(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberWith permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.
Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:
“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]
That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.
The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.
First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.
I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.
Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years, and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.
This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.
Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.
In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.
Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.
Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.
I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.
We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.
Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.
Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?
This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?
Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?
Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology.
I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.
On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.
In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?
My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them.
I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project.
We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future.
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I feel bad about mentioning this, but she has slightly airbrushed out the role of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was Energy Secretary for a period, but we will “Trotsky”—to use a familial term of origin—that out of the record.
I sincerely welcome her support for this programme, and she puts the case very well: it is a lesson to some of the Opposition Members sitting behind her that we need all the clean energy technologies; we should not choose between them. Being in favour of nuclear does not mean that we are against wind. I am the biggest enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and all these technologies. Let us have all of them, to get off fossil fuels and meet our electricity and energy demand.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday; you were born only a few months after the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, so you share that.
The Secretary of State has made the major decision, which is incredibly welcome in west Cumbria, to unlock up to 200 acres of land at Moorside for clean energy projects, including new nuclear. This issue has been stuck for many years, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts on it, the decision he made and the work he has done with the Cumberland Nuclear Future Board to make it happen. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with me and local partners to drive the project through so that we get something delivered at the site? Secondly, can he say more about the regulatory taskforce that is being undertaken at the moment so that we can cut through the bureaucracy and build reactors more quickly?
To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station.
Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?
I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.
I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I very much welcome the statement, which is about the future-visioning and future-proofing of our energy security and production. I particularly welcome the £2.5 billion investment in fusion, including for the STEP—spherical tomahawk for energy production —programme at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. I thank Ministers for their work to secure that, which is very welcome indeed. The process has already started, with the tender outcomes for the construction and the design and technology to be announced later this year. I am championing British companies, which are very much part of that process.
I am excited about the thousands of jobs and skills in new infrastructure that will be developed because of this programme. The work has already started on the skills partnership, which is stretching right across regions including the east midlands, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. That partnership is working with our further education colleges, our universities and the advanced manufacturing centre in Rotherham. Does the Secretary of State agree that left-behind, red wall areas such as mine are where we need investment to revise our energy production and our industry? This is where we start, and I want to see more.
I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people.
Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this?
On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role.
I warmly welcome the SMR announcement, which is great news for Sheffield as Rolls-Royce is already doing significant work at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. When I met Rolls-Royce recently, it said that 70% of its bid could be built and produced in Great Britain. How will the Government hold Rolls-Royce to account for that and ensure that the announcement delivers great jobs and great investment right across the UK?
I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible advocacy on this issue, including at the AMRC. She makes such an important point: this will be taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that as much as possible is built in Britain. I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. The answer to her question is that as we negotiate terms with Rolls-Royce over the coming months, that will be a key part of our discussions.
This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project?
Maybe a change in the SNP’s position is coming. Absolutely, if the hon. Lady wants, let us have a discussion about Scottish nuclear power stations. We are in favour of the Acorn project and will say more about that in the coming weeks. But on nuclear power, SNP Members have really got to think again. They are sticking their heads in the sand. This is about jobs, investment and clean energy. They should really rethink.
If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To get slightly into the weeds, the new planning framework that we are consulting on opens up possibilities for new nuclear. Today we have set out the public money that we can commit to new nuclear at this stage. We are seeing this a bit in the US and in other countries with a 50% increase in nuclear investment last year globally. My message to the private sector is that if it is interested in partnering with us and saying to us, “We want to build in places other than those where you’ve put the public investment,” we are absolutely open for business and dialogue.
The Secretary of State will be aware that it was originally proposed to build a third nuclear power station, based on a Chinese design, at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency. Is a third station—it will not be Chinese—at Bradwell still a possibility, or could it be allocated an SMR?
Good nuclear sites, including Bradwell, are always going to be possibilities as far as I am concerned. We are not going to have China building our nuclear power stations, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this with my Department, we will be happy to do so.
It is clear that this Labour Government are putting pounds behind promises to deliver clean energy and good, skilled jobs in all parts of the country. With that in mind, given its importance to north Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great British Energy Nuclear will prioritise Wylfa?
I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. Wylfa is an incredibly important site that has huge potential for our country. Obviously, over the months ahead Great British Energy Nuclear will look at the role that Wylfa can play in relation to SMRs and large-scale nuclear.
The Secretary of State’s message to the private sector is, “If you want to build new nuclear, Britain is open.” Companies have told me that they need decisive and committed leadership from the UK Government to be confident to invest in a new project at Wylfa. I have raised that 11 times in the Chamber, yet today there was no mention of Wylfa. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the UK Government support the delivery of new nuclear projects at Wylfa?
Yes, we do. Again, we are open to discussions with the hon. Lady and other colleagues.
I will not say “happy birthday” to you again, Mr Speaker; perhaps we can arrange to sing it next time so that we do not all have to repeat it.
The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome. The other welcome news today is the Government’s commitment to £460 million of investment at Sheffield Forgemasters. That is primarily for defence nuclear, but it also provides extra capacity for civil nuclear. There is a bit of concern about Rolls-Royce’s link with Czechia, so will my right hon. Friend commit to using forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters in the first-of-its-type SMR in this country and build the supply chain so that the vast majority of jobs are provided for British workers?
I definitely believe that Sheffield Forgemasters has an incredibly important role to play in our civil nuclear programme. Contractual details for Rolls-Royce and our discussions with the company are for a bit down the road, but in my view, Forgemasters is central to our plans.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Oldbury in my constituency is one of the sites under consideration for SMRs, and I have been told many times that it has many factors going for it, including GB Nuclear’s ownership of it, the nuclear expertise in higher education locally, its existing nuclear history and the potential for co-ordination with the Berkeley site. Given that the old nuclear power station has already been decommissioned, the local community wants to know what the future looks like. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Oldbury is still in the running and will he give a timeline for the decision?
As part of the process that we go to from here, Great British Energy Nuclear will look at what is the right place for the SMR fleet and, absolutely, Oldbury is one of the candidates.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. What a wonderful day today is proving to be. As a proud Derby MP, I am delighted to welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to deliver the first of the UK’s small modular reactors. We know that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Mayor of the East Midlands are champions of clean energy jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s decision is good news for the country and for Derby? Also, in backing home-grown SMRs, what will the benefit be for UK workers and those in the east midlands region?
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Derby and for Rolls-Royce. It is important to say to the House that this was a fair and open competition, conducted at arm’s length from Ministers. Rolls-Royce came out as the winner and I am incredibly pleased about that. The possibilities for Rolls-Royce are huge in what it can do for SMRs in this country, in the export opportunities and in the jobs in the supply chains. That is the thing about nuclear: it is about the jobs not just at the top of the tree but right across the supply chain that we have the potential to create.
While I fear that the development of Sizewell C may prove to be a multibillion-pound investment in yesterday’s technology, I welcome the commitment to SMRs in so far as it goes, which is probably the way forward for tomorrow. We have to get from where we are today to there. Why are we going to spend billions of pounds and accumulate masses of wastage importing carbon fuels from overseas instead of developing our own North sea resources?
On the nuclear point, there is real potential at Sizewell. I understand the implication of his views on that: to learn from what happened at Hinkley—because it is a replica of Hinkley—and therefore to cut the costs and do it quicker. The aim is to deliver it cheaper and faster. On the wider picture, we may have a difference of view. Mine is that we have to get off insecure fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is why nuclear has a role and renewables have a role, but the existing North sea fields will be kept open for their lifetime, so oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. New nuclear has the potential not only to power communities across our country, but to create jobs in every constituency. That is why it is particularly extraordinary to hear SNP representatives argue against those jobs. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many new jobs will be created by today’s announcement and what conversations he has had with workplace representatives to ensure that those are genuinely good jobs, with good terms and conditions?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that in all respects. Sizewell alone will create 10,000 jobs at peak and 1,500 apprenticeships. For good safety and other reasons, there is a strong trade union tradition in the nuclear industry, which we intend to uphold. As for the situation in Scotland, it genuinely beggars belief that the SNP would turn its back on such a huge opportunity.
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, and having championed the nuclear industry for 20 years in this Parliament, even when it was not popular on either side of the House, I very much welcome today’s announcement, because I have seen over 60 years in my constituency the economic impact of the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Returning to the subject of Scotland, we see the SNP’s intransigence, which is costing Scotland jobs on the nuclear front. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if we will not have nuclear power stations, we can at least have jobs in the supply chain?
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his long-standing advocacy on the issue, including when it was not popular. He makes a very good point: we need to see a change in Government in Scotland, to a Labour party that will advocate for nuclear. The supply chain in all four nations of the UK can play a crucial role in the nuclear renaissance that we are announcing today.
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which represents a massive boost for my constituents in Erewash and a huge vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce just down the road in Derby? How does he foresee the announcement affecting the availability of apprenticeships for kids leaving my local schools in Ilkeston and Long Eaton?
My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity?
The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position.
I am delighted that Rolls-Royce has been selected to deliver SMRs in the UK. It really is time for us to stop delaying the new fleet of nuclear power stations more broadly. The Secretary of State will remember that he came to my constituency before the election, to the Barnoldswick Rolls-Royce site, and heard that it now supports 400 jobs, whereas pre-pandemic it was 900. This is a huge opportunity for us to create good skilled jobs in all parts of the country, so will he reassure me that the Government as the customer of Rolls-Royce will demand that those jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick and all over the UK and that we stop the offshoring of manufacturing?
I was incredibly impressed by what I saw at Barnoldswick. I had to maintain a position of neutrality when I became Secretary of State as to who won the competition, but I am incredibly pleased that Rolls-Royce won the competition fair and square. My hon. Friend makes an important point about making sure that the jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick. I am sure that Rolls-Royce will want to do that.
Capula, based in Stone, is an example of a great British company that has been supplying the electricity-generation industry in this country for many decades. To get the very best for British jobs, how can businesses such as Capula link in at the very earliest stages with the Government as they start to plan how the investment will be made?
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; let me take this away. As we embark on this golden age for nuclear, we need to make sure that the supply chain really benefits. Perhaps he could furnish my Department with the details so that we can think about how such companies can benefit?
I welcome today’s announcement. I have been speaking to people from across my constituency—cleaners, hospitality workers and others—who desperately need the cost of bills to come down. How will the projects announced today, and the other steps the Government are taking to counter the impact of uncertainty in global energy markets, help to stop people in Heywood and Middleton North being out of pocket?
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that this is about planning for the long term to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which are insecure. We saw what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Let me give the House one fact: if the Sizewell C plant had been up and running at the time of that crisis, bill payers would have saved £4 billion in 2022-23 alone. That is the security that new nuclear can give us.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that Members on both sides of the House have raised in different ways. It is absolutely part of what we are going to do to make sure that these jobs come to the UK. There are commitments around 70% of the supply chain spending being in the UK, and my Department will ensure that there is accountability on the part of the companies that will be benefiting from public money, to ensure that we see the maximum benefits across the country in the UK.
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. Unfortunately, it is not for viewers in Scotland. Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy, and it should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government’s outdated, backward and frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, they are turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. Does he agree that this is yet another way that the SNP Scottish Government have lost their way?
My hon. Friend is so right about this. People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, “Why isn’t it us who are benefiting from this? Why are we not even in the race?” We have lots of Members saying that they want their area to benefit, yet the Scottish Government and the SNP are saying that they want no part of it, and no part of those jobs. That makes no sense.
I also welcome—[Interruption.] It is very unusual for me to welcome anything from the Secretary of State but I welcome this announcement, because nuclear is an important element in providing the baseload for electricity across the United Kingdom. He mentioned delivery five times in his statement, but this is an announcement not a delivery, and there is a period when we will still need the baseload to be provided. Can he tell us how he intends to ensure that the baseload is provided in that interim period, and what discussions he has had with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland about the suitability of SMRs for supply in Northern Ireland?
The right hon. Gentleman and I have been discussing these energy issues for about 17 years since he was the spokesperson on this, and agreement is rare between us, so I really welcome what he says. I would say to him that these are the steps we have to go through to deliver, and they are incredibly important. To reassure him on his point about the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will be meeting them next week. We believe that this can benefit all four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is 100% our intention to make that happen.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing our future energy supply and, by doing so, taking control of our energy, protecting family finances and tackling the climate crisis. In addition, I am keen to learn about the Department’s assessment of new technological developments to reduce energy waste, in particular through developing underground thermal energy storage solutions. I am aware of organisations in that sector that are keen to share opportunities with the Government, so what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of thermal storage solutions in reducing energy loss, avoiding curtailment fees and maximising the benefit from energy generated?
I know that my hon. Friend has been strongly advocating on these issues in terms of the exciting possibilities for his constituency. My suggestion is that a Minister from my Department—perhaps the Minister for Energy—should meet him and the company concerned about the potential involved.
The announcement today is good news as far as it goes, but the baseload that it will provide will not be on tap for many years to come. How does the Secretary of State propose to fill that gap? Will he now look again at the UK-Morocco power project, which needs a decision soon and could be delivering electrons by the turn of the decade? Does the announcement today affect the likely contract for difference and strike prices eventually reached with the proposed operator?
We are looking seriously at the Xlinks project. The right hon. Gentleman is a tireless advocate for it, and I respect him for that. My answer on the baseload question is that we need a combination of things to meet the power that we need, and there are all kinds of different ways in which we can do that. I would also say that part of the job that we are undertaking is to make sure that we can get Hinkley Point C delivered as quickly as possible, because that can also make an important contribution. On his last point, the decisions today do not affect the decisions on Xlinks. Those are separate decisions.
I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not?
My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey.
Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd?
This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. While I welcome this fantastic announcement, Scotland will unfortunately not benefit due to the SNP’s ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment and thousands of well-paid secure Scottish jobs and blocking growth across our Scottish communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and, indeed, Ayrshire need a new political direction, and that the only way to get that will be at the ballot box next year?
My hon. Friend puts it very well. I notice that SNP Members have sort of disappeared; they are probably a bit embarrassed. She is absolutely right about this. In a sense, it comes into sharp focus today because we can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments, but not in Scotland because of the position of the SNP Government. It makes no sense.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Energy security is important, so I welcome this investment in nuclear. One more small modular reactor can power a million homes using just two football pitches-worth of land, while solar needs 2,000 acres of good-quality farmland to power 50,000 homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of food security as well as energy security, reconsider the use of good-quality farmland for solar, and concentrate instead on producing nuclear?
We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above.
I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east.
Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole?
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. Derby should be incredibly proud of Rolls-Royce winning the competition, and incredibly excited about the possibilities for young people in Derby and across the wider region. Now we must ensure that, working with Rolls-Royce, we deliver on that promise, and that is what we intend to do.
The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) asked perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions about the cost of this whole project. Is there a private finance initiative element involved, and what will it cost? How ultimately will we dispose of the nuclear waste, and who will pay the decommissioning costs in 60 years’ time? The nuclear industry does not have a great record on strike price, decommissioning costs or the cost of dealing with waste.
The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Labour Government on this incredibly important investment announcement. As a physicist by training, I particularly welcome the investment in fusion technology, as well as traditional fission. I am sure that this investment will bring closer the final outcome that we want. Will he ensure that the benefit of this investment is felt across all our communities by using a predominantly UK supply chain, and will he ensure that all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw receive Government support, including the provision of nuclear fuel, the decommissioning and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and even the reuse of currently stockpiled nuclear waste products in future generations of reactors?
My hon. Friend makes an important point: across the lifecycle of nuclear and across the supply chain, there are important economic opportunities. The importance of realising that potential is a constant theme of the questions that we have heard today, and that is what we intend to do.
Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors?
The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond?
My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from.
New jobs in clean energy are very welcome. Many of the skilled jobs at Hinkley Point C in the south-west are going to young people from beyond the area. Given the social mobility challenges in East Anglia and west Somerset, will the Secretary of State comment on investment in colleges and skills to encourage applications from the local area for those new jobs and apprenticeships?
The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That was certainly my impression when I went to Hinkley Point C, when I saw the impact that it has on the local economy. We want to do the same at Sizewell C. There are plans to start a local college, modelling in a way some of the stuff that was done at Hinkley Point C. He is so right about the massive opportunities here, which we must exploit.
As a child, Sizewell was an important word to me, like Wylfa, Hunterston, Dungeness, Dounreay and Hinkley, because they were places where my father, based in Gateshead, went to work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the announcement is part of bringing back those fantastic safe jobs, which are so important for Gateshead and the nuclear industry?
I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that question and talks about his heritage and family history. That reflects something real. The nuclear industry has a great tradition in this country. It went through a sort of extended hiccup, I think it is fair to say, but it is really important that we bring it back. Those are good, long-term secure jobs that people can take pride in. We should absolutely embrace that.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on fusion energy and for the east midlands, I say a huge thank you on behalf of my constituents and my region for the two major announcements: Rolls-Royce winning the SMR contract, and the £2.5 billion for fusion energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that such large infrastructure projects offer huge apprenticeship opportunities for my region, and will he commit to meeting me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to discuss how the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station can play its role?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his two-hatted advocacy on these issues. He makes an important point. The potential of the new prototype fusion plant is huge, as is the wider potential of nuclear. I look forward to discussing that with him.
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the clear positivity in every word he has said. I very much welcome the news that nuclear energy is to be secured for the United Kingdom, bringing job security and many contracts, and we look forward to seeing how we can all benefit across this great nation. Can he confirm that companies from the United Kingdom will be able to secure contracts to supply materials and manpower? How can Government ensure that each area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from this massive investment?
It is really important that there is a four-nations approach to the supply chain contracts; that is something I am very keen to ensure. There will be thousands of contracts in the supply chain, with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to deliver them.
Andy Burnham’s Atom Valley mayoral development zone for advanced manufacturing will be based in Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and it is so named in honour of Ernest Rutherford’s groundbreaking research at the University of Manchester on splitting the atom. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that today’s huge public investment in both nuclear and nuclear fusion will rely on precisely the kind of cutting-edge research that will be done at the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Rochdale?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question and on the new centre, which is incredibly appropriately named. We should celebrate our history on these issues, and the way to honour our history is by building the future for nuclear—that is what today is all about.
(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberHappy birthday, Mr Speaker. You look younger every year, if I may say so. Last week, we launched the new future homes standard, which will ensure that the vast majority of new build houses will have solar panels installed as standard. This will end the absurd situation the previous Government left where new housing was built without solar panels. We are kick-starting a solar rooftop revolution, and the upcoming solar road map will lay out how we are bringing cheap clean power to families and businesses across the country.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Only 20% of schools currently have solar panels. Brigstock Latham’s primary in my constituency does not. That is why its year 5 pupils have written to me asking for panels on their roof. They tell me that this would cut their carbon footprint, reduce bills and help improve their education. One pupil wrote:
“We may be a small school, but we can be big sometimes.”
Will my right hon. Friend support their inspiring campaign and perhaps visit these young community activists in my constituency?
I congratulate the pupils of Brigstock Latham’s primary school on their incredible spirit. Young people right across the country care about these issues. Also, they are pointing out something really important, which is that we have this free resource of the sun and we should use it. That is why putting solar panels on schools and elsewhere is big project for Great British Energy.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, businesses such as the Bestway Group, which owns Well healthcare in Meir Park, and Goodwin International in Newstead are keen to invest in rooftop solar, but they cannot get national grid connectivity. In the case of Well healthcare, it will have to wait until 2032. Meanwhile, residents in my village areas are frustrated at the growth of solar farms on agricultural land when there are acres of empty flat roofs on industrial estates. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the many challenges and opportunities for transitioning to clean energy that businesses in my constituency face?
My hon. Friend raises some important points. The first is on grid connections. With the grid reforms that we are doing, we are going to end this zombie queue where projects are taking up space when they are not going to connect or not going to connect in time. That will open up the future to projects such as hers. On the point about industrial estates, I can give her a sneak preview and tell her that this is part of the solar road map. She makes important points, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) has volunteered to meet her.
Thanks to Great British Energy, Meadway health centre in my constituency is set to have solar panels installed, which will cover its entire energy bills for the summer. My local hospital, Wythenshawe, will also benefit, saving my local NHS trust some £4 million to £5 million a year, which can be reinvested back into frontline services. Despite the doom-mongering on net zero that we hear from the Opposition Benches, does the Secretary of State agree that this shows the power of helping our public services and creating jobs?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having hit the jackpot with the NHS benefiting from what Great British Energy is doing. He makes such an important point here, which is that the net zero agenda is about lower bills. For example, it is about cutting energy bills for frontline services and putting the money back into those services. Who could possibly be against that?
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Chatham and Aylesford constituency, Clarion Housing is working with Octopus Energy in Snodland to install roof solar panels and heat pumps in social housing units. Can the Minister confirm how we can expand on such schemes, using the tenant power tariff for example, to reduce energy costs for our most vulnerable constituents?
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and this is something that we are working on. There is huge potential in working with energy companies, with social housing providers and others to find ways in which this can be a true part of an anti-poverty strategy. This is something that we are working on, and we will have more to say about in the weeks and months ahead.
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the news that one of Great British Energy’s first major projects will be to install solar panels on schools and hospitals, and I hope that some of the 43 schools in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme will benefit. I have heard from local sports clubs that are keen to be part of the green energy revolution but face installation and funding barriers. Will the Secretary of State consider extending Great British Energy and other schemes to help community sports facilities to go green?
I love my hon. Friend’s idea; it is such a good one. Local sports clubs and lots of other community organisations can benefit from that project. I will suggest the idea to Great British Energy.
Mr Speaker, The Times has told the world how old you are today.
Yesterday, a Minister said from the Dispatch Box that only 1% of farmland was being damaged by development, yet solar panels are smothering east Kent’s best farmland. It must stop. Given what the Secretary of State has said, what further steps will he take to protect our farmland and really do move solar panels on to rooftops, car parks and public buildings?
There are a few questions in there, and I will try to answer them as briefly as I can. Even for the biggest solar ambitions, less than 1% of land would be covered. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need solar rooftops too. That is why we have put an end to years of dither and delay, and last week announced that new homes will have solar panels fitted as standard. It makes total sense.
The solar panels on my roof started working last week, and I am very excited. If you do not have any solar panels, Mr Speaker, maybe you could give yourself a birthday present and ensure that you have an array, too. Mine were made possible by the Solar Together scheme organised by Bath and North East Somerset council. Such schemes are so important to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. Will the Secretary of State ensure that funding for those schemes will continue?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on having taken that step. She makes an important point: lots of people want to do this, but there is an up-front cost barrier. One thing that my Department is doing is working with the private sector, social housing providers, as I have said, and others to ask how we might break down up-front cost barriers so that more people, particularly those who cannot necessarily afford those costs, can benefit from solar power and cheaper bills.
Grand Union Community Energy in my constituency is a non-profit community group that has done excellent work in Kings Langley to raise funding to install solar panels on the roofs of local schools, developments and car parks. It also educates local residents on how they can utilise community energy to reduce energy bills, which we have all seen rise under this Government. What steps are being taken across Government to ensure that community projects such as Grand Union Community Energy are implemented more widely?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. I 100% agree with him about the role of community energy providers. I hope that he can persuade his Front Benchers to convert to supporting Great British Energy, because one of things that it will do—we will be happy to work with him on this—is unleash a wave of community energy across our country, doing precisely the things that he talks about.
I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?
Let me first wish the hon. Member luck on her leadership bid. Anyone who wants to be a leader of a political party should take the idea under advisement, in my experience. I see the former Liberal Democrat leader, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), nodding. We want the future homes standard to really work. It was a plan that the previous Labour Government had for 2016, but the Conservative Government got rid of it. We want it to make a real difference, and it makes financial sense, because it means that we do not have to retrofit homes at much greater cost.
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—your 40th, I am guessing. I was really impressed that Holy Trinity church in Colden Common, which is a heritage building, managed to increase its energy efficiency rating from F to A. Can the Secretary of State give any advice or guidance to communities who wish to improve heritage buildings, listed buildings and other old properties, which often face planning issues when seeking to install solar panels or insulation, or take other energy efficiency measures?
Let me congratulate the hon. Member’s community group. This whole set of questions has shown the huge untapped potential in the constituencies of Members in all parts of the House. I will say two things in answer. First, I will take this back to GB Energy, because I think the role of community groups as potential partners is really important. Secondly, he makes an important point on planning guidance. Sometimes the planning rules are okay, but the guidance is the problem, and it creates bureaucratic hurdles. I am working with the Minister for Housing and Planning to make sure the guidance is clear to local councils where there are barriers that they should not be putting in the way.
In 2025-26 alone, we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year, we will set out more details of a warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes, and there will be more details in the spending review tomorrow.
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. My Lib Dem predecessor, the much-missed Andrew Stunell, pushed for the zero carbon homes programme during his time in the 2010 to 2015 Government, having brought in his first Bill on that subject back in 2004. Sadly, those standards were scrapped as soon as the Conservatives were governing on their own. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had those standards been reached in 2016, households would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. The Secretary of State earlier mentioned the future homes standard, which is bringing in welcome steps on solar panels and so on. When will the Government go further to reach zero carbon homes standards with a fabric-first approach?
The hon. Lady raises an important question. The failure to have a zero carbon homes standard or future homes standard in place has meant that we have built over 1 million homes since then that are now going to have to be retrofitted. That makes no financial sense. It is right to put those upgrades in as standard from the get-go, and we have done a lot of work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and house builders to make sure that can be done in a way that also means we can build lots of homes.
What is the Secretary of State doing to make it more affordable for households to make their homes energy-efficient? The current model is that those who can afford to outlay some funding then get a taxpayer-funded subsidy, but those who cannot put down those first few thousand do not get that support.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am working with the Minister for Energy Consumers and others across Government on this as part of the warm homes plan. We have to make sure that those who can least afford it can take advantage of the huge opportunities of insulation, solar panels and batteries.
Warm wishes for your birthday, Mr Speaker—and I am going to talk about warmth, as you might expect. Over the last decade, we have seen so many households living in Dickensian conditions, with dark, damp and cold homes, and having to choose between heating and eating. With the warm homes plan widely recognised as the most cost-effective way of making homes warmer, healthier and cheaper to heat, can the Secretary of State confirm exactly how many homes will be covered? Is the current scale of the plan truly sufficient to meet the challenge we face?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be ambitious on these issues. Energy efficiency makes such sense for our country. We committed in our manifesto to upgrade 5 million homes and we intend to meet that commitment. I do not want to steal the Chancellor’s thunder, but we will be saying more about that tomorrow.
Since the last Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions, the Government have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard for all new build homes, delivered the first 11 solar on schools projects, scrapped the absurd 1-metre heat pump rule, secured Royal Assent for the Great British Energy Bill and, alongside Ofgem, delivered compensation for 40,000 victims of the prepayment meter scandal that happened under the last Government.
The east of England has a unique energy mix from offshore wind, hydrogen and nuclear. I welcome the game-changing investment in Sizewell C today. Can I ask specifically about wind? A new report from EastWind and Opergy says that in the east of England, we need more than 6,500 extra offshore wind farm workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the east of England is central to our energy mission, and can he outline how we will deliver those skilled jobs?
The east of England will be a clean energy powerhouse for the country. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about workforce, and we will be publishing the workforce plan soon.
In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as
“a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.
Does he still agree with that?
As with any application, there is a process that my Department will go through. We will look at any application in a fair and objective way.
The hon. Lady raises a really important point about the level of standing order charges, and this is something that Ofgem has consulted on. The complexity is that if we redistribute standing order charges, it can have significant adverse distributional effects, but Ofgem is seeking to have low standing order charges for some customers.
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Minimum half-hourly charges will also help customers to use smart solutions and make savings, and all the evidence collected under the last Government shows that when consumer-led flexibility was offered, people really took advantage of it.
Making community energy the centrepiece of the Government’s clean power plan will foster support for new schemes by putting the public in the driving seat to choose where, and at what scale, projects can fit into local landscapes. To unleash the full potential of community energy, will Ministers consider implementing the long-standing proposals to enable these schemes to sell electricity directly to local people?
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, the council has launched an ambitious plan to go from black to green, creating a combined digital and eco park that includes an AI growth zone. Will the Secretary of State meet me—alongside my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who has championed this cause, and partners—to see for himself the potential of our coalfield communities?
That also sounds really good, and it sounds like a really important initiative. The idea of AI growth zones, which have been promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, is great, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.
May I extend an invite to the Secretary of State to come to Aberdeen and meet the highly skilled energy workforce, whose jobs are being put at risk as a result of his policies?
I absolutely meet North sea workers and companies. What we need to do for them is build the clean energy future so that they can transition. That is about carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind, and it is about nuclear as well—something that SNP Members oppose. This Government are going to make the investments to make it happen.
Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Speaker.
The Minister may know that we used to have nuclear power in Ayrshire, creating many well-paying jobs. Does he think we could see small modular reactors at Hunterston, and what does he think of the SNP’s abject failure to bring nuclear to Scotland, even though it has planned for an independent Scotland to rely on English nuclear?
The SNP’s is an anti-jobs, anti-investment and anti-clean energy position, and SNP Members should be ashamed of themselves.
During the last election campaign, the Secretary of State said he would cut energy bills by £300. Could he set out for families and small businesses in Bridgwater the timescale for fulfilling that promise?
We said we would cut energy bills by up to £300 by 2030, and that remains our commitment.
Penn-bloodh lowen, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but I am concerned that far less attention has been given to another low-carbon, low marginal cost, firm baseload power source—deep geothermal. By some estimates, there are over 30 GW of geothermal energy potential in the Cornish granite batholith alone. What are the Government doing to assess and unlock this untapped geothermal potential?
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberSince the last oral questions in March, the Government have consented to the Rampion 2 offshore wind farm, creating 4,000 jobs; reached the final investment decision on the HyNet carbon capture, utilisation and storage cluster, creating 2,000 jobs; invested £300 million, through Great British Energy, in UK clean energy supply chains; shortlisted 27 hydrogen companies for hydrogen allocation round 2; and created a new £100 million fusion investment fund. This Government are building the clean energy future in Britain.
The reason I was here on that Saturday when Parliament was recalled is because some of the mightiest structures in the North sea were made from British steel at the Nigg yard. On the question of renewables, may I ask the Secretary of State what we are doing about getting out the skills to fabricate floating offshore wind structures in the United Kingdom?
That is very much part of our plans. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in March we announced the provision of more than £55 million for the expansion of Port of Cromarty Firth to create offshore wind supply chains in this country, and last week, along with GB Energy, we announced that investment of £300 million in supply chains. We are determined not just to generate offshore wind in Britain, but to take advantage of the huge economic opportunity that it represents.
I hear what the Secretary of State is saying, but Scotland’s declining oil and gas industries have lost 40% of their jobs in the past decade, and today Grangemouth has warned that it may have to pause important projects involving a switch to greener and more sustainable forms of energy because of what it describes as soaring energy bills and the pressures of income tax. We know that Grangemouth needs investment, but it also needs more than the Government are doing at the moment. What intervention are they planning to protect jobs and the communities that could be hollowed out if Grangemouth is not saved?
As the hon. Lady will know, we inherited this situation from the last Government, but we set aside £200 million to build the future in Grangemouth and we are working closely with the Scottish Government on precisely that, in a Government-to-Government collaboration. As for the hon. Lady’s wider question about industrial energy prices, we should obviously look at what different sectors are saying.
A lot of nonsense is being talked about steel. UK Steel has said categorically that the difference between our prices and those of continental Europe is a result of our reliance on natural gas power generation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say “Rubbish”, but that is what UK Steel has said, and that is why our clean power mission is right for families and right for business.
Today marks the end of more than a century of refining at Grangemouth. Scotland is once again a victim of industrial vandalism and devastation—and I do not want anyone in this Chamber to dare mention a “just transition”, because we all know that the Conservatives when they were in power, and the Scottish National party currently in Holyrood, have done nothing to avert this catastrophic decision. I put it to the Secretary of State that during the general election campaign the Labour leadership said that they would step in and save the jobs at the refinery. What has changed, and why have we not done the sensible thing for Scotland’s energy security?
My hon. Friend is talking about a very important issue, and Grangemouth has a very important role in Scotland. What I will say to him and to others is that as soon as this Government saw the situation that they had inherited, they put money in to help the workers, and they have made that huge investment commitment of £200 million, working hand in hand with the Scottish Government, so that we can build the future in Grangemouth. We are absolutely committed to building the future for Grangemouth communities, and we look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House to do that.
Yesterday was International Workers’ Memorial Day. At a service this weekend in Falkirk, a Grangemouth refinery worker rightly called for oil and gas workers’ skills not to be considered obsolete, but utterly essential for the just transition. What consideration have Ministers given to the urgent policy recommendations in Project Willow to provide accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure and the jobs it promises for Grangemouth?
My hon. Friend, who is also a really powerful advocate for his constituents, is absolutely right. Project Willow was left on the shelf by the previous Government. We put the money in to take Project Willow forward and we are now going to implement it. Absolutely crucial to that is ensuring the skills of oil and gas workers are properly used in the future, including with the skills passport which also lay dormant under the previous Government and which we are powering ahead with.
Through my work on the Select Committee, I have heard repeated concerns from industry leaders that existing workers in their 50s and 60s see no point in retraining because they believe they will see out their careers supporting old technologies. That has a knock-on impact on young entrants to the workforce, who have traditionally learnt their skills from more experienced workers. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to incentivise retraining to support growth in the renewable energy sector?
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. That is why we are working with the Department for Education to make sure we do not just have a clean power plan that will help to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and invest in supply chains, which I talked about earlier, but crucially offer opportunities for younger workers and inspire them about the possibilities that are available, and create opportunities for older workers, too. All that work is ongoing in Government.
In 2025-26 alone we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year we will set out more detail of our warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes with energy-efficient technologies such as heat pumps, solar and insulation in order to deliver warmer homes and lower bills.
I recognise that there are very good schemes for those on lower incomes and that heating homes is really important. For many older properties and properties in conservation areas, as fast as we heat the homes, the heat just goes out the windows. In my area, where there are lots of older homes and homes in conservation areas, it is near impossible to get permission to apply double or triple glazing. Can the Secretary of State sort out this tension between having warm homes and older homes, particularly when he is trying so hard to ensure that homes meet the C grade rating for energy performance certificates by 2030? This needs to be sorted out with planning departments.
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. I am constantly on the look-out for small measures and large in the planning system that can obstruct the sensible energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels, that will make all the difference. I say to her and other Members of the House that if they have specific examples of barriers or interpretations of guidelines that are getting in the way—sometimes is not about the rules but about local councils’ interpretations of them—please bring them to our attention, because we are constantly trying to make it easier to make such upgrades happen.
Earl, a social housing tenant from Glastonbury, is disabled and has faced multiple barriers that have prevented him from self-funding improvements to the sustainability and energy efficiency of his home, in order to help him reduce his energy poverty and improve his health. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that social housing tenants receive energy upgrades in their homes, and in particular those living in older housing stock, where upgrades might be more complex to achieve?
It sounds as though the hon. Lady is raising an individual case, and if she wants to draw it to our attention, she can do so. On the more general point, I believe that her local authority has received £6 million as part of the warm homes local grant, so it would be worth talking to it about this. Again—I am sure that I speak for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), on this—where there are specific issues about how particular schemes are working, please do draw them to our attention and we will seek to act on them.
Royal Shrewsbury hospital in my constituency was delighted to receive a £450,000 investment for solar panels, which will see our local trust save more than £1 million by reducing its energy bills in the lifetime of the project. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating this excellent start to our nationalised Great British Energy company and update the House on the next steps to get us towards that mission?
I do join my hon. Friend in that. I say to all Opposition Members who voted against GB Energy that many of them will now be getting solar panels on schools and hospitals in their constituencies. Let all their constituents know that those are local MPs who opposed cutting bills for schools and hospitals in their own constituencies.
I welcome the £17 million of Government funding for Norwich’s Labour-led city council to improve energy efficiency in homes, which will help tackle fuel poverty and provide much more comfort. Will the Secretary of State welcome Norwich Labour’s leadership on this issue and set out how we will provide more funding to local councils so that they can go further, faster?
My hon. Friend raises a really important point about the crucial role of local authorities in relation to these issues. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done is devolve more funding to combined authorities on this. We want to go further, including in relation to local authorities, because it is local authorities—including my hon. Friend’s, which I congratulate—who know best the particular needs of their own localities, and they are a key part of the answer to the energy efficiency upgrade that we need.
Last week, 60 Governments and more than 50 global businesses gathered in London for the first global summit on the future of energy security with the International Energy Agency. I heard from country after country the hard-headed case for clean energy’s role in delivering energy security to free us from the global fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. I also heard from many clean energy businesses that Britain was the place where they wanted to invest because of the clarity and speed of this Government’s mission.
Homes in rural areas experience some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the UK. Rural properties are less energy efficient than the national average and many are simply harder to insulate. Will the Minister confirm that my constituents in Penrith and Solway will see the additional challenge of rurality reflected in the Government’s ambitious warm homes plan?
One hundred per cent—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The Minister for Energy Consumers and I often discuss how we have to ensure that our warm homes plan takes account of the particular needs and challenges facing rural areas.
Voters
“feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices…when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal… Present policy solutions are inadequate and…therefore unworkable… The current approach isn’t working… Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with his former boss Tony Blair?
The shadow Minister talks about the Tony Blair Institute report. I agree with a lot of what it says. It says that we should move ahead on carbon capture and storage, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on the role of artificial intelligence, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on nuclear, which the Government are doing. The shadow Minister said only three weeks ago, after his party dropped its net zero policy—this will surprise people, Mr Speaker—
Order. No, Secretary of State. This is topical questions; I do not need a full statement.
To be honest, I was looking forward to hearing what I said a few weeks ago, Mr Speaker. It is okay for the Secretary of State to admit when he is wrong. As Tony Blair said yesterday, this strategy is “doomed to fail.” Why can the Secretary of State not see what the GMB and Tony Blair see, which is that clean power 2030 is doomed to fail and it is time for a change of approach?
That is not what the report says. The shadow Minister is talking absolute nonsense. The point I was going to make was that he said:
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do.”
Those are not my words but his. Some people say that the Tory party has only one policy. Actually, it has two: it is against net zero and, through the shadow Minister, it is for net zero.
My hon. Friend asks an important question. New nuclear is absolutely part of the energy mix. That is why we announced important reforms to the national policy statement. The previous such substantive reform was based on the one I published as Energy Secretary in 2009. We have updated the statement in order to enable new nuclear to be built right across the country, including in his constituency.
The hon. Lady asks an important question. I was in touch with the National Energy System Operator yesterday following the events in Spain and Portugal—the UK was not affected. NESO and my Department take this incredibly seriously. I would also add, given that there has been some comment on this, that we should not jump to conclusions about what happened. Let us see what happened and the reasons for it, and then learn the lessons.
My hon. Friend is right: this clean energy transition is about creating jobs. I was delighted to open the factory, which is creating 200 jobs and is a £40 million investment, manufacturing cylinders for heat pumps. This is an opportunity that this Government are going to seize for Britain.
The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me, and not in a good way. Reform has made its decision; I am not sure what the Conservatives’ position is. Cheap, clean, home-grown power is the answer for Britain, because it gives us energy security and frees us from the petrostates and dictators. We are in favour of it; Reform is against it. Goodness knows where the Conservative party is.
My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?
The hon. Lady is 100% right—clean, home-grown power is the answer—so that is an unequivocal yes.
My hon. Friend is right: there is a long-standing issue around industrial energy prices. The key is getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, because just as family finances were ruined in the cost of living crisis, it is the same in relation to business finances and public finances. It is an essential part of the answer.
In my constituency, many elderly and disabled people face very high energy bills due to essential medical equipment and heating needs. What support are the Government providing to ensure that these households are protected from the high cost of electricity?
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue about interconnectors. It is something I have been talking to the regulator about, particularly in relation to France, and indeed to my French counterpart, Marc Ferracci, who was in London for our international energy summit. I am happy for the Department to engage with her and tell her about the work we are doing on that issue.
During the general election, the Secretary of State repeatedly promised my constituents that if they voted Labour, their energy prices would be reduced by £300—not by “up to” £300. Will the Secretary of State repeat that promise at the Dispatch Box?
We said we would cut bills by up to £300, and that is absolutely what we are determined to do.
The hon. Gentleman says that bills have gone up, but let me give him a little basic lesson: they have gone up because we are exposed to fossil fuel prices. The only way to bring them down is by having sources of clean, home-grown power that we control.
When will the Government decide whether to support the UK-Morocco power project?
I know the right hon. Gentleman has an important interest in this project. We continue to have discussions with Xlinks and obviously we are happy to brief him on those discussions.
Unlike Conservative Members, I really welcomed the £200 million investment last week. It will be integral to creating the good jobs of the future in constituencies that are developing key technologies for offshore wind, like my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. With that in mind, will the Minister and the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see GE Vernova and the hard work that it is doing there?
Yes is the answer; I look forward to it. My hon. Friend is 100% right: this is about the jobs of the future. Conservative Members might want to turn their back on them; we will not.
As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?
MPs across the Humber region are united in support for the Viking carbon capture, usage and storage project. Can the Government give an update on any progress with track 2 programmes?
As with Acorn, we think Viking is a really important project. I am very proud of the progress we made on track 1, and we are obviously looking at both Viking and Acorn in the spending review.
Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?
When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again.
My Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), and I regularly discuss this issue, which relates to one of the first duties of Government. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this a focus for Government, but we will look at what happened in Spain and Portugal to see if there are any lessons to be learned about our resilience.
Order. Mr Moon, please. You will not get called again if you carry on like that. I am sure the Minister will know the answer.
I am delighted to remind the House that it was the Conservative party that left us with energy insecurity, and we are never going to leave this country vulnerable in the way that it did.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, the Government seem to have a three-point plan. Point one is to cover farmland in solar panels, and point two is to block out the sun. What is point three?
I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced failed ECO4 scheme installations. What support is there for constituents when installations go wrong? Are rogue installers getting paid for work that is not completed properly? What steps are being taken to address such failures?
In the 1970s, global warmists wanted to put black dust on the Arctic to block the sun. Now the Minister wants to put black dust on clouds to block the sun again. Is his plan not bonkers? £50 million of taxpayer’s money has been spent, which will only put up energy prices even further.
This is like conspiracy theories gone mad. I feel like we have entered a whacky world. Let us keep our eyes on the prize. As a country, we are vulnerable because of our exposure to fossil fuels. This Government have one mission alone: to get clean, home-grown power, so that we take back control.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsOn 24 and 25 April 2025, at Lancaster House, the UK Government partnered with the International Energy Agency to convene the first global summit on the future of energy security.
The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission addressed the summit, delivering the message that energy security is national security and depends on co-operation with others, acting together to seize the opportunity of the clean energy transition. The summit was represented by almost 60 countries, more than 50 global businesses as well as non-governmental organisations and civil society groups from around the world.
Our starting point for this summit is that in an unstable and uncertain world, there can be no national or international security without energy security. In the years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have been reminded in the UK, and indeed across Europe and the world, of a simple truth: that as long as energy can be weaponised against us, our countries and our citizens are vulnerable and exposed.
This summit marked an important moment for countries to come together and discuss what the shifting global landscape means for how we deliver energy security in this era. Many participants emphasised the importance of the energy transition and how this can enable a more secure and affordable system, noting our vulnerability to price shocks from fossil fuel markets.
Political and industry leaders from around the world discussed the diverse energy security challenges faced by different countries, and how energy in all its forms is the basis of human and economic development. Achieving secure, affordable, and sustainable energy for all remains a fundamental priority in the years to come. Many stressed that multilateral co-operation between countries, as well as with international organisations, industry and civil society, is key to tackling shared challenges and ensuring a secure energy system.
The Prime Minister announced an initial £300 million investment, ahead of the spending review, through Great British Energy, in order to win global offshore wind investment in the UK and create thousands of jobs, and a major carbon capture and storage network is ready for construction—boosting energy security and the Government’s plan for change.
At the summit, the Government also established a new mission focused on strengthening global supply chains through the UK-led global clean power alliance. The GCPA will bring together the global north and south, and will draw on and share the UK’s world-leading experience of pursuing clean power by 2030 to speed up the global clean energy transition.
Our decision to co-host this summit reflects the UK’s determination to go the extra mile as a convenor on the world stage—because it is in our national interest. Clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and the leadership we are showing is about seizing the jobs and growth for Britain, and making the UK a clean energy superpower.
[HCWS606]
(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberOur warm homes plan will upgrade up to 5 million homes with technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, helping families to lower bills and improve their homes. Last week we allocated £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to help low-income households and social housing tenants. We will publish further plans following the spending review.
The warm homes plan delivers a welcome uplift in resources for domestic energy efficiency. Failures by Governments, energy companies and local authorities over a number of years have left my constituents paying huge energy costs, with poor connectivity, failure to install smart meters or smart meters not working when they are installed, and not-fit-for-purpose electric heating systems in the Braes villages. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do all they can to end fuel poverty, and will he meet me to discuss how to hold accountable those who are responsible for the ongoing issues in my constituency?
My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. It is about having a tough regulator in Ofgem, it is about smart meters that work, and it is about every decision the Government take seeking to tackle fuel poverty. That is why I was incredibly pleased that we announced the extension of the warm homes discount to an extra 2.7 million families, with an extra £150 next winter to help families. That is what this Labour Government are all about.
I welcome the energy efficiency measures that my right hon. Friend mentions, which will really make a difference to many families in the future, but what can the Government and energy providers do to help families struggling to pay their energy bills today?
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise about these issues. She will know that the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), put in place with the energy companies £500 million this winter to help families struggling with their bills. We also want to see Ofgem proceed with the plan to relieve the debts that many families face, because the debt overhang from the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still blights many families in our country. If we move forward on all those fronts, we can tackle these issues.
I strongly support all efforts to increase energy efficiency and bring down bills. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of raising the minimum level of energy performance certificates to C for long-term rented accommodation but not doing so for short-term lets and owned properties? Will that not create an incentive in communities such as ours for people to go to Airbnb or second home ownership, rather than providing affordable homes for local people?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I believe I am right in saying—I was checking with the Minister for Energy Consumers—that as part of the consultation on energy efficiency, we are looking at the issue of short-term lets, which has been raised in the past. He is right to draw attention to what we are doing here, because this measure, which the last Government proposed and then backed away from—a pattern we are seeing quite a lot at the moment—will take up to 1 million families out of poverty. It is a basic principle: if someone is renting a home and they pay their rent on time, they have a right to live in decent, warm accommodation.
We are driving forward at speed to deliver clean power by 2030. Last week, the Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will enable the biggest expansion of the grid for generations, sweeping away the connection delays and the queue that held us back for too long under the last Government and reforming the planning system to speed up delivery. We have also laid out for the first time legislation to provide households near new or upgraded pylons £250 a year off their energy bills for 10 years, as part of our commitment to delivering meaningful benefits for communities hosting clean energy infrastructure.
Does the Secretary of State agree that community energy has a vital role to play in the transition to cleaner and greener power? Will he accept an invitation to come to my constituency in north London to visit Community Energy Barnet, which is working on one of the largest community energy projects in the country?
I always like visiting north London, and I would very much like to accept an invitation from my hon. Friend. He makes a really serious and important point about community energy. If we look at Germany and Denmark, we see that they have done much better on community energy than us. Great British Energy has an important role to play in this, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks.
Does the Secretary of State share my concern about reports of persistent misconduct by Drax, regarding cutting down old-growth forest and burning it at its power station? To be clear, this is a company that chops down pristine forest, ships it halfway across the world to burn it in the United Kingdom and claims that it is sustainable. Will he look again at the large amounts of subsidies that have been approved by this Government for that company?
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.
The Conservative party abandoned the economy, the NHS, the justice system and immigration, and now it is joining its Reform collaborators and other climate change deniers in the dunce’s corner. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike this Government, who recognise the triple benefit of the 2030 goal—energy security, a transition to renewables, and job creation—the Conservative party has no solutions for 21st century Britain?
My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.
The plans for a green generator at the Peterhead power station in my constituency are shovel-ready, but they depend on approval for the Acorn project at St Fergus. On 12 November last year, the Minister for Industry stated in response to a question from me that more information would be available on the track 2 projects “in the coming months.” Given that four months have passed, can the Secretary of State provide an updated timescale and outline what the next steps will be?
I support the Acorn project; it is really important. For reasons that the hon. Member will understand, the right time to make decisions will be at the spending review in June.
The £21.7 billion of funding to which we committed in October will kick-start the carbon capture, usage and storage industry, supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands through the east coast and HyNet clusters. We continue to engage with important future projects, such as Acorn in Scotland and Viking in the Humber, and we will make further announcements following the spending review.
As my right hon. Friend will recognise, Merseyside is a clean energy pioneer, a hub of carbon capture and hydrogen technology. The climate emergency is the challenge of our generation, and that challenge will be met only through the collective endeavour of communities across our country, including mine in Wirral West. How are the Government helping our communities to deliver good, local energy projects?
My hon. Friend is entirely right about this. We have learned over the last decade and more that this is the biggest jobs opportunity of the 21st century. Nowhere is that more true than in the investments we are making in carbon capture, usage and storage, and I am confident that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. A couple of weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry produced an important report that showed that last year, the net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole. The House should let that sink in, because it tells us that if we turn our back on the net zero economy, we turn our back on business, jobs and investment.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is huge potential for carbon capture and storage to play a key role in our green energy ambitions for Scotland? As we look towards the spending review, does he agree that the Acorn project presents an excellent and efficient opportunity to invest in CCUS, and to reduce the carbon impact of industries across Scotland, because it will repurpose existing pipelines?
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic advocate for the Acorn project, of which we are hugely supportive. Track 1 projects were agreed in last year’s Budget—a fiscal event, a fiscal moment—and the Government are considering those projects ahead of the next phase of the spending review, which will come in June; but I do not think that anyone doubts the potential value of the Acorn project, not just to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom.
No one who cares about the future of our children and our grandchildren will gainsay the importance of carbon capture, but does the Secretary of State not understand that he is undermining that good work—notwithstanding his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—by continuing to subsidise the Drax power station, which is cutting down forests in Canada, turning the wood into pellets, and shipping it thousands of miles across the Atlantic to burn here? That makes nonsense of what he is trying to achieve.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. The situation that we inherited from the last Government meant that we had to consider matters such as security of supply and how we could secure the best deal for bill payers. That is what we did, and that is why we made the statement that we made on Drax. On longer term, however, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We need to move away from unabated biomass and consider all the possibilities to enable us to move towards net zero, and that is what this Government are doing.
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the six students from Bourne community college who came to Westminster yesterday to present their report on the future of hydrogen storage as a net zero approach to aviation? Does he agree that students engaging with science, technology, engineering and mathematics are excited about the potential of clean power and carbon capture, and that proper funding for STEM in our schools will provide us with the next generation of scientists and engineers who can help us to achieve these goals?
I join the hon. Lady in warmly congratulating the six students from her constituency whom she mentioned. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that when we meet young people who are engaged in the potential of clean energy technology to transform our country and our world, it is an incredibly important reminder, both about its potential for jobs, and about our duties to future generations.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that by 2050, we need to be removing 10 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year if we are to stand a chance of keeping below the 1.5° target. It is clear that carbon removal, and not just carbon capture and storage, will play a critical role in our avoiding a climate disaster. In the face of the Conservative party once again embracing climate denialism, what steps will the Government take to support the research, development and deployment of carbon removal technologies to ensure that British companies become leaders in this emerging sector?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him that the Minister for Industry held a roundtable with a whole range of industry voices on this precise topic last week. He is right about this issue. There is scepticism about CCS in some parts of academia and elsewhere. All the evidence that I have seen from the Climate Change Committee, the IPCC and others, including the International Energy Agency, is that CCS technology has a crucial role to play on something like 20% of emissions. He is also right to say that carbon removal is the next stage of that journey, and it is something that my Department is heavily engaged in.
For this Government, good pay and conditions for workers and the role of trade unions must be at the heart of the renewable energy sector, because that is the only route to a fair transition. Since we came to office, EDF Renewables has announced recognition agreements with four major trade unions. We applaud it for its decision, and we want others to follow suit. Through the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, we are also working with industry and trade unions to support fair pay, terms and conditions in the sector.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The Employment Rights Bill is an historic step forward for workers, but these rights must go hand in hand with good jobs. What action is he taking to strengthen the UK’s manufacturing capacity and supply chains to ensure that communities such as mine in Knowsley benefit from the transition to net zero?
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituency, and on this issue of manufacturing jobs. If we look at what this Government are doing—from GB Energy to the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus—we see that this Government are determined to ensure that we manufacture in Britain. We care about where things are made, and we will make those good manufacturing jobs happen.
Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.
The Bacton energy hub in my constituency is undergoing a green transition, which I support because I believe in protecting our natural environment and boosting our economy through net zero—two things the Conservatives seem to have abandoned. Green hydrogen at Bacton needs wind power to be brought in from the coast. Will the Secretary of State help to make that happen, and will he visit Bacton with me to see the potential for himself?
This, among many others, is a very, very important potential project and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for it. Green hydrogen is absolutely part of our energy mix in the future.
Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?
I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.
The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?
It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.
In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?
As we discussed earlier, the CCC raised an important issue that we need to look at. The key question on this so-called rebalancing is that it must be looked at in the context of understanding the principled case, while also ensuring that if we go down that or another route, we do so in a way that is fair. That is the work that my Department is engaged on.
Yes, that sounds really good. Community energy is a crucial part of our energy future.
The right hon. Gentleman and I do not necessarily agree on everything, but on this we do agree. The transformation of the West Burton site from a fossil fuel-fired power station to a fusion power plant is an incredibly exciting project, and we should all be battling for it.
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Rolling out electric car infrastructure is incredibly important. If he writes to my Department, we will ensure that he gets the best possible reply.
Will Ministers consider exercising the community electricity right within the Infrastructure Act 2015 to require commercial renewable energy developers to offer communities the opportunity to part-own schemes developed in their area?
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. As an energy nerd, I am really interested in this 2015 power, which, despite my nerdery, I did not actually know about. We are actively looking at this really important power, which was put in place by the previous Government.
In response to a written question to me last week, the Minister confirmed that no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented to that will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land. In my constituency, the East Park Energy solar farm is close to 75%, but the overarching national policy statement for energy states at paragraph 5.11.34:
“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification.”
Can the Minister confirm whether nearly 1,500 acres of best and most versatile land is too much good-quality agricultural land to sacrifice?
The hon. Gentleman will know that any nationally significant project goes through a proper planning process, and it would not be right for me to comment on that. None the less, I am sure that the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues that he has raised.
Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is the central plank of the Humber 2030 vision. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to meet the Humber Energy Board, and if he does not will he join me in doing so?
Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the ongoing work to deliver new nuclear investment in Hartlepool. Billions of pounds are on the table, which will mean jobs and skills for generations to come. Will he meet me to discuss how we can get this deal over the line?
New nuclear is an essential part of our future energy plans. My Ministers and I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those plans.
I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?
I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.
Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO2 market to bring investment and jobs to our region?
My hon. Friend puts it so well. This is the economic opportunity of our time. Our investment in carbon capture and storage shows what is possible. Today’s desperate request for attention from the Opposition is anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-investment and the wrong choice for Britain.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsToday my Department is launching a consultation on our plan for the future of energy in the North sea.
For decades, the North sea’s workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world. This consultation sets out how we will ensure they power our energy future—continuing oil and gas production for decades to come, while seizing the opportunities of the clean energy revolution.
