Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

I want to show how supportive I am of this. I hope that the Government will take on some of the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman about roofs. There is a real question of helping through insurance and making it possible for the renters of big warehouses to have an accommodation with owners. Very often the owner does not get the benefit and therefore does not want it, which places real burdens on renters who dare not put them on the roof because they have to pay a significant amount to take them off at the end of a five-year lease. We have to make it easier for people to do this; although this is not the appropriate moment to do it, perhaps it is the appropriate moment to remind the Minister of its importance.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for explaining the details of this statutory instrument. In essence, this order would enable onshore wind projects over 100 megawatts and solar projects over 50 megawatts to be considered under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. This effectively bypasses local planning authorities and grants direct approval to the Secretary of State, thereby overriding local consent for large-scale wind and solar projects. The Government have argued that this is necessary to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in line with their decarbonisation goals and their commitment to becoming a clean energy superpower. However, several important concerns must be addressed, particularly around local involvement, fairness and the broader economic impact of such an approach.

First, let us discuss the issue of subsidy. Much like offshore wind, onshore wind projects are heavily reliant on subsidies, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers. While the Government have touted these renewable projects as cost effective in the long term, it is crucial to ask what the clear cost-benefit case is. If we are to depend on these subsidies to push through such large-scale projects, we must ensure that they provide tangible benefits to consumers in terms of not just cleaner energy but affordability. As we know, the transition to green energy must be balanced with the economic realities that hard-pressed families and businesses face today.

Secondly, there is the matter of local consent. Communities should have a say in the decisions that affect their landscapes and way of life. Local buy-in is paramount, and people who live in the affected area should not have their voices ignored. There is real concern that this SI removes that critical step in the planning process by placing too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and bypassing local consultation. Onshore wind projects can be a significant imposition on the local environment, and it is only right that communities are properly consulted and their concerns are considered before these major decisions are made.

The Government have argued that they need to expedite these projects to meet their decarbonisation targets—targets that are at the outset entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State is to take on final decision-making powers for these projects, what accountability mechanisms will be in place? Removing local authorities from the process must not also remove transparency. What assurances can the Minister provide that decisions will be subject to robust oversight?

Thirdly, there is the Government’s selective approach to energy. We have seen instances where good solar projects, which were designed to be sensitive to the local environment and not disrupt prime farmland, have been rejected by the Government or the National Wealth Fund. Are the Government picking and choosing winners in this energy transition? Are we truly seeking the most affordable, secure and environmentally responsible solutions or are we being driven by ideological preferences for particular types of energy, regardless of their practicality or cost effectiveness? This approach is flawed. By bypassing local consent and placing unchecked power in the hands of the Secretary of State, this order undermines democratic principles.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

If I understand this, you are moving from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. So the 50 to 100 goes under the Town and Country Planning Act as local decisions. You are actually increasing it; previously the 50 to 100 was under NSIP. Therefore, what you are saying is completely wrong.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

We are saying that we want to make sure that we have consent in the local community and robust oversight, and that the order does not undermine democratic principles. That is what we are trying to do, and we also do not want to disregard the voices of local communities. That is the essence of our third concern.

The Government’s selective and ideologically driven approach to energy is concerning because it raises serious questions about the cost-benefit of these projects, especially when subsidies are passed on to consumers without a clear return on investment. While the Government champion renewable energy, they do so at the expense of affordability, fairness and proper local consultation. That will not bring the public with them on the journey. Rather than rushing through this legislation to meet arbitrary targets, we need an energy strategy that prioritises practicality, respects local concerns and ensures that the transition to green energy is both affordable and inclusive for all.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Would my noble friend give way so I can ask him about the phrase “arbitrary targets”? The targets are actually the result of the detailed propositions of the Climate Change Committee; they are not arbitrary in any way. He may disagree with the targets, but “arbitrary” means that they have just been picked out of the air. That is not so.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress.

On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime.

We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons.

On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market.

By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand.

The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration.

On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers.

On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment.

On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.

Energy Grid Resilience

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my sympathy for all those impacted by the recent blackouts in Spain, Portugal and beyond. This blackout should serve as a stark reminder of the consequences when the power grid fails. Prolonged blackouts are devastating. The collapse of the grid in Iberia highlights the vulnerability of our complex, interconnected systems that underpin modern life, as well as the profound human impact that such failures can have. We must ensure that this does not happen in Great Britain, as the economic and social consequences would be catastrophic.

The Government’s plan to rapidly build a grid that is dependent on naturally unreliable and intermittent renewables in just five years will severely compromise the reliability of our electricity supply. The stability of a grid depends on what physicians know well as inertia—the ability to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. This has been a key factor in the security and resilience of our grid over the years. Inertia is provided by turbines in nuclear, hydro and gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar and wind farms. Without sufficient inertia to buffer against sudden frequency shifts, the grid risks destabilisation, potentially triggering a domino effect of system failures that culminates in widespread blackouts.

The most recent annual report from Spain’s equivalent of NESO highlights the risk of relying too heavily on renewables. It concluded that the closure of conventional power plants such as coal, gas and nuclear has diminished the grid’s balancing abilities and inertia. What is deeply concerning is that the same trend is occurring here in the UK. Data from NESO has shown a steady decrease in grid inertia as gas and coal plants are replaced by wind and solar. The transition carries a significant cost, which exemplifies the flaws in much of this Government’s accelerated energy security strategy.

The imposed targets are burdening the British public with escalating costs as the Government push forward with a power system dependent on weather conditions rather than reliable, consistent baseload energy. Billions of pounds are being spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid and providing backup through reliable gas plants, yet the Government remain determined to meet the accelerated 2030 clean energy target without being transparent with the public about how this will be achieved.

The lessons from the Iberian peninsula’s experience are clear. We must maintain inertia in our grid to ensure its stability and resilience. Gas and nuclear power are essential for providing reliable baseload generation and inertia. I look to the Minister to provide clarity and assurance. Can he confirm NESO’s and the national grid’s preparedness for a blackout? Will he recognise the role that inertia plays in our power system and the impacts of declining inertia on grid stability? Finally, will he recognise that it is not a reliance on, to quote him, “international gas markets” that puts the UK at risk of blackouts? That lies squarely at the foot of renewables, which cannot provide reliable baseload electricity.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on the power outages across the Iberian peninsula. Our thoughts are of course with the 55 million people across Spain, Portugal, Andorra and parts of France who were affected.

The Statement rightly highlights the highly resilient nature of Great Britain’s energy. I welcome that we will continue to improve our resilience and ensure that our energy systems are robust and that we have the proper exercises in place. We note that a similar event in Great Britain—a total loss of power—is listed on the national risk register as high impact but very low likelihood. It is reassuring to hear that the Minister has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator and is working closely with industry to maintain the resilience of our energy infrastructure.

I also welcome the Government’s taking forward recommendations from previous exercises such as Mighty Oak. As the Minister has noted, the exact reasons behind the power failure remain uncertain. We note that independent examinations are going on and that the Spanish and Portuguese Governments and the European Commission are all examining the causes.

The truth is that there are probably several interlinked events that caused this power outage. Sadly, despite the fact that the causes are at the moment unknown, a “firestorm of disinformation” has already erupted, with some attempting immediately to blame the use of renewable energy. We echo the Spanish Prime Minister’s call for caution against misinformation and disinformation. Energy experts have been quite quick to dismiss renewables as the primary cause.

On disinformation, Carbon Brief notes that UK newspapers have already launched more incorrect editorials attacking our net-zero policies in the first four months of 2025 than they did during the whole of 2024. So I take this opportunity to ask the Minister, what actions are the Government taking to improve government communications and actively counter disinformation in this area?

What this incident does highlight, however, is the critical importance of investing in and upgrading our national grid. As we transition to clean energy, a closely synchronized dance has to happen between building grid capacity and developing clean power. The grid must be designed and invested in adequately, at the right time and with the right volumes, as renewable energy is added and demand for electricity grows. Significant investments are needed: some £77 billion over the next five years to increase electricity levels.

The UK is lagging behind, with grid infrastructure spending being only 25p for every pound spent on renewables. What measures are the Government taking to make sure that investment in our grid is keeping pace and meeting the investment we require?

I also want to ask the Minister about transformers. Following the fire at Heathrow, it has come to my attention that only one factory in the UK produces these bespoke bits of kit, and there are 12 to 24-month waiting times. These are crucial for upgrading our grid and making sure it continues to work, so can the Minister have a look at the transformer capacity issue?

We must learn any lessons, but a baseless rush to blame renewables as part of a culture war helps no one at all. Enabling the resilience and security of our energy grid is paramount. We must focus on the facts, invest strategically in our infrastructure and counter harmful disinformation to deliver a secure, affordable and clean energy future.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the OECD. We have discussed this many times in your Lordships’ House. Our prices are 45 times more expensive than in the USA and seven times more expensive than in China. Without cheap energy we are deindustrialising through the back door. Just last week, on 1 May, the Times reported that:

“Three in five British companies have said that ‘rising and unstable’ energy costs are undermining growth plans”.


So will the Minister please listen to the advice of industry, and reconsider this accelerated plan to decarbonise the grid at any cost to prevent more British jobs being lost in our flagship energy-intensive industries?

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)]

My Lords, I of course recognise the challenge that high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware that the Urgent Question in the Commons related to a ceramics company in the potteries, Moorcroft. Let me say at once that my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know that Ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.

I say to the noble Lord that the structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same as the one his Government left when they left office last July. We know that the main reason why we have high energy prices is our reliance on international gas and oil markets, which related back to the shock to the system from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We believe as a Government that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security and cheaper energy, and that this is the best way to go forward. If anything came from the previous Question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is that we cannot afford to let go or slow down in relation to climate change. We do not have that luxury; we need to press on.

Climate Change: Progress

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the committee’s report refers to heat-related deaths rising in the UK as a result of what is happening to our climate. Since publication of the national adaptation plan 3 in July 2023, we have taken on board that point. The last Government published the fourth Health Effects of Climate Change (HECC) in the UK report in December 2023, detailing the risks. We have updated the NHS Green Plan Guidance in February 2025, setting out key actions each integrated care system and trust should undertake to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, and we are very much on the case on this.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, surely in relation to climate change we must be pragmatic in this area and not dogmatic, so my question to the Minister is simply: why do he and his boss, the Secretary of State for Energy, refuse to listen to their closest advisers? Dr Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, says now that investment in oil and gas is required to support global energy security. Tony Blair says net zero is doomed to failure, and Gary Smith of the GMB says the transition to net zero has

“cut … emissions by decimating working class communities”.

Why does the Minister continue to focus on international gas markets when we have an abundance of domestic, cheap, accessible and clean gas under our feet, both onshore and offshore, that would allow us to be energy independent once again and reindustrialise our working-class heartlands? Surely now is the time for the Minister to go back to his boss and tell him to “Drill, Mili, drill”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may say so, that sounded like a very dogmatic question. The noble Lord would be forgiven for not thinking that, in government, his party passed legislation committing us to net zero in 2050. As for the points he makes in relation to jobs, he will know that, in February, the CBI published a report showing that the big growth in the economy in the last year or two has been in the net-zero green sector and that there are nearly 1 million people now employed in that sector—it is the fastest-growing part of our economy. On the Tony Blair Institute, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, but I have disagreed with him on one or two issues. The report was a global assessment, and it recommended a particular emphasis on nuclear, carbon capture usage and storage and reform of the planning system; we are doing all of that.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I support the government amendment that has been negotiated and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the step by the Government to ban solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour from Great British Energy’s supply chains. It is a decision born of pressure from members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing these issues, and to the Minister and his Bill team for taking the time to meet me and others. I am thankful for their careful consideration and determination to find a way forward.

Compromise in politics is not a weakness; it is essential and a strength, and it makes for better legislation. Rightly, this amendment has been widely welcomed in the industry. On these Benches, we are clear that our net-zero ambitions cannot and must not be built on the back of slave labour. We have always argued that GB Energy needs to lead by example, as a state-supported company. Equally, we do not wish to see GB Energy operating at a disadvantage compared with other companies that are also in receipt of government funds in the form of contracts for difference.

Last week, the UK Government hosted the International Energy Agency summit on energy security, in a world that has changed literally since we last met, with tariffs, soaring electrical demand, restrictions on the trade of rare earth minerals, cyberattacks, and physical attacks on energy infrastructure. Our energy security is our national security, and our policies and understanding of what energy security means in practice have not been fully adequate. As the head of the International Energy Agency rightly said last week, green technology

“should really be produced in a socially and environmentally acceptable way”.

It should not be built on the backs of slave labour and exploitation.

For far too long, we have allowed our supply chains to be tainted by credible evidence of modern slavery. Yes, this has radically reduced the prices of solar panels, but at what human cost? This amendment, to my mind, marks a real turning point, and one of significance. It forces a difficult balance between the need to speed towards our net-zero ambitions and the ethical imperative to avoid complicity in human rights abuses. We believe that the ethical choice—the choice to stand against modern slavery—must prevail. We must engage and co-operate where we can with China but, equally, we must start from a position of strength and from clear moral grounds.

Great British Energy will now be a sector leader in developing ethical supply chains, and I welcome its recent appointments in this regard. However, we must ensure that this ban does not unfairly disadvantage GB Energy in comparison with other operators. Can the Government continue to look at this disparity? We must work to ensure this does not damage the rollout of community energy programmes. Critically, the real, long-term solution is not simply in policing imports; it is in developing our own capacity. We need a real, concerted effort to develop and grow our fledgling domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity. How can GB Energy help with that? We must also work with our European allies to build manufacturing capacity and resilient and ethical supply chains. We urge the Government to bring forward a comprehensive plan detailing how they will support domestic manufacturing and foster international collaboration to reduce our reliance on potentially tainted imports.

Could the Minister outline in more detail what the relaunched Solar Taskforce will do to identify and develop these resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour? Crucially, when can the House expect more detailed plans from the Government on how this diversification and domestic supply development will be achieved? This amendment is a vital step, but it must be the beginning and not the end of our efforts. We must ensure that our clean energy future is built on a foundation of ethical sourcing, strong domestic industry and international co-operation.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s decision to listen to the constructive challenge from this House and improve the Bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I give my thanks and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Without his careful consideration and persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such a positive change to this legislation.

The amendment to the Bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has stood against forced labour and exploitation for many years. If this Government are serious about their transition to clean energy, which they refer to as being just, we must ensure that Great British Energy, as a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards.

There is clear precedent for this approach. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains. Yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in sourcing solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in a supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. This is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risks for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, this amendment strengthens the integrity of our energy policy. It aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations, and it sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations.

To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the many other noble Lords who supported him in securing this powerful victory. This positive change to the Bill serves as a testament to the integral role of this House in scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I totally agree with the point that we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the House and in the other place.

I will reconfirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said: he has met the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, who has stated that, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GB Energy is an exemplar of ethical and moral supply chain practices. That must be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he pondered whether we were putting GBE at a disadvantage. I understand the point that he is making, but I prefer to see this in a positive light: that GBE will be an exemplar and, I believe, will influence the market to the good. I am therefore confident that we will not have the potential problem that he has rightly identified.

Grangemouth Oil Refinery

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Project Willow set out nine potential developments. The most near-term developments include hydrothermal plastic recycling, dissolution plastics recycling and ABE bio-refining. On the question about the task force, I will certainly discuss with my colleagues the ability of the task force to input into this. Clearly, in terms of decision-making, the key thing now is to find investors for those projects. Clearly, the National Wealth Fund, with the £200 million that it is going to make available, will play an important role in that.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of Grangemouth is indeed a tragedy for the UK, and even more so for Scotland and for the 400 highly skilled jobs that are being lost. Of course, we know that this is what is referred to as the transition as we go from hydrocarbons to renewables, but, if you talk to the folk in Grangemouth, the problem, they say, is that this just transition is not very just. Indeed, if you talk to the folks in Aberdeen, they say that the just transition is not very just, as we now have data that shows that the transition of jobs from the North Sea oil and gas fields to renewable wind farms is running at 58%, and that jobs that were previously paid at £55k are now paid at £35k. So I ask the noble Lord to consider the patronising language of this just transition. Will he please go back to the department, drop the concept of a just transition and perhaps introduce a new concept called an affordable transition?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being unfair. Of course we want to see workers who are being displaced by changes in the industrial sector being helped and supported as much as possible, with additional training to enable them to accept good jobs in other sectors. At Grangemouth, a support facility is being made available, with training need analysts for each worker, and I gather that 300 such employees have already requested to take advantage of that. There are open evenings, career fairs and direct engagement with local employers.

As for the North Sea, I just make the point to the noble Lord that, although he has an obsession with gas, the fact is, as he knows, that the UK continental shelf is a declining basin. In the last 10 years, 70,000 people lost their jobs under the stewardship of the Government he served. I did not see much effort there by that Government to establish programmes to provide good jobs. We are at the early stages. We are working very hard. The green energy sector, including nuclear, has huge opportunities and we need to do everything we can to ensure that skilled workers being displaced in some areas of the energy sector are given every opportunity to take up new roles.

Energy Prices

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is an interesting comment, and the noble Baroness is of course absolutely right. Our problem is that we are tied to international gas prices, and noble Lords who are fixated on our using even more gas need to consider the implications of that. We are looking at how future gas market networks would work in a situation where gas is used much more infrequently. On marginal pricing, the more we use renewables, the less we are concerned about the international market. The contract for difference limits enable us to pay the renewable developers at a price that has already been agreed, rather than worrying about what the international price market will be.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is always reminding us from the Dispatch Box that our electricity is the most expensive in the OECD. He blames international gas markets for that, but our European neighbours are subject to the same markets and seem to have cheaper electricity. Take France, for example. Our electricity is 80% more expensive than France’s. Why is that? It has a more balanced energy system, and it uses nuclear for its baseload. It is a simple fact that just shy of 50% of our electricity bills is comprised of green levies, subsidies and network realignment. I ask the Minister to slow down. Can we now just take some time to reflect, and reassess this mad dash to renewables by 2030? Please let us not put all our eggs in one expensive and fragile basket.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord at all. I remind him that our electricity market structure and its reliance on the international gas market is an inheritance from the last Government, and the highest prices we had were under the stewardship of the last Government. In getting ourselves off these international market prices, going to renewables and using nuclear as the essential baseload, we can grow the economy and give ourselves security. I totally disagree about the speed; we need to do this as quickly as we can.

UK Energy: Grid Decarbonisation

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Offord of Garvel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of their plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 on the United Kingdom’s energy security.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, in an era of heightened geopolitical risk, switching oil and gas for home-grown clean energy from renewables and other clean technologies offers security that fossil fuels cannot provide. NESO’s independent modelling confirms that achieving clean power by 2030 is feasible, while ensuring security of supply without increasing costs to consumers, with scope for lower bills.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, this self-imposed target of decarbonising the grid by 2030 is all very admirable but is it realistic and is it achievable? Looking at my national grid app, it is telling me that right now, today, renewables are 43% of the grid and the rest is non-renewables. Noble Lords may have noticed that this is quite a good day for sun and wind, which is why it is at a high number. Last year, the average was 37% from green energy. That is precisely why this is unachievable, and a target that we cannot hit in 2030. In one simple word, it is called “baseload”. In China, they use coal for baseload and in America they use shale gas for baseload. That is why factory electricity is seven times cheaper in China and five times cheaper in the United States. We have abundant hydrocarbons in the UK and we have great nuclear capability. Is now not the time to review this target to make it realistic and, more importantly, affordable for British consumers and businesses?

Scotland: New Nuclear Power Generation

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are always open to discussing nuclear power in that group, and with the Scottish Government. However, it is very difficult to make progress in view of the current Scottish Government’s position on nuclear. I can say that, on 6 February in the Scottish Parliament, Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, called on John Swinney, the First Minister, to drop his ideological opposition to nuclear power in Scotland.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the GMB came out and said that the Scottish economy is losing out to the tune of £1 billion because of the Scottish Government’s ideological indifference to nuclear. Am I right that, last week, the noble and learned Baroness the Advocate-General said that there had been a fundamental reset in the relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments? I ask the Minister if this is not the time to demonstrate that reset. Can we please have a joined-up, holistic strategy for nuclear that does not stop at the Tweed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been a reset and we have been in close discussions with the Scottish Government on a number of energy matters, but the fact is that the Scottish Government are opposed to new nuclear development. I agree with the noble Lord—and Anas Sarwar said it too—that the refusal to allow new nuclear power plants is costing Scotland billions in investment and thousands of jobs, which will go to England and Wales instead. I agree with that, but the fact is that we are dealing with the Scottish Government, who, at this stage, are not prepared to go for new nuclear.

Licensed Oil and Gas Fields: Emissions

Lord Offord of Garvel Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are of course in discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury over the next spending review and it would be premature for me to comment on any of the detail. Clearly, carbon capture, usage and storage have a very important role to play in the future, and I have noted my noble friend’s elegant bid for investment in Scotland in that regard.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have repeatedly refused to clarify whether Jackdaw and Rosebank will be shut down under their policy of refusing to grant any new oil and gas licences. That is despite both licences being granted in 2022 and 2023 in recognition of their contribution to net zero and to our national energy security. Will the Minister please clarify that this is not another example of government policy being dictated by lawyers rather than by politicians? How does he expect the Chancellor to fulfil her growth agenda with the most expensive energy prices in the OECD?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the best way to deal with energy prices is to move from being utterly reliant on international gas prices subject to the volatility that has arisen from the invasion of Ukraine by Putin. That is why we must move towards clean power as soon as we possibly can, to give ourselves energy security.

I cannot answer that question in relation to Rosebank and Jackdaw. The original consent decisions were subject to judicial review, which was paused pending the outcome of the Finch judgment. In the light of the Finch judgment, as I have said, we are consulting on new environmental impact assessments. When we have produced those, it will then be up to developers to make applications for consents according to the new guidelines we have produced. I cannot forecast the outcome of that process.