LABOUR have been mocked as their bill to create Great British Energy numbered just four pages – and contained “net zero” detail about what the company would do.
MPs debated Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s flagship project for the second time in the Commons on Thursday as politicians lambasted Labour for their “muddled” proposals, with critics accusing the Government of asking taxpayers for an £8 billion “blank cheque”.
SNP MP Dave Doogan mocked the Government for failing to communicate what the company will actually do, saying: “Talk about net zero, there’s zero detail in this bill to give us an indication of what is actually going to happen on the ground.
"It was going to sell energy to the public, then it wasn’t, then it was going to generate energy, then it wasn’t, then it is again, so I think we’re still in that space.”
Shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho (above) added: “This bill is four pages long. There’s barely anything in it.
“I don’t want to oppose this bill just for opposition’s sake but he’s provided no detail on how this bill could deliver any of his promises, let alone all of them.
READ MORE: Keir Starmer faces questions on £300 energy bills election promise
“This is a four-page bill in which the Secretary of State is asking for £8bn of taxpayers’ money while setting out no investment plan, no figures for the energy that will be produced, no numbers for the energy bill savings or carbon emission reductions, not even a timeline.
“And let’s be honest, I doubt it can deliver any of the things that he’s promised, so what he’s asking for is £8bn of taxpayers’ money for a completely blank cheque, for an energy company that won’t cut your bills or turn a profit by 2030.”
Doogan (below) also hit out at the contradictory statements about Labour’s plans before coming to power.
He said: “The Government must accept that the messaging around this has been muddled at the very least during the election.
“Almost as though it was rushed through as a manifesto headline rather than a strategic development of careful, thought-out, optimised planning, but there we are.
“We understand that there’s going to be limited co-production from this company, no retail arm, no public sector comparator role. It’s going to be a provider that doesn’t do much provision, nor a decider that makes any decisions.”
READ MORE: Douglas Ross torn down in free school meals row as SNP blame 'austerity agenda'
Miliband gave a staunch defence of the Government’s aim to create a publicly-owned energy company, claiming that “the city of Munich owns more of our offshore wind capacity than the British Government”.
He said: “We have a simple proposition: If it’s right for the Danes, the French, the Norwegians, the Swedes, to own British energy assets, it’s right for the British people to do so as well, and that’s why we fought the election on this crucial principle, the British people should have a right to own and benefit from our natural resources.”
And the Energy Secretary argued that the creation of the company would bring down household bills, saying: “Great British Energy is a crucial tool to bring down prices for our constituents.”
The bill passed its second reading in the Commons with 348 votes in favour and 95 against. The LibDems and SNP abstained on the vote.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel