly, and rightly, claims that it is Britain’s over-reliance on gas that has led to bill payers here paying higher bills than in other countries. As I say, he is not wrong. It is acknowledged by the Climate Change Committee that we will be reliant on gas for a significant proportion of our energy supply for many years to come, so his decisions for the North sea will leave us, in the short term, even more reliant on foreign imports and on the countries and regimes he claims he wants to free us from, and there will be a lower tax return for the Treasury from a smaller sector. Jobs, capabilities and skills will be lost overseas, and bills will not fall, certainly not by the £300 he claimed during the election. So if there is nothing in GB Energy for bill payers, it does not have the capital to enable it to be an Ørsted or an EDF, we are already a world leader, it will open the taxpayer up to huge risk, investing in emerging technologies might fail and it will not increase our energy security, the question is why do it? What is the point in GB Energy? Surely the Secretary of State is not that desperate to have something to put on his “Ed stone” or to have a new plaque to unveil. It may well be about the “Ed stone”, but the Secretary of State should be aware that this Bill could be the Government’s tombstone. We have seen how these projects end up: Robin Hood Energy collapsing, leaving Nottingham City council with a bill of £38 million; and the same with Bristol Energy. What will the bill for the country be if GB Energy follows the same path? Great British Energy will not produce any energy, it will not cut household energy bills by £300 as the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero have all stated, and it will not compensate for the amount of investment in energy projects that will be deterred by the Government’s plans to prematurely shut down the UK’s oil and gas sector. It is an unjustified use of taxpayers’ money at a time when the Government are withdrawing the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners as energy bills rise. I echo the words of the Secretary of State and urge Members on the Government Benches to ignore their Whip and vote for our amendment this evening.

• 5 Sept 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He was right the first time—hon. Gentleman, not right hon. Gentleman. I was very pleased to visit Sellafield and Moorside in his constituency, and I was proud to be the first Minister for nuclear in the history of this country. I was proud to launch Great British Nuclear, and to announce the small modular reactor drawdown scheme, our route to market for alternative energy, that we would build a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa and that we would carry on with things at Sizewell. Now it is in the hands of the hon. Gentleman’s party to take the decisions necessary to move the nuclear industry to the next level, moving forward on our proud, world-leading agenda for reinvestment and our revolutionising of this country’s nuclear industry, of which he is rightly proud.