Andrew Bowie MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  It has been a great privilege to listen to so many maiden speeches this afternoon, with so many Members of Parliament, pretenders to the throne, representing what they claim to be the most beautiful constituency in the country. Everybody, of course, knows that is West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, but listening to everybody was a great reminder of the fact that there is so much more that unites us than divides us. We are all privileged to serve in this place, and we are all privileged to serve the constituents who sent us here for however long or short. However, reading through the list of the 18 constituencies whose Member gave their maiden speech today felt like reading the list of all the parts of the country where I either spoke or campaigned over the last year. The fact they are now all represented by parties not my own perhaps says something about my campaigning ability: Clwyd East; Northampton South; North East Hertfordshire; Eastleigh; Stratford and Bow; Cheadle; Truro and Falmouth; Camborne and Redruth; Stroud; Barrow and Furness; St Austell and Newquay; Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire; Caerfyrddin; Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock; Frome and East Somerset; Carlisle; Ynys Môn; and Leeds South West and Morley—all fantastic maiden speeches. Welcome to the House of Commons. It is just unfortunate that, on such an auspicious and a proud day for those Members, we had to spend our time talking about an unnecessary and costly gimmick that will not improve our energy security and will do nothing to reduce consumers’ bills or our carbon emissions. We heard the Liberal Democrats claim that we left a mess for the Government to clean up when it comes to energy. Well, if having the first to fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, the fastest reduction of carbon emissions in the G7, an end to coal-fired power production and net zero in law is a mess, I would like to see a good job well done. We heard great claims from the Secretary of State that GB Energy will incentivise investment and speed up the deployment of new technologies while scaling up more mature ones, all of which is debatable to say the least. As the public out there watch their bills go up again, the Labour party claimed through the election that creating this company will automatically lead to lower bills. We heard again and again that bills will be £300 lower. Funny that we do not hear that figure bandied around as frequently today. That is the most questionable claim. If not £300, as the Secretary of State used to claim, by how much will bills fall as a result of establishing this company, and by when? How will this company speed up deployment? What will it do differently, given that we already have the first to fifth largest offshore wind farms generating power here right now without this costly gimmick? Although I respect the ambition and agree that we need to see more jobs for British workers and the establishment of a UK-based supply chain, which is why we created the sustainable industry rewards that will come in at allocation round 7, does the Minister acknowledge that this will take time and that we are hundreds of thousands of workers short of the plans that we have to build right now, and that this will make no difference to the Government’s 2030 plans? The Secretary of State’s claim not to be neutral about where things are made rings hollow to the supply chain in and around Aberdeen, which is worried about the future of North sea oil and gas because of his Government’s decisions. The announcement, with much fanfare, that GB Energy will establish an unprecedented partnership with the Crown Estate is fantastic, but what does that mean for Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved? The private sector projects are, in the Secretary of State’s words, guaranteed to return a profit, so why do they need to be de-risked by the taxpayer? What will be the cost to the taxpayer when, inevitably, some of these new technologies fail? What will be the company’s final bill for taxpayers? Although £8 billion is a large amount of money—just think how many pensioners could heat their home for that amount, for example—the TUC, no less, conducted an analysis last year that found that GB Energy will need around £61 billion to £82 billion of investment between 2025 and 2035 to scale it up to the level needed to do all the miraculous things that the Government claim. This initial £8.3 billion capitalisation, large when we have such pressure on public finances, seems a little on the low side if the Government really want to create a British Ørsted or EDF, bailed out annually by the taxpayer, especially given that £3.3 billion is planned to fund local authorities and provide low-cost loans to communities, leaving £5 billion to do everything else. When does the Minister expect his boss, the Secretary of State, who has returned to the Chamber, to go cap in hand to the Treasury asking for more money? What exactly does he think the Chancellor’s response will be? How will the establishment of GB Energy impact the independence of GB Nuclear? Will GB Energy now have the final say over the small modular reactor drawdown process? How is that process progressing anyway? Do we have a timeline for a final decision on that or on a third gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa?