State of Climate and Nature
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I want to get all Members in, so can we please have shorter questions and answers?
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that my local hospital will have solar panels on it thanks to this Labour Government, saving thousands of pounds that can go directly back into frontline services. What more can he do to ensure that public buildings like hospitals and prisons have solar panels fitted so that we can lower costs and contribute to our climate goals?
Ed Miliband
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s school on what it is doing and on its green flag status, which is really important. It shows that local action can really make a difference. Globally, I can give him the assurance that he seeks. What is so important—I say this to Members across the House—is that people look to Britain and say, “Are you going to lead? Are you going to show the power of example?” That is what we have done over 20 years, under Governments of both parties, and we need to keep doing it.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. Climate change is a huge threat to food security. In 2018, losses in the Welsh livestock sector due to extreme weather reached £175 million, which is equivalent to 9% of the total Welsh agricultural output. Farmers need support to protect their livestock and crops. Will the Secretary of State listen to the concerns of the farming unions about the removal of the ringfence for Welsh agricultural funding? It could mean less money for climate adaptations, at a time when they are most needed to safeguard food security.
Electricity Market Review
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the review of electricity market arrangements.
The central challenge that we face is the urgent need to get off expensive, insecure fossil fuels and to deliver an energy system that meets at least double the level of current electricity demand by 2050. In doing so, we need to design the electricity network to ensure that infrastructure is built in the right places, so that we can effectively provide power where it is required. As a result of previous failures to do so, power now goes to waste, costing consumers in higher bills. That is one reason why reform is needed.
The task of this review is to help deliver a fair, affordable, secure, and efficient clean power system. The key question has been whether to proceed with zonal pricing or a reformed national system. Under zonal pricing, we would split the country into different zones relying on price differentials to guide investment decisions. Under a reformed national price system, we would rely on more deliberate strategic co-ordination in advance of investment—planning our network and areas of intended generation more closely and then delivering.
I have applied three tests to this choice in the time since the Government took office: first, what is the fairest approach for families and businesses, both now and in the long term; secondly, which reform can deliver energy security and will best protect consumers and ensure bills savings as soon as possible; and, thirdly, what will do most to ensure the investment, jobs, and growth that we need across the economy? On the basis of these tests, I have concluded that the right approach is reformed national pricing. Let me set out why.
On the fairness test, under reformed national pricing, there would be one national wholesale price, as now. As I have said, under zonal pricing there would be different wholesale prices in different zones. Lower prices will tend to occur in zones with more renewable energy and a smaller population, and higher prices in those with less power and more people.
This would be a significant departure from the current system, which, while it has some differences in network costs, means that wherever a person lives, they pay the same wholesale price for each unit of electricity. The challenge will be obvious to the House. People and businesses could find themselves disadvantaged through no fault of their own and many would see that as unfair. Such a postcode lottery is, in my view, difficult to defend.
The Government have considered whether it would be possible to mitigate these effects under zonal pricing. We have concluded that, while it might, it would be a very complex and uncertain process. And it would be even more challenging to do so for large businesses, given the way that they purchase electricity. Therefore, firms in higher priced zones, such as the midlands, Wales, and the south of England, would therefore face damage to their competitiveness. That is why we have seen so many business groups express such concern about zonal pricing. Indeed, today’s decision has already been welcomed by UK Steel, Make UK, the British chambers of commerce, Ceramics UK and others.
The next test that I applied is which system can best help deliver energy security, protect consumers and ease the cost of living crisis as soon as possible. Long-term reform is essential to cut costs and save money for consumers compared with the status quo, but there is a key question as to what happens in the meantime. The clear advice of my Department is that moving towards zonal pricing would take around seven years to complete in full—assuming no delays. Over that seven-year period, the costs of financing essential investment in our energy system would be likely to rise to accommodate investor uncertainty, at a moment when we urgently need to replace retiring assets and build a clean energy system to boost our energy security. This risk premium would be paid for by consumers in higher bills in the coming years. There is also a danger that it would leave us stuck on fossil fuels for longer by deterring investors from bringing forward the investment that we need for our energy security.
By contrast, reformed national pricing could be delivered more quickly and at lower risk. Indeed, some elements of a reformed national pricing system are already under way, including building network infrastructure, and we intend to proceed with other measures, such as reform of transmission charges, as soon as possible in this Parliament. Having studied this in detail over months, I see real risks that zonal pricing would deter the investment we need and that bills would rise in the transitional period.
The third test is the investment and growth we need as a country. Many businesses make decisions to invest based on the energy costs that they face. The industrial strategy took a crucial step forward in lowering the costs faced by businesses, and clean power will help get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, which has so damaged our country’s businesses.
We know that the biggest enemy of business investment is uncertainty, and the risk of zonal pricing is that it would create very significant uncertainty. Imagine a business seeking to invest not knowing for a number of years what zone it would be in and what price it would pay. This would harm investment not just in the energy sector but well beyond it, and it would inevitably risk reducing investment in our country precisely when we need it and undermining the tens of thousands of good jobs in constituencies across the country that our clean energy mission will support.
On the basis of those three tests, I believe that the best choice is to proceed with reformed national pricing. The key elements will include: effective planning through the strategic spatial energy plan to be published next year; national pricing reforms, such as making transmission charges more effective and predictable and taking relevant powers through Parliament to do so; and making changes working with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to improve the operation of flexibility and the balancing of markets.
Under reformed national pricing, we will build the transmission network we need to the benefit of all consumers, and we will be more directive and co-ordinated in how we plan our energy system. Each upgrade that we deliver will reduce constraint costs and ensure that consumers benefit from clean power. My Department will set out a reformed national pricing delivery plan later this year. Taken together, I believe that these steps can help to deliver a more affordable, fair, secure and efficient energy system and will address the problems that the REMA process set out to solve without the unacceptable risks I have outlined.
These steps build on what we have done over the past year to turbocharge our drive to home-grown clean power. We have consented three times more solar in 12 months than in the previous 14 years. We have lifted the onshore wind ban and consented enough offshore wind to power the equivalent of 2 million homes. We have backed the biggest expansion of new nuclear in half a century. We are kick-starting new industries in carbon capture and hydrogen. We are giving nearly 3 million extra families £150 off their energy bills next winter and upgrading up to 5 million homes to help cut bills.
Every energy decision that this Government make is in pursuit of protecting the British people from fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators by delivering clean, home-grown power that we control. It is in that spirit that we have chosen reformed national pricing. We are doing everything we can to ensure energy security, protect consumers and get bills down, and to ensure that businesses can invest for the future. This is underpinned by a commitment to fairness across the country. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Miliband
This is the first time I am at the Dispatch Box opposite the shadow Secretary of State; I congratulate her on her new baby boy and welcome her back to the House of Commons. I know from my own personal experience that crying at night is challenging, but who is surprised, given the state of the Conservative party?
I think the shadow Secretary of State and I have a number of differences. The fundamental difference is this: she wants to gamble in the fossil fuel casino—she wants to gamble on fossil fuel prices. That is what the Conservatives did when they were in office, and it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that it is not true. It absolutely is true, and I think she needs to get out there more and hear what people have to say to her. It ruined family finances, it ruined business finances and it ruined the public finances. And what do they do? Do the Conservatives come along, after their worst election defeat in 200 years, and think, “Well, maybe we got it a bit wrong. Maybe we should think again”? No, they double down on a failed strategy. That is the first point.
The second point is this. The shadow Secretary of State says that we have a problem of constraint costs—that it is really a problem that we do not have the infrastructure that the country needs. She is absolutely right, but who was in charge for 14 years? Don’t just take my word for it, by the way. I notice that her colleague the shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), is not in his place, but he said that it is absurd that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, we are now in a situation where it is more difficult to build critical national infrastructure than it was before they came into power and that it costs more. That is what we have got: the grid system was massively backed up, the planning system was in disrepute, and the network and transmission infrastructure was not built.
The third point is that the shadow Secretary of State now says, “Okay, well let’s forget about the past. Ignore my record—airbrush it out. Let’s build the grid.” Too right we should build the grid, but she is opposing new clean energy infrastructure all around the country. She is going around saying, “Oh, it’s terrible. We shouldn’t be having this happening.” So at the level of strategy and what is the right thing for the country, at the level of her record and why we are in this position, and at the level of what she is doing now, I am afraid she is in the wrong place.
Now, what are we doing? We are actually changing all of this. In the period that the shadow Secretary of State has been away, we have seen a whole set of decisions made that the Conservatives talked about but never delivered. On nuclear power, they talked a lot about Sizewell and small modular reactors and all that, but they did not actually deliver it. We are—with over £40 billion of private investment in clean power unblocked and a record-breaking renewables auction.
By the way, the shadow Secretary of State says that I am somehow on the side of the wind developers. No, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am on the side of UK Steel, Make UK, the British Chambers of Commerce, Ceramics UK and businesses across the country who have said that this is the right decision for the country. [Interruption.] She mentions bills. Let me address that directly. My strategy and my belief is that a clean power system can bring down bills for good, because that is that way that we lower wholesale prices and get off the rollercoaster. Home-grown clean power is the answer for Britain, and I suggest that, now she is back in her post, she does some hard thinking about the past, about strategy and about what is right for Britain.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that I very much welcome what he has announced. He set out three priorities: fairness, lower bills—including and especially in industry and business, where my Committee heard as recently as yesterday that energy bills are causing real concerns and something of a crisis in certain industries—and attracting investment, not least ahead of auction round 7.
I was saddened that the shadow Secretary of State was so critical of wind generation. I have her letter of 12 March 2024 to my predecessor as the Chair of the Select Committee setting out her terms of reference for the consultation that the Secretary of State has responded to. She placed great emphasis on the importance of investing in renewables, so it is a great shame to see her change of heart.
Under the reformed national system, does the Secretary of State envisage increasing opportunities to use demand flexibility, and to use it as fast as possible, as a key way of bringing down energy costs for domestic and industrial consumers?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these matters. I will come to his question, but let me say first that I like to talk about issues on which both parties have been enthusiastic. We have the second largest offshore wind generation in the world. It was started when I was Secretary of State with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, and it was continued under the last Government. It is extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State is now abandoning that and saying that offshore wind is somehow the problem. It is not the problem; it is the solution.
My hon. Friend is right about consumer-led flexibility. The key point about that is that it is voluntary, and it is a way for consumers to save money. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned Octopus Energy, which is one of the pioneers of this. We are in the foothills of what we can achieve here, whereby consumers are empowered, through things like batteries, solar panels, heat pumps and smart meters, to control when they use energy much more easily, to their benefit and the benefit of the system.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. He is right: making the UK a clean energy superpower is the smartest and most strategic way to free ourselves from our dependence on expensive, volatile fossil fuels. However, as we have heard, accelerating the transition to renewables alone is not enough. The Government have to ensure that the clean power mission ultimately brings down customers’ bills and creates a fairer system for households and businesses.
Energy bills in the UK are among the highest in Europe. Our high costs exacerbate cost of living pressures and increase fuel poverty. They also undermine our international competitiveness for industrial and commercial consumers and risk driving some businesses overseas. The Liberal Democrats have long called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale price of gas so that families in the UK are not left paying over the odds for clean, British-generated electricity just because of volatile global gas prices. We will be looking closely at the details of the Government’s plan following the review of electricity market arrangements.
The Secretary of State outlined his three tests. To ensure that British consumers are not exposed to an unknown level of risk, will he publish his cost-benefit analysis and set out what impact the changes will have on customers’ bills? We will also be looking keenly for the much-needed joined-up approach between planning for renewable energy infrastructure through the strategic spatial energy plan, and the land use framework and local area energy plans, which, worryingly, are a bit out of sync.
Renewable energy can be the cheapest, most secure source of power, but for many people, seeing—and feeling it in their pocket—is believing, and under the current system, many are struggling to see it. Alongside the changes announced today, I hope the Secretary of State will consider other Liberal Democrat proposals, just as they did when putting into practice our proposals for rooftop solar on all roofs. We would like to see free insulation and heat pumps for people on low incomes and the introduction of a social tariff for energy to protect the most vulnerable.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Minister recognises the importance to our energy security of securing the fuel supply at Lindsey. He also recognises the importance of engaging with the trade unions to attempt, at least, to reassure the workforce. I thank him for those actions and congratulate him on them, and indeed on the engagement that the Government have had with the sector since the election.
Refinery operations are increasingly challenging, not least because of the volatility and uncertainty in international fossil fuel markets that the Minister just mentioned, but also because of the competition across the world. Phillips 66 and Stanlow, which he mentioned in his statement, are adapting to the changes in our energy system, taking advantage of carbon capture and the production of sustainable aviation fuel and biofuels. Will the Minister ensure that the UK refinery sector is part of the energy transition and a key part of our energy and industrial strategies, so that refineries play a key part in the future for the communities and workers that depend on those jobs at the moment, and so that we do not see a cliff edge?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. First, he is right to restate what I said in the statement—when I brought in the refinery industry for a roundtable, it was frankly extraordinary to be told that it was the first time in 13 years that that had happened. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. I am glad that we have now held that roundtable, but what it has highlighted is just how much engagement with the sector is now necessary. I am determined to drive that engagement forward.
My hon. Friend is also right about the nature of the transition. Refineries will be important at all stages of the transition. Clearly, they are critical to delivering our fuel security today, and they will play a really important role in that area in the future—in sustainable aviation fuel, biofuels, and the wider work we need that sector to do. We will support refineries to transition into some of those future technologies.
The bottom line in this case is that we seem to have had a business that was far from doing that—it was not driving forward the investment that was necessary. We will now, at pace, try to get to the bottom of what the directors were doing with this company. It is a shocking state of affairs and a sad day for the workers, but I genuinely believe that there will be a strong refining sector in the future.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance notice of the statement today. Our thoughts are with the workers at the Prax Lindsey refinery who have heard this last-minute, shocking news today, which has put their futures and jobs on hold.
We understand that this is just one refinery within the Prax Group, but the threatened closure will send shockwaves across its wider operations, with its newly acquired oilfields to the west of Shetland and roughly 200 petrol stations in the UK under the Breeze and Harvest Energy brands. While those facilities are outside the insolvency process as things stand, workers in those upstream businesses and the wider community will understandably be worried about the impact of the insolvency on their jobs.
There are questions to be asked of the company bosses in both State Oil and the Prax Group, and it is good to hear the Secretary of State’s announcement of an investigation into how the company bosses have let workers down. We welcome the Minister’s words that the company should bear some responsibility and accountability for jobs and skills for those workers, if it turns out that the company closes.
We welcome the Government’s proposals to consider adding refineries to the network charging compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries. Once again, as we have heard, we see UK industry buckling under soaring energy costs—some of the highest in Europe—with workers left to pay the price. Many in this House will feel a troubling sense of déjà vu following the Grangemouth job losses. We have heard from the Minister about the state of the refining industry and how the industry had not met the Government for 13 years. Such situations make it yet clearer that the Government must set out a comprehensive and strategic plan for workers in the oil and gas industry to support the redeployment of skills and training as part of a just transition.
A recent report by Robert Gordon University warned that the UK risks losing tens of thousands of offshore energy jobs by 2030 unless urgent and co-ordinated action is taken immediately. Rather than the irresponsible and reckless race backwards to volatile fossil fuel dependency that the Conservatives have put forward today, the report calls for honest dialogue to settle on a common UK policy framework—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that the time limit for responses to statements is two minutes for the Liberal Democrats. I am sure she has finished her comments.
Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
This is a subject in which I might have more than a passing interest.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the unique challenges posed by lithium-ion fires in battery energy storage sites; and calls on the Government to bring forward enforceable national regulations for their design and construction.
I have asked for this debate in order to highlight important issues associated with lithium-ion batteries when deployed at grid scale. These installations are known as battery energy storage systems, or BESSs. In particular, I am calling for clear national regulations that could be applied in the same way in every part of the UK. We need legislation, and I hope that this debate will push the Government further along the road to passing it.
The UK has set a target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. To achieve that, many wind and solar farms have been constructed and permissions are being sought for many more. I fully support the drive towards renewable energy; the enhanced regulation that I am suggesting today is intended to secure the industry’s future, not to create more obstacles. I think it is perfectly possible to draw up regulations that will not stand in the way of BESS roll-out, and which in the long term could actually save the industry from a wholly avoidable setback in the event of an accident.
BESSs solve the classic question of what to do when the sun don’t shine and the wind don’t blow. They provide a number of highly useful functions, including load balancing, peak shaving and energy arbitrage. Above all, they make it practical to meet a much larger percentage of our national energy needs from renewables. However, every energy system carries some kind of risk, and most BESSs currently use lithium-ion battery technology. In the event of an accident—and sooner or later there are always accidents—lithium-ion batteries catch fire in a different way from other materials, in a process known as thermal runaway. It is important to note that most BESSs now rely on lithium iron phosphate or LFP batteries. This chemistry is much more stable than lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide or NMC cells, which are common in consumer uses. That means fewer incidents, but those incidents can still be dangerous. In the future, there will undoubtedly be other chemistries, so we need to leave space for innovation.
Thermal runaway generates very high temperatures and requires different firefighting methods. It is usually best not to try to put out the fire, but rather to control the spread. Firefighters also have to contend with severely toxic gas emissions, the risk of an explosion, soil contamination and damage to watercourses. To repeat, I am in no way suggesting that battery energy storage systems are inherently unsafe. The risks they entail may be different from those of traditional systems, but they are perfectly controllable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Members will be able to see how many are standing. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on, but if Members can keep their contributions below five minutes, everybody will just about squeeze in.
Mike Wood
My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly.
When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk.
Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife.
The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an unpaid director for Reach Community Solar Farm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate, and on his strong and comprehensive speech supporting the need for regulation. I have been impressed by all the speeches from across the House, as well as by the fact that every single one supported the motion. I hope the Minister has heard that and will urgently take the actions required.
I am proud of the Liberal Democrats’ consistent support for green energy and recognise the need for battery energy storage sites, so I am deeply worried that current practices cause concerns about safety, anger at lack of community involvement and little or no share of the profits coming back to the communities affected. A prime example of those problems is the vast Sunnica solar farm planned in my constituency, stretching through into West Suffolk. Community groups and parish, district and county councils all opposed the development. Their evidence convinced the planning inspector to recommend refusal, but within two weeks of joining the Government, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted permission. Now it is down to the local authorities to decide on final details, including the battery energy storage sites for up to 500 MW.
The councils will have 14 working days from receiving details from the developer to consider whether they need further information, to share the application with consultees, to collate any requests for further information and then to return the questions to the developer. They must do that without any clear guidance or regulation on battery safety. They are advised to consult the fire service, and the fire service in turn has no battery safety regulations to refer to, just the guidance issued by the national fire chiefs. It will also be difficult, if not impossible, for meaningful public consultation to be fitted into that timetable.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for local fire services and the Environment Agency to be statutory consultees for BESSs so that they can advise on making the sites safe and on how to manage a fire should one break out. Local communities also need to be consulted, as they know best how the area is used, where the water courses run and what wildlife is present.
Fortunately, as we have heard, BESS fires are rare, but where they occur, they can last for several days. The water used by the firefighters in the Liverpool case combined with the chemicals given off by the batteries to create hydrofluoric acid. Ely and East Cambridgeshire has many interconnected water courses, from drainage ditches through to the River Great Ouse, as well as the internationally important Wicken Fen wetland site and other vital wetland sites. If those became contaminated with hydrofluoric acid, the damage to wildlife, especially in our rare chalk grasslands, would be enormous. We are also the breadbasket of England. Imagine the impact on our farmers and therefore our food supplies, not to mention the impact on the horse racing and horse breeding industries.
Our planning departments need clear regulation and relevant statutory consultees, so that they can ensure that BESSs are installed in the right locations and have the necessary boundaries, run-off catchments and so on to ensure that the fire risk is minimised and that, in the event of fire, people, crops, soils and nature are protected. DEFRA has stated that it will consult in June on integrating BESSs into existing environmental regulations. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know when we can expect the consultation to open. Many BESSs are already operating, more have permission and yet more are applying for permission. Proper regulation and guidance are therefore urgent.
The Liberal Democrats want green energy to replace fossil fuels. Green energy reduces fuel poverty, gives the UK fuel security and is better for the environment. To be successful and reliable, green energy needs battery energy storage sites, but those storage sites must be safe, and that requires Government regulation and guidance and making local fire services and the Environment Agency statutory consultees.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) might like to read the handbook on how Parliamentary Private Secretaries should behave. It is not their job to be heard. If he wishes to contribute to a debate on a policy area, perhaps he should resign his position and return to the Back Benches.
Nick Timothy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part.
As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring.
Solar Farms
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Vaughan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.
As a final point, there are real concerns about how ethical solar panel supply chains are. It is so important that we have robust mechanisms to ensure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I have no choice but to impose a three-minute time limit on speeches after the Father of the House.
David Smith
I was just about to say that I welcome the Government’s proposed new land use framework, which I think is key. The land use framework, which no Government have had before, will help landowners make sensible and effective decisions with their land. I trust that will include a strong focus on both food production and renewable energy.
Finally, and most importantly, solar farms must lead to lower bills. I am optimistic that as we ease the influence of foreign dictators off our energy supply and generate more of our own renewable energy, the British people will begin to see the benefit. Skilled jobs and lower bills will be the reward for the countries that win the clean energy race, and the best reward for investment in solar and wind power will be lower bills for my constituents in North Northumberland.
We have heard a lot of what I think is a false dichotomy here today, for instance from the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). Setting up that false dichotomy between food security and energy security is not the way forward. We must do both together. I want my constituents to be part of the national conversation as we move towards net zero. They are keen to see lower emissions, lower bills and local jobs, and that means ensuring that solar farms are local, farmer friendly and effective so that they serve the British people well.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will have a two-minute time limit from after the next speaker. I call Llinos Medi.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that despite our deep concern about solar panel production in China, there was virtually zero investment in the UK’s solar production during the Conservatives’ time in office? Since we came to power—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We really must have short interventions, or I will not be able to get every Member in.
Sarah Russell
I agree with hon. Friend. That is disgraceful, and I am very pleased that the relaunched solar taskforce is focusing on developing resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour.
It is important that we work with our farmers and growers across the country. British farmers own about 70% of our total solar generation capacity, whether it be on the roofs of their agricultural buildings or on solar farms. I am extremely pleased that the NFU is participating in the Government’s relaunched solar taskforce. We must continue to ensure that farms are properly consulted about land use, and that previously developed or lower-quality land is prioritised.
I thank the businesses in my community that have supported solar energy, including manufacturers Siemens and Bespak, which both use renewable energy sources. The Dane Valley Community Energy company is a not-for-profit mutual society that was set up by a group of volunteers in my constituency. They have constructed and run the Congleton hydroelectricity generation project at Havannah weir, and they supply electricity to Siemens and donate money to local community groups. A sister project, Congleton Solar, has installed rooftop solar on a number of sites in my constituency and beyond. Havannah primary school in my constituency will officially unveil its rooftop solar panels next week. I know that the project will inspire the next generation of green champions. I am very proud to be part of a Government who are meeting communities where they are, and following their lead.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I rise not just as the Member for Mid Norfolk, but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture. As Members will be aware, Norfolk is Britain’s first county and our leading agricultural county—the Royal Norfolk show is the premier show in the country. Norfolk is absolutely at the vanguard of this country’s agricultural industry, and of the Government’s stated—although increasingly cynically stated—commitment to increasing food security.
The globe has to double food production in the next 25 years on the same land area, with half as much water and energy, and Norfolk is in the vanguard when it comes to the technologies with which to do that; there are the drought-resistant crops, and the gene-edited, disease-resistant crops, at the Norwich Research Park. In my constituency of Mid Norfolk, the home of Banham Poultry and Cranswick Country Foods, farming and agriculture is the No. 1 industry, employing thousands in agricultural machinery supplies, haulage and food processing. I cheered when I heard that the Government were going to support the agricultural industry and food production, and I cheered their commitment to supporting UK science, including the agricultural science that is key to meeting that challenge, but since the election, we have seen the most extraordinary attack on farms, the rural economy and small businesses taking on jobs. There is also a proposal for a 7,500 acre—that is 10,000 square miles, or 20,000 km—solar farm, reaching from Castle Acre, through Swaffham, to Dereham. This is in a constituency where agriculture, food and tourism are the No. 1 industries.
Government Members need to reflect on this. I want renewable energy, and I want cheap energy. My constituents would like to be consulted. The residents of 14 villages will wake up living in the middle of a power station, with no serious planning consultation at all, no community benefit, and the rates being taken back to London by Ministers. This is an utterly cynical move towards the industrialisation of the countryside, which will rebound seriously on the Labour party and, more importantly, on this country’s food and energy systems. It is wrong.
Edward Morello
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the answer is in my speech.
We have made substantial progress on decarbonising our power grid: a decade ago, just 6% of our energy came from renewables, and today, the figure stands at 42%. That is a national achievement we should be proud of, but we must go further, not just because the climate emergency demands it, but because renewables are the cheapest source of energy available.
Liberal Democrats believe strongly in expanding use of solar and other renewables to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, improve energy security and bring down bills. Crucially, we believe that this must be done while protecting our natural environment. A strategic land use framework is essential if we are serious about delivering net zero while safeguarding our ability to produce food and restore nature.
We are asking more and more of the countryside—to produce food, capture carbon, generate clean energy, support biodiversity and provide space for housing, tourism and recreation. Without a joined-up approach, we risk pitting these priorities against one another. It is vital that a framework gives clear national guidance on where solar is most appropriate; sets out that solar should avoid high-quality agricultural land wherever possible; and encourages dual-use solutions that support both energy generation and nature recovery. It must enable local authorities to plan ahead with confidence, and to balance competing pressures in a way that reflects the needs and character of their communities.
Planning policy should not be dictated solely by where grid connections are available, but by a long-term vision of how we want our land to be used. It is a common claim that instead of putting solar panels on fields, we should put them on rooftops and car parks. I do not disagree, but having worked in the sector, I feel obligated—I make this point a lot—to explain the commercial realities. If utility-scale solar costs 50p per unit to build, rooftop solar is roughly double that, and carports double that again. Meanwhile, energy companies pay as little as 5p or 5.5p per unit for energy exported to the grid. That means that pure-export rooftop and carport solar does not stack up financially for investors, but that is something that the Government can fix. By mandating a minimum export price, we could unlock rooftop and car port investment, reduce pressure on farmland and cut consumer bills. Yes, wholesale energy buyers would earn a little less, but consumers, communities and the climate would all benefit. This is an easy win for a Government who have stated their commitment to net zero.
Ground-mounted solar will invariably remain part of the energy mix, and we cannot reach our climate targets without it, but projects must be done right, which means prioritising lower grade land and ensuring that new schemes come with tangible benefits for the communities they affect. Community benefit funds should receive a fair share of the wealth created. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clauses to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to deliver just that, alongside local authority powers to invest in energy efficiency and support street-by-street upgrades to reduce bills. In Scotland, for example, community benefit is worth £5,000 per installed megawatt per year. That means that a controversial large-scale solar project, such as the Kingsway solar farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), would provide £2.5 million annually to the local community. That is the scale we should be talking about, and it must be the community that determines how and where that money is spent.
Today, about two thirds of UK solar is ground-mounted, but rooftop solar has a critical role to play and the Liberal Democrats are proud to be leading on that issue. We welcome the Government’s decision to adopt our policy of mandating solar panels on the roofs of new homes, which is a core part and first step of our rooftop revolution. We also call on Ministers to go further, by requiring new homes to meet net zero building standards and include provision for solar generation. When it comes to delivery, Liberal Democrats in local government are showing what can be done. From Barkham solar farm in Wokingham to Sandscale park in Westmorland and the thousands of car park panels installed in Portsmouth, we are delivering clean energy at scale, backed by communities.
Delivery must also be responsible, and I know that many of us are concerned about the number of solar farms being approved on our best agricultural land. Let me be clear: I am yet to meet a farmer who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels; this is happening because making a living from farming is increasingly impossible. We must ensure that farming is sustainable, profitable, and properly supported, so that farmers can keep doing what they do best, which is producing brilliant British food and looking after the land. I also share concerns about the use of nationally significant infrastructure project schemes, which are taking land out of use. That raises questions about long-term land use and oversight, particularly given the level of foreign investment in the sector.
Finally, a very quick word on standards—I appreciate that I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are genuine concerns about labour practices in the global solar supply chain, but the industry is taking action. Having been part of the Solar Energy UK supply chain sustainability working group when it was first constituted, I can personally attest that the industry is taking the issue very seriously. Through the solar stewardship initiative, robust environmental, social and governance and traceability standards are being applied to ensure compliance with UK and EU laws. By the end of this year, certified facilities will be producing 100 GW of panels annually, which is five times the UK’s current capacity. As a result, we can be confident that we can meet our targets without compromising our values. The potential of solar is enormous. It can drive down bills, reduce emissions and create thousands of jobs, as well as protect our countryside.
Joy Morrissey
I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend said. There is a lack of compensation for rural communities and no offer of lower energy bills or a discount on offsetting the cost of energy. These local communities will sacrifice their green spaces, livelihoods and way of life for energy that will not give them a direct benefit.
In Lincolnshire, this issue has a huge impact. We see solar applications in constituencies, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, where they cover 7% of the overall available land. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in Lincolnshire faces 5% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar. That is shocking. Across the country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) faces 9% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar farms. Lincolnshire’s agricultural land is vital to our food security, but it is under threat. Developers see this land as the fastest and easiest pathway to solar farm development, enabled by a Government who seem to place no importance on our food security.
The Countryside Alliance recently highlighted that tenant farmers face threats; I appreciate that that was raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and I appreciate his boldness in doing that. Those tenant farmers are being evicted to make way for solar farms. Tenant farmers are not landowners: they work the land, and they are being evicted so that solar farms can be put in place.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, pointed out, we are losing farmland and farmers and our food security in the reckless ideological pursuit of net zero. That is why His Majesty’s Opposition have tabled new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would limit where solar farms can be built on agricultural land. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of solar farm applications on the loss of agricultural land and tenant farmers in areas such as Lincolnshire and on our national food security? Will the Minister look at ways to incentivise the development of solar capacity away from agricultural land?
As developers seek easy access to agricultural land, this leads to a clustering effect, which many Conservative Members mentioned. We heard mention of a 3,000-acre development in East Yorkshire, which, coupled with another 3,000-acre development, means that 6,000 acres of land in East Yorkshire are being consumed by solar farms. The need for these applications to cluster around substations for cost-effective grid connection is creating an overwhelming impact in areas such as Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Buckinghamshire, East Yorkshire, Norfolk and across our rural communities in England and the south of Scotland.
I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am sure that the shadow Minister will bring her remarks to a close very shortly.
Joy Morrissey
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can address this issue in the House again very soon, because there is much more to be said on this important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was not able to make all of his remarks, and many Members were not able to raise their concerns.
Finally, I will talk about community consent, which has been raised so many times already today. We need to ensure that we are listening to these communities, not ignoring them and bulldozing over our green spaces—our countryside and our agricultural land—for the sake of a relentless net zero target that will destroy our rural way of life. I mention again that agricultural land is being consumed by this Government at an alarming rate. Farming capacity is being lost as tenant farmers are evicted. Whole counties are being covered in clusters of solar farms. Local communities are being ignored and experts are being overridden. Those are the realities of a solar strategy driven by ideology ahead of evidence. I urge the Minister to heed the concerns that hon. and right hon. Members have raised so forcefully today and to change course urgently.
Michael Shanks
I will not, because I am conscious that there is another debate to come.
These questions about the planning system are important. There is a rigorous process in place. We recently raised the threshold for solar projects going into the NSIP regime. I seem to remember a number of Opposition Members opposed that, but the whole purpose was to ensure we do not have the issue that we have at the moment, where a lot of projects are deliberately 49 MW, which is just below the threshold. By changing the threshold, we have more projects going through local, democratic council planning considerations, so those Members should welcome that decision. Those planning decisions also consider biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and many other things, and those considerations also include, as a number of Members said, cumulative impact where more than one project is planned in close proximity.
Members raised many other points that I am afraid I will not have time to come to in this debate, so perhaps we should have another debate on some of them. On land use, the guidance makes it clear that wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where development on agricultural land is necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land and so on. On questions of food security, I defer to the president of the National Farmers Union, who says that it is
“important that we’re not sensationalist about the impact on food security”.
I trust his judgment on this question above some others in this place.
I am moving through a number of points as quickly as I can. On land use, a number of Members have asked about how we bring together the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan. I had a meeting about that just this week. The Government should have had a serious look at land use in this country many years ago and at how we strategically plan our energy system right across the country. They will come together. We are also looking at regional energy plans that give a more localised view, too. The National Energy System Operator is currently taking that work forward, and that is an important step.
On community involvement, it is important that communities feel like they have a voice in this process. I have frequently said from this Dispatch Box that I do not for a second underestimate the strength of feeling for communities that have any infrastructure built near their houses or villages—whether that is prisons, the electricity system or new housing—but as a country, we cannot simply say that we will not build any new infrastructure because some people might oppose it. If we did that, we would never build anything, we would never deliver economic growth, and we would hold this country back, so I make no apology for saying it is about the balance between how we bring communities with us and how we get on with building in this country again, and that is important.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about glint and glare, the impact on the loop-the-loop was one of my highlights of the debate. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and glint and glare is considered in the planning process already, so it is taken into account.
I am conscious of the time, and I apologise to hon. Members who raised serious points that I will not be able to address in this debate. I am happy to follow up in writing on a number of those points.
