Andy Prendergast gave evidence.

We are likely to have a Division in the House, so I am afraid that we will have to ask you—if you have the time, Mr Prendergast—to allow us to go and vote and then come back if we have not finished your evidence session.

Andy Prendergast:

Yes, that is fine.

You are most kind. With that in mind, we will now hear evidence from Andy Prendergast, who is the national secretary of the GMB. We have until 4.30 pm, in theory, but we may be interrupted. Mr Prendergast, for the benefit of the record could you identify yourself?

Andy Prendergast:

I am Andy Prendergast, national secretary of GMB union.

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.

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.

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.

Absolutely. By the end of the year would be great.

Q Welcome, Andy. Thousands of your members are at Sellafield, involved in one end of the energy system, doing brilliant work in the decommissioning field. You have touched on the relationship between GBN and GBE. The Bill does have flexibility for future involvement with nuclear. What I imagine the Government have tried to do, which I think the Bill achieves, is to get the relationship right so that GBN can continue with its programme of work without being disrupted, while opening the door in the future for a bringing together of the two endeavours. Does the GMB have views on how best to enable the multi-gigawatt-scale programmes in the future, and reflections on the experience with GBN today that would inform the Bill?

Andy Prendergast:

The most important thing to say about nuclear is that the nuclear industry in Britain is, to a degree, a tragedy. We invented it. The first civil nuclear site in the world was British, and yet when we came to Hinkley Point, we had to import the know-how and technology and reinvent the wheel. What we have done in Hinkley Point has been amazing. The site employs tens of thousands of people and provides real, skilled jobs—the kind of jobs people are proud to do, which is very important.

If we look at the lessons we learned from Hinkley and transfer them to Sizewell, we start speeding up the process. If we then go on to Wylfa, it becomes easier to take them through. The key thing it shows is that we cannot have those huge gaps. When we have gaps, we lose the skills. What is frightening for us in so many areas is that we are talking about an energy transformation, but we simply do not have the skills to transform at the speed we need to.

There is an estimated lack of 40,000 welders in this country. In the near future we will need more pylons, a huge amount of work on the water mains, SMRs, CCS and hydrogen. I sat on a load of Government bodies with the last Government, and all I kept hearing was, “We need more welders.” You had to take a view that, sadly, repeating “We need more welders” does not magically lead to a lot of welders showing up. We need the investment in the skills and in the supply chain to ensure that we get the right people in the right place.

It is important to say that welding jobs are fantastically well paid. They are jobs that get paid more than most people in this room. There should not be a problem employing welders in this country if we simply resort to capitalism, so if there is a problem, how do we identify it and how do we get around it?

Thank you. I think I should have declared an interest at the start of that question as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy.

Thank you. That is a matter of record, and I gently advise any other Members who have a similar interest to declare it.

Q It is good to hear from you again, Andy—we had a discussion a few weeks ago. At the beginning of your remarks today you said, as others have said, that GB Energy should not just be an investment vehicle; it should be so much more. We have to deal with this Bill and see whether it will meet the ambitions of your members for GB Energy to be more than just an investment vehicle. Is there anywhere in the Bill where you think, “Hmm—there’s a gap where this could be emphasised to make sure that GB Energy doesn’t become just an investment vehicle?”

Andy Prendergast:

From a lot of the conversations we have had, talking about a one-stop shop, assistance in planning and further regulatory support, I think that is something that will evolve over time and will be matched by the funding. An investment vehicle is badly needed on its own because it is something we do not have, which makes us almost unique among advanced economies. Looking at the Bill itself, there are parts that could be fleshed out. We would like to see more about skills, as I just mentioned, and there are some parts that we need to look at, but that is an evolutionary process as opposed to something we definitely need in the Bill now.

Q Thank you, Andy: you have spoken very clearly. If I have picked you up correctly, you expressed a modicum of concern about the quantum that runs alongside the Bill to support its potential strategic investments. Could you perhaps elaborate on that more? Secondly, regarding clause 3(2)(c) on energy efficiency, is GMB of the view that GB Energy will bring down energy bills?

Andy Prendergast:

If I may take the second part first, one key thing the public want is to see lower energy bills. We know that. A potential issue with GB Energy being so popular is that, to a degree, not everyone knew what it was. Some people think it will lead to an immediate reduction in energy bills. We are likely to see that over a longer period of time, but GB Energy needs to make the investments in new technologies that we have failed to make and that we have too often missed the boat on. If you compare us to Denmark, for example, 14% of its exports are in green technology. That is because it has Ørsted, which is very similar to what we are trying to do with GB Energy, but ultimately it has had a long run into this and has stolen a march. What GB Energy belatedly allows us to do is potentially to steal a march on some of the new technologies that have not been exploited, with a view to supporting those supply chains in the important parts.

Could you repeat the first part of your question, please?

It was about the quantum that is available. You referred to IRA and the EU’s corresponding investment. The quantum for GB Energy is £8.3 billion over the course of five years, or £1.6 billion per year. Do you think that is sufficient to meet the objectives laid out in the Bill?

Andy Prendergast:

I think it is sufficient to make some of them and sufficient to make a difference; it is not sufficient to make as much of a difference as we would like it to, but compared with what we had beforehand, it is light years ahead of where we have been.

Q I have two questions. First, how important do you think it is to have clause 3(2)(d)—

“measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy”— in the Bill for your members, given the global situation in which we find ourselves? Secondly, which of the objects in the Bill will have the most impact, or in what ways will the Bill have an impact on your members?

