Andrew Bowie MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 6 Nov 2024 · Fuel Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger, and to join so many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for an incredibly important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. It has been great to hear from colleagues. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the removal of the winter fuel allowance and how the push to get more pensioners on to pension credit is incredibly important. However, when the figures suggest that the push for pension credit will actually offset the money being saved by the apparent removal of winter fuel allowance, I wonder whether the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have thought their plans through. The comments by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about the knock-on impact of fuel poverty on the NHS and charities were well made and should have been listened to carefully by all in this room and beyond. As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend, made powerful points about the unique situation facing residents in Northern Ireland, where so many more houses than in Great Britain are off grid and rely on LPG and oil for their heating. Households over there face unique challenges when combating fuel poverty. As he said, the removal of the winter fuel allowance is a crushing blow for pensioners facing a cold winter this year. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) raised insulation. I completely get his point. We need to go further and move faster to insulate more homes. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record on that. We inherited a situation in which only 12% of households had an insulation EPC rating of C or above. When we left office earlier this year, it was up to 41%—a near 30% increase. Could we have gone further? Absolutely. Could we have done more? We absolutely should have. But that was a near 30% increase on the situation in which we found ourselves when we came to office, and that is something about which I am very proud.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill · Hansard source

  More

  All we are asking through our amendments is for the Government to put on the face of the Bill what they promised the British people, in their manifesto and many election campaign commitments, that Great British Energy would achieve. Why will the hon. Gentleman not challenge his Ministers to put on the face of this Bill the very things on which he stood for election, such as the creation of 650,000 jobs and the reduction of bills by £300?

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great privilege to rise to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition in this debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who made a maiden speech, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on her excellent speech. Although it was not a maiden speech, I also thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for mentioning those who were lost at sea. It is far too often overlooked that those who were lost at sea in various conflicts have no grave that families can visit, but their sacrifice was no less important and should be no less remembered at this time. It is rare to sit in the Chamber and enjoy a debate where there is so much common cause on both sides of the House. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Duke of York and Albany’s Maritime Regiment of Foot on its 360th anniversary—I do not believe the vicious rumour doing the rounds in Parliament that that was the name borne by the Royal Marines when the Minister joined up all those years ago. It is as it should be that we join together as a nation and look towards remembrance as one. Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day are when we pause, reflect, remember and pay thanks to all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice that allows us to live in the peace and freedom we enjoy in our country today. Remembrance means different things to different people. When the “Last Post” sounds in Ballater in two weeks’ time, I will be thinking of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle, who fell at Gallipoli in 2015, one week short of his 21st birthday, and lies buried at Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. I will think of my great-grandfather, who endured and survived the Somme battlefield; my paternal grandfather, who fought with the 8th Army at El-Alamein, Sicily, Italy, France and Germany, and survived to tell the tale; my maternal grandfather, who for over two decades served in the Royal Navy; and my godfather, a Royal Marine, who served from the Falklands to Northern Ireland. I will also think of my friends who served and are still serving in far more recent conflicts and operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the various but less reported naval operations of the last 20 years—our continued presence in the south Atlantic, our oilfield patrols off Iraq and the anti-piracy operations in Somalia to name but a few. As we have heard this afternoon, we all remember individuals, family and close friends who chose to serve our country and were prepared to—and, in some cases, did—pay the ultimate sacrifice, and we do remember them. When we collectively think of remembrance as a nation and when we think of veterans, for many the image conjured up is of the old soldier who landed at D-day proudly marching with his oppos past the Cenotaph, a survivor of a long-distant conflict. They remain rightly at the forefront of our thoughts this year as we commemorate 80 years since D-day, Monte Cassino and other hugely significant operations in that world conflict, which was fought to defend freedom and democracy. It was our victory in that conflict that remains the reason why we can stand in this place today. We remain forever in the debt of that greatest generation. We must also remember, however, the veterans from much more recent conflicts—the much smaller group of men and women who fought far from our shores in the name of Queen and country, but who, unlike previous generations, did not return to a country with a shared experience of war and conflict. In many cases, they returned to a country that did not really want to know. Being a veteran of a late 20th-century or early 21st-century conflict is, in 2024, far removed from the experiences of those who fought between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945. Supporting this new generation is far harder for those charities and organisations that do so much unseen work all year round, not just during this time of remembrance. It was for this new generation of former servicemen and women that the former Veterans Minister Johnny Mercer, to whom I pay tribute, was determined to fight. That is why he was determined to make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran. It is also why we as a Government established the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, put the armed forces covenant into law and set up Defence Transition Services, providing tailored support to help service people with their transition to civilian life. We launched Operation Fortitude to end homelessness, Operation Prosper to support veterans into work after they leave the armed forces, Operation Restore to support the physical needs of veterans and Operation Courage to support veterans’ mental health. We invested £400 million to modernise thousands of military homes, provided funding