We know that the North sea is a maturing basin and, as a result, jobs in the oil and gas industry have declined over recent years. For this transition to work, we have to manage our oil and gas assets sensibly while developing a plan for the future.
That is why we are consulting on how Government will work with the sector to manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan, as well as how to enact the Government’s commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields.
This consultation is about a dialogue with industry, workers and communities on building the North sea’s future. The geography and geology of the UK continental shelf (UKCS) are a huge asset in technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. Britain is well placed to mobilise this natural advantage, but to do so we must put in place policies that will allow us to seize the huge opportunities clean energy presents.
That means harnessing the North sea’s combination of offshore infrastructure, highly-skilled workforce, supply chains and vast natural assets, while ensuring workers have the tools they need to take up new opportunities.
That is what the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is all about. It is the only way to deliver energy security, good, long-term jobs, and a managed, orderly and prosperous transition for the current workforce and communities. At the same time, a science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production is the only way to deliver climate security for future generations.
The Government are determined to co-ordinate the scale-up of the industries which will shape the future of the North sea—including offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and decommissioning—as the basin matures. This is vital for delivering the best outcomes for workers and communities, energy security, and sustainable economic growth.
That is why we have been moving at pace over the last eight months to put in place the foundations of the future. We have already announced that Great British Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen, reflecting our commitment that the communities that powered our country’s energy past will continue to power its clean energy future.
In addition, we have overseen a record-breaking renewables auction; kickstarted Britain’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries; worked with industry and unions to move forward on a “skills passport” for offshore workers; and put clean energy at the heart of our modern industrial strategy. This consultation takes the next step.
As part of our commitment to provide certainty to industry, it is being published alongside HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs’ oil and gas price mechanism consultation, which sets out how the fiscal regime will respond to any future spikes in oil and gas prices once the energy profits levy (EPL) ends.
We will continue to work in partnership with all those involved in building the North sea’s future—businesses, trade unions, workers, environmental groups and communities—as we develop a plan to seize the opportunities of the years ahead.
[HCWS502]
(4 months ago)
Written StatementsThe Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is today publishing a consultation on reforms to the minimum energy efficiency standards that are applied to private rented sector homes under the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015. Improving the energy efficiency of private rented homes is essential to cutting bills, tackling fuel poverty, reducing carbon emissions and increasing our energy independence.
Everyone deserves the security and comfort of a warm home. Our aim is to raise as many households in the private rented sector out of fuel poverty as possible. This consultation is a key step towards meeting our fuel poverty target and ensuring tenants have the warmer homes that they deserve. We are seeking views on a range of proposals to address poorly insulated homes, to help improve living standards and the enforcement of regulations, so that we ensure that tenants are better protected.
The Government are also seeking views on how best to support landlords in delivering effective and high-quality changes, such as changes relating to the energy performance certificate metrics that the new standard should be set against, the implementation timeline, and the maximum required investment, including whether the maximum required investment should be the same for all properties, or whether it should be varied, and under what circumstances a reduced investment might be allowed. Government also seek views on whether short-term let properties should be regulated under these standards, as well as on what role smart meter installation and letting agents should play.
Once we have considered the responses to the consultation, we intend, subject to availability of parliamentary time and approvals, to bring forward changes to both primary and secondary legislation so that we can implement improvements to the Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) Regulations 2015.
Government welcome responses to the consultation from all stakeholders, tenants, landlords, letting agencies and local authorities. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation and working with all those with an interest in improving the domestic private rented sector and tackling fuel poverty.
[HCWS429]
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsThe UK’s nuclear sector is at the beginning of a significant expansion in both civil and defence nuclear programmes and will play a key role in delivering the Government’s clean energy superpower mission. Given the sector’s contribution to economic growth, this Government will ensure the right enablers are in place, including effective and proportionate regulation and a suitably flexible planning framework.
The Prime Minister is commissioning an independent taskforce to look at the regulatory framework and regulations affecting nuclear across both civil and defence sectors. The task force will examine how to deliver nuclear faster and cost-effectively in support of growth and innovation, while maintaining the UK’s high standards of nuclear safety, security and non-proliferation. It will be led by an independent expert and will report to the Prime Minister and present options to me, the Defence Secretary, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider in summer 2025.
To improve the planning framework for nuclear infra-structure, today I laid a draft national policy statement (NPS) on nuclear energy infrastructure, called EN-7, before Parliament.
The energy NPSs set out national energy planning policy and form the framework for my decision-making on applications for development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP) concerning energy under the Planning Act 2008. EN-7 sets out the policy for considering development consent applications for new nuclear fission infrastructure. It introduces a criteria-based approach, removes the deployment deadline for new projects, and expands the range of technologies covered to include small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors in addition to the existing gigawatt-scale reactors. The new planning framework is robust, transparent and agile and will empower developers to identify potentially suitable sites against a robust set of criteria ensuring safety, sustainability and the mitigation of impacts on the host community.
This is the beginning of the formal parliamentary procedure to designate it and bring it into force as provided for in the Planning Act 2008. From the day on which the draft EN-7 is laid, Parliament will have a “relevant period” according to the Planning Act 2008 to review the draft EN-7, raise questions and make recommendations. The relevant period for EN-7 will start on 6 February 2025 and elapse no sooner than 23 June 2025, provided I have discharged my duty to lay a statement before Parliament addressing any resolutions passed by either House or recommendations made by parliamentary Committees regarding the draft EN-7. A public consultation on EN-7 will run alongside this stage of the parliamentary procedure. Officials will summarise responses to this consultation for interested parliamentary Committees once they have all been received.
After the relevant period has elapsed, the NPS will be laid in Parliament in its final form for approval by resolution by the House of Commons, or by deemed consent by the House of Commons following a 21-sitting-day “consideration period”.
[HCWS419]
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberThe national wealth fund is an essential part of our clean energy and growth missions. Recent investments include £20 million of investment into XLCC, a subsea cable manufacturer, to develop a new facility in Scotland, creating 900 jobs; £28 million of investment into Cornish Metals to finance lithium production, supporting more than 300 local jobs; and £1 billion, working with Barclays and Lloyds, to upgrade social housing, giving people warmer homes and lower bills.
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. In the Liverpool bay area, just off the coast of my Southport constituency, we already have a number of wind farms, including the Burbo Bank scheme. Can he outline to the House what more his Department is doing to ensure that, as we put up these wind farms, jobs are created in constituencies like mine?
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, which Members from right across this House will agree with. The situation we have inherited from the last Government is that Germany has almost twice as many renewables jobs per capita as Britain, Sweden almost three times as many, and Denmark almost four times as many. Through a combination of Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and a clean industry bonus, we are making sure that we do not just build offshore wind in this country, but reap the huge industrial opportunity from it.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Court of Session’s judgment on Rosebank and Jackdaw was to do with their consents, not their licences? When he comes to consider his decisions on those consents, he should do so on the basis that these are existing, not new, licences.
That is an individual planning case, so I will be careful about what I say. What I will say to the hon. Lady is that the last Government made an unlawful decision, according to the court. We are going to follow due process.
GB Nuclear is about to make two decisions on small modular reactors, and I know my right hon. Friend will agree that those SMRs and their supply chains should be built here in the UK. Although we have the capability in Sheffield, we do not necessarily have the capacity, so will he work with me, my colleagues and businesses in Sheffield to look at proposals for a nuclear manufacturing centre of excellence?
I welcome that question from my right hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion of these issues. We will look at any proposal in detail, but she makes such an important point, which I would make to all Members of this House. People will have different views on this issue, but clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century—whether it is small modular reactors, offshore wind, hydrogen or carbon capture. In our first six months, this Government have shown what it means to deliver at pace on the investments that this country needs.
Has the Secretary of State engaged in any discussions with Northern Ireland industries on the strategic use of the sovereign wealth fund?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I discussed this issue in detail in advance of the preparation of the Great British Energy Bill, and it is also relevant to the national wealth fund. We want our institutions to serve all countries in our United Kingdom, and I encourage him and industries in his constituency to make applications to the national wealth fund, which is there to support people and industries across the UK.
The Government policy to decarbonise the grid by 2030 rests on the National Energy System Operator’s assumption of a £147 per tonne carbon price, but manufacturers are lining up to tell the Energy Secretary that it would destroy British industry. Will he guarantee today that for the remainder of this Parliament, we will have a lower carbon price than Europe?
NESO made that assumption, but it does not reflect our assumption that the carbon price will be significantly lower. I will not start predicting market prices. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that the difference between him and us is that he believes that we should double down on fossil fuels as the answer to the problems facing the country, whereas we know that clean energy is the way forward.
Since this Government came into office, we have taken a series of steps to deliver clean, home-grown power for Britain, including lifting the onshore wind ban, consenting to nearly 3 GW of solar and overseeing the most successful renewables auction in history. In December, we published our clean power action plan, which has been widely welcomed by business as providing the route map that simply did not exist under the previous Government.
Energy projects in East Anglia will be crucial for generating the clean, cheap power that this country needs to grow, from wind and solar farms to nuclear power stations, including the much-needed Sizewell C. These projects will bring high-skilled jobs to East Anglia, including in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the infrastructure improvements to connect these projects to the grid will not be hamstrung by the planning process?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on his advocacy. Members across the House have a decision to make here. As the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), said earlier, we are exposed to fossil fuels and we see what is happening in global markets with prices going up. If we want to change that and have clean home-grown power that we can control, we have to build the infrastructure we need. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on supporting it and on supporting our planning reforms, and I urge Members across this House to do the same.
Given that the British taxpayer is paying billions of pounds in subsidies to fell trees in Canada and ship the wood across the Atlantic to burn in the Drax power station, can the Secretary of State tell the House where the clean energy lies within that? Has he read the KPMG report? If he has, will he come to the House and make a statement on his assessment of it?
The last Government consulted on what, if any, future support there should be for biomass power stations. We are studying that consultation and we will make a statement in due course.
Community energy projects can help us achieve clean energy by 2030. Darley Abbey Community Energy is surging ahead with plans for 100 kW Archimedes screw on the River Derwent—the same river that powered the world’s first factory 200 years ago. The project could generate enough hydroelectricity to power all the businesses at Darley Abbey Mills, but there are hurdles in place, including planning permission, insurance costs and the need for up-front capital. What can the Government do to support local renewable community projects such as these to succeed?
My hon. Friend makes a fantastically important point, which is that we often think about planning reform as being about the large-scale projects, but it is also about unblocking the smaller-scale projects. Having a national energy policy statement that includes 2030, working with local authorities and making sure there are enough planners to make the decisions—all those things can all make a difference. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her advocacy for this work, and I congratulate the local community on this project.
Experts are clear that the savings from the Government’s clean power action plan will be wiped out by 2050 if airport expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton goes ahead, and that relying on so-called sustainable aviation fuels would use up to half the UK’s agricultural land. Does the Secretary of State agree with the scientists that, while ambitious clean power plans are hugely welcome, if this Government also back airport expansion, they are not going to meet their climate obligations?
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.
To achieve his clean power plan, can the Secretary of State say exactly what local communities need to do to convince him that solar farms on agricultural lands are not appropriate in their area?
It is quite extraordinary. We are absolutely exposed as a country, yet the Conservatives oppose clean power. They have a blanket opposition to clean power, so let every person in the country know that when energy bills remain high, they are opposing the things that will bring them down. It is quite extraordinary. This is the Conservative party that lost the last general election—its worst defeat in 200 years—yet if anything, since the election, Conservative Members have got worse and learned nothing.
The Secretary of State recently approved a 524-hectare solar farm in Lincolnshire—a farm linked to Dale Vince, a £5.4 million donor to the Labour party. The public have a right to be certain that this decision was carried out properly, so will the Secretary of State refer his conduct of this application to the independent adviser on ministerial standards? Yes or no?
I am glad the hon. Lady asks, because I took no part in this decision—I recused myself. [Interruption.] Here we go. They have nothing to say about the country, just desperate scraping of the barrel. Let the whole House hear that they oppose a solar plan that will put up solar panels throughout the country and give clean power to the British people. The state of the Conservative party is something to behold.
In recent weeks, we have seen continuing rises in prices in global fossil fuel markets, with wholesale gas prices last month 60% higher than a year ago, which is caused by a number of factors. I want to be clear with the House: as long as Britain remains so dependent on fossil fuels, we will be in the grip of these global markets controlled by petrostates and dictators, with direct impacts here at home. The only way to get off this rollercoaster is with clean, home-grown power that we control, and that is what the Government’s clean energy mission is all about.
The Scottish Borders has some of the most beautiful countryside in the whole of the United Kingdom, but it is going to be destroyed by the massive pylons being built by ScottishPower Energy Networks in pursuit of Scottish Government and UK Government policy. Does the Secretary of State think it is right to charge ahead with these plans, which are firmly opposed by local communities?
I say to the hon. Gentleman, and I have said it throughout this Question Time, that local communities should have a say, but we have a decision to make as a country. Do we build the clean energy infrastructure to protect us from volatile fossil fuel markets, or do businesses, families and the public finances—£94 billion was spent during the energy bills crisis—remain exposed? I know what I would choose: we protect ourselves.
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.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
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?
First, may I take this opportunity—I know we are short of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—to congratulate the permanent shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), on the birth of her baby boy? I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating her. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his temporary elevation.
On the issue of plutonium disposition and the decisions I and my hon. Friends have made, we are acting on the best advice we have inside Government. It has the potential to create thousands of jobs—thousands of long-term jobs—and it is the right thing to do not just for jobs, but for nuclear safety.
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?
I know that the hon. Lady has had long discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), on these issues. We are absolutely determined that, as part of Great British Energy, community energy will be massively expanded. That was our manifesto commitment, and that is what we will deliver. Hon. Members around the Chamber have asked how their community can benefit, and community energy will be an essential part.
We are absolutely determined to build the manufacturing base in this country. I mentioned the investment in XLCC. That is a crucial part of building the supply chains. The supply chains have been eroded over a decade or two; we are determined to build them up.
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and completely concur with him on this issue. Nuclear is an essential part of our clean energy future. The demand for electricity in the years ahead—there will be a 50% increase by 2035, and demand will probably be double, if not more, by 2050—means that we need all the technologies at our disposal: renewables, nuclear and others. The SNP is 100% in the wrong place on this, but I am glad to say that Scottish Labour is in the right place.
When I visited Birkby junior school, I saw that tackling climate change and pollution is one of its key priorities. Does the Minister agree that setting a strong nationally determined contribution at COP29 and committing to an ambitious clean power target is important in demonstrating that the Government are intent on tackling climate change, especially at a time when other global leaders are not?
The UK has a fantastic £26 billion clean tech sector, leading the way in innovation and carbon reduction for everything from clean power to sustainable agriculture. However, all too often, red tape and bureaucracy are locking in dependency on fossil fuels and foreign oil and gas. How can we work across Government to cut back on this unnecessary red tape, and ensure that our schemes support the leading tech and innovation that our best-of-British producers are bringing forward?
There is huge potential, and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, I will chair an artificial intelligence energy council, looking at not only how we can meet the future demands of AI, but how AI and technology can help us deliver the infrastructure and energy system of the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) makes an important point, which we will take away.
Let us be frank: the big prize that has eluded past Governments for a long time is a proper plan to upgrade all types of buildings, not just residential properties. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), and I are working on that closely with colleagues from across Government. It is part of a bigger version of the warm homes plan, which is also about buildings. We will definitely take away the experience that the hon. Lady raises.
What engagement has the Minister had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities council leaders on local power plans? Does he agree that a partnership approach by Government, councils and community organisations, such as the West Lothian Climate Action Network, is key to the success of local power plans?
The Government procurement budget is around £300 billion. Can the Minister please tell us what percentage of his allocation will go to British businesses? Will he confirm that where we have to import, no modern slavery will be imported into this country?
On the second question, I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is an eloquent champion for tackling modern slavery. I know Members from all parts of the House share her view. We need to do better as a Government, in terms of the guidelines inherited from the last Government, and the solar taskforce is looking at those issues. Her first question relates to something that we are discussing with our colleagues in government. The economic and social value we can get as a country from the procurement budget is huge and untapped, and we need to do something about it.
The £80 million swimming pool support fund to help make pools more energy-efficient is facing a significant underspend before it expires in a few months’ time. Will the Minister urgently meet Eastbourne borough council, Better, and me to discuss unlocking this national underspend to help fund solar panels and pool covers at Eastbourne Sovereign centre, where I learned to swim?
I am massively in favour of solar panels on swimming pools and lidos—I am an occasional lido user myself—so I am fully on board with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will pass it on to colleagues in government.
Southampton Itchen has many Victorian and inter-war homes that are poorly insulated and therefore expensiveto heat, especially as the Conservative party dragged its feet and did not invest in clean or affordable energy. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the insulation and energy efficiency of my constituents’ homes?
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.
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?
It is a particular pleasure to end with the hon. Gentleman. Here it is: a decision for all Members of the House to make. We are on the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets; we have no control over them. The mission of this Government is to take back control with clean, home-grown power. I urge him and Members across the House to support taking back control.
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsUnder the Paris agreement, all parties are required to communicate their nationally determined contributions to the United Nations framework convention on climate change every 5 years, nine to 12 months prior to the relevant COP. NDCs covering the period 2031 to 2035 are due by 10 February 2025, ahead of COP30 in Brazil.
The Prime Minister announced on 12 November 2024 at COP29, three months ahead of the deadline, the UK’s 2035 NDC target to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels, excluding emissions from international aviation and shipping. The 2035 NDC is based on advice from the independent Climate Change Committee. It is a clear progression on the UK’s previous NDC pledging to reduce emissions by at least 68% by 2030, which remains in place. It is informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake from COP28 and is aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It is also aligned with the level of ambition in carbon budget 6 (2033 to 2037) on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
Today, the UK has submitted to the UNFCCC the information to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding of the 2035 NDC, to aid interpretation of the headline emissions reduction target. The ICTU contains information about the scope, timing, sectors and greenhouse gases covered by the target, as well as some high-level information on policies and measures involved in delivering the NDC. It also includes information on how the NDC was created, how the NDC is considered fair and ambitious and informed by the aims of the Paris agreement, the convention, and the outcomes of the global stocktake.
Making Britain a clean-energy superpower is one of the five national missions of this Government. We will deliver an updated cross-economy plan to meet our climate targets in due course, with full detail of policy packages for all sectors. This will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets 4 to 6 and the 2030 and 2035 NDCs on the pathway to net zero by 2050.
The UK’s early and ambitious NDC will help restore our global climate leadership and encourage greater ambition from other countries. It is one important part of the UK’s overall contribution to global emissions reductions, alongside our international climate finance and other support.
[HCWS404]