Andy Prendergast:

The first point about energy supply was really brought home around the start of the Ukraine war, which exposed how unprepared we were. Whereas your average European country had months of gas supplies, we had a matter of weeks. We went into that war with the largest gas supply place in the world, Rough, unused. One thing we must understand, with the evolving nature of Government, is what is the very minimum that we expect Government to do. I think the very minimum people expect Government to do now is to keep the lights on and keep us secure. That is how important energy is. Sometimes, when you speak to some politicians, there is almost a view that energy is an optional extra, but I do not think that that has been the case for about 150 years. God forbid we go back to that.

When we talk about energy supply and security, it is about two things—[Interruption.]

Order.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mr Prendergast, I am sorry that you were interrupted. It was very good of you to stay. I believe I am right in saying that Ms Blake had a second question.

Before we were interrupted, my second question was about what the biggest impact of the Bill will be on your members. I do not think we have covered that.Q

Andy Prendergast:

Both in terms of shoring up the jobs we currently have and potentially creating the jobs we so desperately need, one of our real concerns about net zero is the fact that, in a lot of countries, there is a perception that net zero is something being done to people, not with them. Look at the response in America, which is very much typified by “Drill, baby, drill”; look at Germany, where, bizarrely, Alternative für Deutschland is organising around heat pumps. We already have Reform UK talking about fighting the next election on the basis of net zero.

What we have recognised is that we have to make net zero work for people, and we think the best way of making that happen is to ensure that net zero comes with jobs and opportunities. The simple reality is that, if we get it right, those jobs and opportunities are going to be in the post-industrial areas. We have seen the maps put forward by people in the hydrogen lobby and from carbon capture and storage. These are jobs in places that desperately need them. If we are going to be serious about levelling up and making sure that prosperity is spread in Britain, we need to rebuild those industrial heartlands with proper, decent technologies that we can start exporting.

It is good to have you in, Andy. Do you think there should be anything in the Bill and its priorities on workforce development? Having worked in the sector alongside GMB colleagues, my experience is that lots of these new companies set up, but do not recognise trade unions and do not have the quality of work that we have seen previously in the power and industry sectors, particularly in renewables and others. Indeed, some of the renewables companies, despite Q being divisions of existing larger companies that do recognise unions, have set up without recognition. What do you think the role is of the Bill, or its strategic priorities, in ensuring we get the right terms and conditions for the new workforce, as we have for existing workforces?

Andy Prendergast:

That is a very good question. We have been really pleased to see that the role of trade unions is incorporated in the Bill, although we do need to flesh out exactly how that works.

Your criticism of the renewables industry, particularly for members of the GMB, is absolutely critical. When people talk about our role in industry, what they are often talking about is the white-collar jobs—the ones in universities, getting the technology. They are not talking about the blue-collar jobs, which, at the moment, are the ones in the energy sector that are very well unionised, with good rates of pay and excellent terms and conditions, and which give the security that families and communities need for the long term.

What really concerns us about the renewables industry so far is that it came with the promise of mass jobs that simply have not materialised. Alex Salmond promised 30,000 jobs in offshore wind; 10 years later, fewer than 10,000 have been delivered. Particularly when you are looking at maintenance jobs, you are talking about jobs that are subcontracted with terrible terms and conditions and that are anti-union. When we look at the success that places like America or Europe have had in renewables, trade unions are at the heart of that.

What we have seen so far is a real willingness from the Government to work with both ourselves and employers. One of the bizarre things about it is that those coalitions really have an impact. One of the most surprising days in my job was attending a meeting here and being praised by a Tory MP, which I never thought would happen—it was one of those pinch-yourself moments. It was in relation to Hinkley Point: it was recognised that we had a huge role there in helping to develop the workforce and to manage the process of ensuring both that they benefited and that we got things done quickly and properly.

If we get that right, this is an opportunity to bring not just jobs but good jobs. In a lot of the areas that we are talking about, we have this constant debate about “red wall” and about “post-industrial”. It is not that there are no jobs there; it is just that the jobs being brought in are not very good ones. They are not jobs that offer permanent contracts. They are not jobs that offer good pensions, sick pay or opportunities for advancement. They are zero-hours contracts—got here today, gone tomorrow—that give people very little pride. This is an opportunity to reverse that 40-year decline in our industrial base and do something positive about it.

Q I declare an interest as a proud member of the GMB. Thanks, Andy. The transition is one that we all care about, and it needs to be a just transition that takes local communities with us. In your opinion, what more can the Government do to ensure that workers and jobs are kept at the heart of the GB Energy Bill?

Andy Prendergast:

Part of this is about listening without prejudice. Look, we are going to be absolute clear: we agree with the Labour Government on a huge swathe of things, but one thing we do not agree on is the ending of oil and gas licences. We look at oil and gas licences and every single scenario into the future requires us to have oil and gas. We as a nation have a choice. We either take it for ourselves, with high working and environmental standards, or we import it from a number of frankly disreputable regimes.

Part of that transition has to be listening to those communities and the people doing the jobs and actually take their expertise. We are absolutely clear—and I think it is obvious to anyone with half a brain—that global warming is happening and the speed at which is happening is quicker. It is the biggest challenge that humanity has faced, certainly in my lifetime, and we need to deal with it. The concern for us, and this relates to what I was talking about earlier, is that if we get this wrong and we do not listen to communities and do not bring them with us, we risk getting a reaction against that, which is what we have seen in America and Europe. Then, instead of doing it a little bit slower but in a demonstrable and deliverable way, we end up with an electorate being offered simple solutions and quick fixes, and ultimately due to a mixture of climate pessimism and snake oil salesmen, they take the wrong decision. We have to look at some of this from a pragmatic angle, ask what is best in the national interest and listen to the workers and communities who are currently benefiting.

I call Perran Moon.

My question has been answered.

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

Andy Prendergast:

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

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

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

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

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

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