for armed forces charities to carry out their vital work, and introduced a new veterans railcard to help veterans reconnect both with loved ones and with new training and work opportunities. We supported veterans through the provisions in our Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I know the Minister is aware that the repeal and replacement of that Act is rightly causing concern in the community of veterans who fought during the troubles. We are near unique as a nation in honouring the memory of all those who have fallen, those who have served and those who serve in the way we do. It is to our credit as a country. There are still groups that feel forgotten. For example, as has been mentioned, there are the veterans of our nuclear tests, with many still fighting for recognition of what they were asked to do and for what they endured many years on for their country. There is the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit of the RAF, which has also been mentioned. The unit had one of the highest attrition rates in world war two, but it still has no national memorial, and its members must also be remembered in the coming days. This year when the “Last Post” sounds, it will be some 16 years since, as a very young sub-lieutenant, I had the privilege of meeting the three remaining veterans of world war one—Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone—at the Cenotaph as we marked 90 years since the end of that war, the war supposedly to end all wars. This year, let us pause and think of those unseen veterans who walk among us today: those who did not return, and their friends and their family still living with the loss. Let us also remember those who, as we sit here tonight, remain prepared to give everything for our nation. Let us recommit to do for them what a grateful nation should, and let us redouble our efforts to truly make this country the best in the world in which to be a veteran.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Large-scale Energy Projects and Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) on bringing forward this incredibly important debate. I visited her constituency once and a half on nuclear business—the half was due to me travelling on a rain-soaked day in May when events in London called me back somewhat earlier than planned. I completely agree with her points regarding Wylfa being the perfect site for a new nuclear power station, not only in the United Kingdom, but within Europe. I would urge the Minister to heed her words and move forward with what we had planned to do, which was to deliver a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa. The last time this debate was heard in Westminster Hall—indeed the last time I was in Westminster Hall—I had the privilege of responding as a Minister to the debate brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). With circumstances somewhat changed in the intervening months—the cast list has changed considerably—I now respond as the shadow Minister. When speaking for the previous Government on the subject, I guaranteed that, should we be returned, the Conservative Administration would not countenance the industrialisation of our green and pleasant land. I gave that guarantee from this very place, though standing on the Government side, only six months ago. We changed the planning guidance to ensure that food and energy security were equally important and that top graded agricultural land would be protected, and began the process of ensuring independent verification of soil samples to ascertain the quality of land on which building was proposed. At that time, I do not think anybody knew how soon the political landscape would be transformed, but I do know that at the time of the debate, colleagues in government were acutely aware of how the Labour party—now the Government—might have been inclined to drastically transform the energy landscape. It was telling, however, that not a single Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP Member was in attendance at the debate that day, apart from the official Opposition spokesperson. Indeed, within the first few months of this Government we have seen Labour ride roughshod over our attempts to protect rural Britain from the over-development we had pledged to oppose, with the approval of three mammoth solar farms: in July, the 2,000 acre Mallard Pass, the Gate Burton energy park in Lincolnshire and the Sunnica energy farm in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. More recently, we heard of the Corton solar farm. The Government have committed to trebling solar capacity by the end of the decade. Speaking on his decision to approve those solar farms, the Secretary of State said: “This is a Government in a hurry to deliver the change it promised.” Our concern on the Opposition Benches is that the Government are in far too much of a hurry. That hurry leads the Government to ride roughshod over communities’ views, to disregard their discontent, and to sign over agricultural land to industrial use. I am sorry to say that that is a mistake on a number of fronts. When I spoke on the subject as Minister for Energy, I acknowledged the fundamental need to balance the competing priorities and needs of our finite resources. We believe in solar power, on homes and on brownfield and industrial sites. Under the previous Government, we saw a near 5,000% increase in the number of homes with solar panels, to 1.5 million homes. Solar will play its part in our renewable energy mix and, I might add, has the support of many farmers, as a vital component of their land use, which serves to buoy the financial viability of their arable or livestock ventures through providing secure income. Farmers host around 70% of Britain’s solar power capacity and many have integrated solar power to some extent, either through panels on outbuildings or by dedicating parts of their land to solar panels. However, we must acknowledge that the primary use for that land is and should remain agricultural. We must protect our domestic ability to feed Britain. Through the pandemic and the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the fragility of international supply chains has been illustrated. It is vital that we protect our domestic agricultural capacity. We produce only 60% of our own supply currently, with every development of 2,000 acres chipping away at potentially productive farmland. The ambition to reduce our carbon footprint, to produce more clean, cheap energy to power our homes and businesses, is a cause that rightly unites us across the House; I hope I am correct in thinking so. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), likes to think that his side of the House has a monopoly on that mission, but I remind him that it was the previous Government who oversaw the first to the fifth largest offshore windfarms in the world being built off British shores. The previous Government achieved the fastest decarbonisation in the G20 while still growing the economy, halving emissions during our period in office. The Minister has our support for the ambition to decarbonise our energy sector and supply cleaner energy for the UK, but I gently say to him that this headlong rush to 2030 is alienating people in rural communities up and down the country. They too often feel that they are shouldering the burden for keeping the lights on in cities far from them, and that the sheer scale of this infrastructure build is leaving many across our islands feeling under siege. I speak as the MP for such a community, and know that only too well. I am sure that newly elected Labour MPs representing rural constituencies, in some cases for the first time, will see in their inboxes the fear and anger being generated by these plans. We are united in our desire across the House to reduce our carbon footprint and to conserve our planet for future generations. However, it is evident that on these Benches we have a very different idea of how to attain that ideal. Our path to a cleaner future would not ride roughshod over community consent and would not sacrifice prime agricultural land. I ask the Minister please to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members from Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Reform party and the Green party, and from everybody who has spoken—bar from the Government Benches—in this debate. Please listen to them and ensure that food security has equal importance to energy security in the eyes of the Government.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert— “(1A) (a) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, report to the Secretary of State on the projected cost of fulfilling its strategic priorities under Clause 5 in accordance with its objects under Clause 3.” It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and to be back debating Great British Energy. Given that Margaret Thatcher has already been referenced this morning, we should appreciate that her legacy is the very reason we are standing here today, because she was the first world leader, at the 1989 UN General Assembly, to raise the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, ocean and Earth itself from climate change. Had it not been for her global leadership in so many areas, we would not be debating the issues we are today, nor would the United Kingdom be the world leader in combating climate change we claim it to be.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  While not accepting all of the Minister’s arguments, I look forward to him personally presenting me with the financial returns. I will not press amendment 21 to a vote, but we will obviously explore the issues in more detail when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Secretary of State is establishing a new state-run body—for the record, that is something that I oppose—of which the energy sector has many. For example, we have the UK Infrastructure Bank, an organisation that has many similarities with Great British Energy. As with UKIB, the Bill aims to give statutory force to the company’s objectives. However, unlike the legislation for UKIB, the Bill does not endeavour to create statutory forms of transparency, accountability and governance for the firm, so it is concerning that the Great British Energy Bill gives the Secretary of State sole powers of direction. We cannot possibly think why that would appeal to the Secretary of State, so my new clause 2 would ensure a level of independence in the governance of Great British Energy. The Minister said on Thursday that Great British Energy would be “operationally independent”, but it lacks specific, key components to ensure that. Indeed, it seems that a significant level of direction lies with the Secretary of State. I suggest to the Minister that accepting the new clause to introduce a requirement for an independent person to review the effectiveness of Great British Energy in delivering its objects would ensure its independence and transparency. There is a precedent in the legislation on the UK Infrastructure Bank for the designation of an independent person to carry out reviews into the effectiveness of GB Energy. If that does not happen, we are concerned that any review of its effectiveness may be perceived externally as Great British Energy simply marking its own homework. If the UK Infrastructure Bank has appointed an independent person to conduct reviews of its effectiveness, why are the Government so reluctant to set out the same standards for Great British Energy?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. On governance, new clause 3 would require Great British Energy to appoint between five and 14 directors, alongside a chair of the board, a chief executive officer and non-executive directors. Like new clause 2, it would bring checks and balances to the governance of Great British Energy to ensure that the powers of direction do not rest too heavily on the Secretary of State. Like new clause 2, it has a precedent in legislation: section 7 of the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 sets out precisely the same requirements for the appointment and tenure of its directors. I therefore commend new clause 3 to the Committee. Before I sit down, Dr Huq, may I take the opportunity to thank you and Sir Roger for your chairship? I thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, the Minister for his time, and all right hon. and hon. Members for their attendance. I also thank the officials in the Box. I had the distinct privilege of serving in the Department for just shy of two years. The Minister is very lucky to have such an able team of civil servants supporting him in his work; it was a genuine privilege to work alongside them. Although I do not think that Great British Energy will succeed in its objectives, I wish them the very best in endeavouring to set this company up.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am sad not to hear a full-throated defence of Mrs Thatcher’s legacy when it comes to climate change—maybe the Minister is more of a “Hug a husky”, “Vote blue, go green” kind of guy in the Cameron mould.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq. When the hon. Member for East Thanet has a spare moment or is struggling to sleep at night, I advise her to go back and review the Hansard of our contributions to the Energy Bill Committee in the last Parliament, during which we debated such points at length.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not push new clause 3 to a vote. We will discuss the issue further on Report, but I will not detain the Committee any longer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself at the time of any investment in renewable energy infrastructure that connection to the National Grid will be made in time for energy produced from the relevant investment asset coming onstream.” Amendment 22 would require Great British Energy to take all reasonable steps to ensure that access to the national grid is ready for any energy infrastructure invested in by Great British Energy. The great grid upgrade is, without a doubt, a necessary component of our journey to net zero by 2050. Currently, new energy infrastructure such as wind turbines and solar farms—the clean energy-generating technology that we need to invest in in this country—has a significant wait time for grid connection, as do many other projects. That is why, when in government, we commissioned the Nick Winser review to set out recommendations on how to reduce that timeframe. We accepted every single one of the recommendations and the advice on all 43 areas to ensure that the continued work to drive down connection times was accelerated. Despite the work we initiated in government by accepting those recommendations, the timeframe for obtaining grid connections for new projects can be as long as 10 years, so a project without grid connectivity will potentially not come online until the mid-2030s—well beyond the new Government.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Hear, hear!

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert— “(1A) (a) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on— (i) Great British Energy’s in-year rate of return on investment, and (ii) a forecast of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. (b) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter. (c) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.” Amendment 21 would require Great British Energy to provide an annual report to Parliament on its annual rate of return and investment, and a projection for the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. We heard from the Minister that every project will see a return—we heard it on the Floor of the House—and, as discussed under amendments 11 and 12, GB Energy will drive household bills down by £300. In line with that, it would be useful to include in the legislation a direction for GB Energy to report to the Secretary of State on its in-year rate of return on investments, and a forecast of the following year’s expected rate of return on investment. We heard assurances from the Government that GB Energy will return lower bills for households, and indeed, as I said, that every project will see a return. As it is a company that intends to invest in and de-risk projects in rising new clean energy technologies, it would be useful to see the return on investment from those projects—statutorily, in the Bill. I imagine that the Minister will have no issue in accepting this amendment, given his confidence in the financial success of GB Energy, and indeed his confidence that every project will generate a return.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept the new clause. We have some concerns about transparency and accountability, which we will explore further on Report. I will not push new clause 2 to a vote today—not least because I seem to have lost my Whip, but also because we wish to explore the issue on the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause , by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Directors: appointment and tenure “Great British Energy must secure that its articles of association provide that— (a) Great British Energy is to have at least five and no more than fourteen directors; (b) the chair of Great British Energy’s board, Great British Energy’s chief executive officer and the non-executive directors are to be appointed by the Secretary of State; (c) the Board is to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the Board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions; (d) the period of a non-executive director’s appointment is not to exceed four years, or such shorter period as may be specified in the terms on which the director is appointed; (e) a person may be appointed as a non-executive director no more than two times; (f) a person ceases to be a non-executive director as soon as— (i) the person ceases to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Companies Act 2006 or is prohibited from being a director by law, (ii) the person becomes bankrupt (in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland) or the person’s estate has been sequestrated (in relation to Scotland), (iii) a registered medical practitioner who is treating the person gives a written opinion to Great British Energy stating that the person has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and is likely to remain so for more than three months, or the person has resigned as non-executive director in accordance with notification which the person has given to Great British Energy.”— (Andrew Bowie.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Right hon. and hon. Members have made some disparaging comments about the Conservative legacy on our climate, but I remind them that we halved our carbon emissions faster than any other G7 nation, built the first floating offshore wind farms in the world, ended coal for power generation and led the world in so many other ways, including developing new technologies and delivering the very successful COP26 conference in Glasgow. It is because our views on this are so aligned that I think the amendment would sit well within the Bill.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must agree to disagree on this point. Of course, we want to see this effort succeed; we just have our doubts that it will. Future renewable energy projects face huge connectivity challenges that the Government must be prepared for, but as I said, there is another equally significant challenge: the one facing communities. In my constituency, communities are expected to host hundreds of kilometres of new large pylon infrastructure, but the burden for new infrastructure falls particularly heavily on north-east Scotland, the north of England and East Anglia. My key points are about the need to gain consent from communities, to reduce the burden where possible, and to have community benefits. We need to bring communities with us; there needs to be a conversation. If we are ever going to get to net zero, we need to stop alienating the communities hosting this infrastructure on behalf of the nation by imposing, rather than seeking, consent.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well, that was a long time ago. Although I do not agree with all those arguments for not accepting the amendment, I will not press it to a vote. We will explore those points more deeply, however, on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in GB Energy’s ability to be the problem-solving fix-all. I have my concerns that that will not be the case and that the many issues we face—from grid connectivity to the targets that we in government set and the building of new infrastructure—will not be resolved by the creation of this company, given that the capital expended to it is so low in comparison with other state energy companies.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do. That is why I would like to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.