Solar power is one of the cheapest forms of energy that we have in this country. It is deployable at scale, and can play a critical role in delivering our energy security and in our delivering the climate leadership that we need—to tackle not a future threat, but a present reality that will affect farmers up and down the country if we do not do so. I acknowledge that any infrastructure project has impacts on communities. The planning system does all that it can to mitigate those impacts, but we need to build stuff in this country. Infrastructure has to be built, and our electricity system has to be upgraded. We will build on rooftops, we will build a mix of energy technologies right across the country, and we will take on all innovations that are possible. It is fantastic how quickly we are innovating in this space, but hon. Members cannot simply say, “Let’s not build in my constituency”, because that is not a credible option.
I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham once again for securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I take her points very seriously. It is important for me to say that I hear the points that she and others have raised, and I am happy to meet her to discuss them further.
Perran Moon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) referred to the Heckington Fen solar project in her speech today, and claimed that it was approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not take that decision. He recused himself from it, and that was made abundantly clear—publicly—following the decision. We have a duty in this House to be accurate and not to question another Member’s integrity. What the hon. Member said is categorically incorrect, and I therefore respectfully ask that she withdraw her comment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point. He will know that it is not a point of order, but a point of debate that perhaps would have been better dealt with in the debate itself by means of an intervention. However, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) wishes to respond, she may.
Dr Johnson
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point was that under a Labour Government and Secretary of State, a Labour donor has been given permission to build a great big solar farm just outside my constituency. That is the point I was making: the Labour—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not going to have a continuation of the debate via points of order.
Sir Roger Gale
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the interests of accuracy—I understand that is what we are trying to pursue—the Minister said during the course of his final remarks that 30% of power is produced by solar panels. The figure for April, produced by NESO, was 10%.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. As I said, these are points of debate, not points of order, and they are certainly not matters for the Chair.
Great British Energy Bill
Caroline Nokes ExcerptsTuesday 25th March 2025
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Act 2025 View all Great British Energy Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 2 and 11. If either of Lords amendments 2 or 11 is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 3
Objects
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 12.
Michael Shanks
I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.
Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.
We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.
Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.
I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.
I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.
Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE.
Oral Answers to Questions
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I know that Members will find it unusual that Mr Speaker has left the Chair during questions. It is because he is going to attend the memorial service for Lord Hoyle, so I am sure that the whole House wants to send our best wishes to him.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
As the Chancellor said last week, any aviation expansion has to take place within carbon budgets and environmental limits. I would also point out that this Government have achieved more in six months than the last Government did in 14 years. We have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented nearly 3 GW of solar, set up GB Energy and the national wealth fund and held the most successful renewables auction in history. This Government are delivering on clean power.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is just not good enough for any householder to get a home upgrade that is not up to standard. I am sorry to hear about the example of Mrs King. We are working with Members across the House on supporting a number of individual cases. If it is a Government-backed scheme that is at fault, mechanisms are in place for the work to be remediated at low cost. But, at the end of the day, we have acknowledged that the system requires root and branch reform so that when consumers opt for upgrades they can have the confidence of knowing that they will deliver what we are saying: warm homes that are cheaper to run.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Next week, the Select Committee will be hearing from some of the victims of the botched solid wall insulation installed under the previous Government’s energy company obligation and GB insulation scheme. That includes people whose homes may well have to be rebuilt, as the cost of repairing the damage may be higher. Will the Minister tell us how such a thing could have happened, and will she confirm that she is happy to come back to the Select Committee to add to the comments that she has already made about rebuilding consumer confidence after the disaster under the previous Government?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
As we have been hearing, Dickensian conditions of cold, damp and mouldy homes are shamefully on the increase. In my constituency, more than 4,000 households are having to make that difficult decision between eating and heating because of the previous Government’s dither and delay on insulation. However, even now, local authorities and families are in limbo, anxiously awaiting confirmation of the 2025-26 funding for ECO4 and the Great British Insulation scheme through a ministerial statement. Will the Minister act with the urgency that is needed to bring those schemes and the warm home scheme forward to tackle fuel poverty?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman strongly makes the case for the importance of a publicly owned energy champion investing in parts of the energy system that are not currently getting that investment; I appreciate his recognition of that. What the interim chair of Great British Energy said very clearly—of course, it has not appointed a CEO yet—and what we have said consistently is that Great British Energy’s headquarters in Aberdeen will of course create jobs, but the majority of the jobs that will be created by that investment will come from the investment that Great British Energy makes in supply chains, in projects, and in developing the clean power that we need. Great British Energy will champion the industries that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about and deliver jobs in this country to reindustrialise communities, and Conservative Members will have to explain why they are against those jobs when they are created, including if they are created in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?
Madam Deputy Speaker
That brings us to topicals, and questions and answers will have to be very brief.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question. The whole point of our clean industry bonus is to incentivise British manufacturing. That is so important for the country, and it was not done by the last Government. We are determined that his constituents and constituents across the country will benefit.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This Government’s ideological obsession with intermittent renewables at the expense of stable, clean, baseload nuclear power will, we think, be their greatest mistake. They have delayed the small modular reactor down-selection competition, and we have not heard a peep about the final investment decision on Sizewell C. However, none of that comes close to the monumental act of self-harm of deciding to throw away and bury—out of reach, underground—20 years of nuclear-grade plutonium, which could be used to drive forward a nuclear revolution in this country. How does the Secretary of State think this will play with the pro-growth, pro-nuclear MPs in his own party who are already worried about him being a drag on growth?
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
South Yorkshire has a proud history of steelmaking, as I saw for myself when I was at Sheffield Forgemasters last week. We saw a huge reduction in steel production in this country on the last Government’s watch, and we want to turn that around, which is why we are delivering a steel strategy. As ever, I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk about how we can make this work.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
While we eagerly await progress on bringing community energy into the Great British Energy Bill when it comes back to this House, will Ministers reassure community groups around the country that they will enlarge and expand the community energy fund of £10 million, which is so successful that it is currently oversubscribed?
Ed Miliband
This is hard, partly because of the fiscal backdrop, but we are working on a comprehensive plan so that we can help not just the poorest—we want to help those in fuel poverty—but people across the income spectrum through a more universal offer. If we can get funding for up-front investments, there will be massive paybacks; that is the chance. We all know that. It is a hard nut to crack, but we are doing our best to do so.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Energy suppliers are now forecasting that the energy price cap will go up in April by another 5%, making for some 16% since last summer. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when bills will come down—or will net stupid zero mean that they will only ever go up?
COP29
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
There are indeed members of the UK Youth Climate Coalition who go to COPs. I do not want to interfere in UKYCC’s processes for picking those people, but my hon. Friend makes an important point about the voice of young people. They represent young people, but they also represent future generations, and hearing how those future generations will regard the actions that we do or do not take is incredibly important.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. Despite today’s statement noting that it is in the UK’s interest to speed up clean energy, we still need urgent clarity on clean energy projects. Will the Secretary of State finally confirm the Government’s plan for nuclear at Wylfa in my constituency?
Nuclear Industry: Cumbria
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I just check whether the hon. Member has given notice to the Member in charge and to the Minister of his intention to speak?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) for securing the debate.
To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the catastrophic costs of climate change, we need nuclear alongside renewables. It is that simple. With nuclear power, more jobs will be highly skilled, well paid and unionised, and here I commend the dedicated and consistent work of the GMB union over many years.
If ever anyone wanted to see the difference between our new Government and the last, nuclear power is a good place to start. The Conservatives may talk a good game about nuclear power, but I note that not a single Conservative Member of Parliament is sitting on the Opposition Benches. Fourteen years of Conservative rule have got us nowhere. No nuclear plants were built, despite a positive inheritance of 10 approved nuclear sites from the last Labour Government. David Cameron sent Horizon in Wales and NewGen in Cumbria to the wall—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I gently remind the hon. Member, who should sit when I am standing, that the debate is specifically titled “Nuclear Industry: Cumbria”, and he might like to confine his comments to Cumbria.
Tom Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to repeat, David Cameron sent Horizon in Wales and NewGen in Cumbria to the wall. George Osborne begged the Chinese to invest in nuclear power, and we are now unpicking his mistake. Theresa May proceeded to pause Hinkley Point C, nearly killing it off, and Sizewell with it. Boris Johnson may have shown some love to nuclear, but what came of it? Thankfully, Liz Truss was in power for too short a time to do any more damage, and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) focused only on small modular reactors in the dying days of his Government.
It is important to spell out the ways in which Conservative Prime Ministers have done such damage to nuclear across our country, because they have therefore stymied the development of nuclear in Cumbria. As my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington has said, it is important that we proceed with plans there. The last Conservative Government had 14 years and a multitude of nuclear projects to sign off, with developers desperate to build. Right now, we could be building Hinkley, NewGen, Sizewell and small modular reactors, as we were just hearing. Instead, two projects were collapsed, there was endless talk about the financing of Sizewell instead of building it and practically nothing was done about small modular reactors.
Turning narrowly to Sizewell C, I am delighted by this Labour Government’s commitment and determination to reach a final investment decision as soon as possible. Investing in nuclear is not just right for our country; it is right for all our communities. It can affect not just our current generation, but generations to come. Our mission—Labour’s mission—is not just about reducing damage from fossil fuels for the benefit of all; it is about our hopes for a better future, and I am pleased that they rest in large part on the prospect of British nuclear power.
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the next statement, may I reiterate the comments that Mr Speaker made earlier today? While the whole House understands that the business of government will go on during recess and that Ministers are required to respond to events, it is frustrating for hon. Members when statements are made during scheduled periods of recess, when the House is not sitting.
Ed Miliband
I know that the right hon. Lady is in a difficult position, and it rather showed today. Let us be honest: the truth is quite painful for her. She failed, as Energy Secretary, to get carbon capture over the line, year after year—well, to be fair, she was only in the job for 10 months, but certainly month after month. The funding was never secured, because there was not the political will from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. We have seen a long line of 20 Energy Secretaries and 14 years of failure. I must give the right hon. Lady her due: she did try, I am sure; but there was nothing but dither and delay. When we came to office, the funding had not been accounted for as part of a spending review; it simply was not there. There was just a vague promise. Now it is quite difficult for the right hon. Lady, and perhaps we should have a little sympathy for her, because she has had to come to the House and see what a Government actually delivering looks like.
Let me deal with the right hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She had the brass neck to suggest that the problems at Grangemouth and Port Talbot were somehow due to the negligence of this Government. Let me tell the House about Grangemouth. I came to office with the closure of Grangemouth already announced and likely to happen. I have probably had more conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government than Tory Ministers had in 10 years, because they just were not interested. We should be extremely angry about that. So what did we do? We funded the Willow project, which the Tories did not fund. We added to the growth deal, which they did not do. We said that we would have a national wealth fund with the potential to fund Project Willow. We had none of that from the right hon. Lady. She just was not interested. She just did not care; that is the truth of the matter. Of course it is ideological, rather than accidental. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. A bit of honesty from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)! I noted that he was very honest about the right hon. Lady at the party conference. The truth is that the Tories did not have an industrial strategy because they do not believe in an industrial strategy.
Let me deal with the rest of the right hon. Lady’s nonsense. I am very pleased that she is interested in Gary Smith, because he has said:
“This is a serious step in the right direction and a welcome investment in jobs and industries after years of neglect under the previous administration.”
That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has announced jobs in Teesside—jobs from which my constituents in the north-west of England will potentially benefit. I am also very pleased that we have a Government who are committed to an industrial strategy, and who believe in Government working in partnership with business.
The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and, indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry, and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen production and production from gas?