Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

My hon. Friend is right that the allocation round was incredibly successful. Of course, the Conservatives wanted to cancel it, given their opposition to clean industry jobs across the UK. In the north-east, where my hon. Friend is from, we are forecasting an increase of 20,000 jobs. I know that the Smulders yard in her constituency will seek to benefit from that because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it matters to this Government where things are made. We want those supply chain jobs here in the UK—jobs the Reform party would take away from constituents like hers and mine, with its anti-net zero ideology.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that major hydrogen projects in the Humber area, including those led by National Gas, are ready to go. They are vital to our region, which has £18 billion of value-add and 360,000 jobs, but without certainty from Government, investors cannot commit. When will the Government open the allocation rounds for the hydrogen transport and storage business models so that this investment can actually move forward?

[Chris McDonald]

I appreciate the right hon. Member’s concerns, having spoken to the hydrogen industry myself, and the representation he has made to me and to the Energy Minister on this issue. I can assure him that the hydrogen strategy will be out soon.

Oil and Gas

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Lady might like to know that oil and gas jobs have been stable for the past six years, but we are losing 1,000 jobs a month because of the Government’s policies. I know that because I have been to Aberdeen; perhaps she would like to do the same.

We also saw yesterday that the markets are charging us 5% for our borrowing. That is because they think we borrow too much and earn too little. There is an easy way for the country to earn some more money: we can make the most of our own resources and back the North sea, which would drive down costs for everyone. It is unfashionable at the moment to talk about balance of payments, but if we keep sending billions of pounds abroad and rack up the credit card bill, that causes costs for everybody.

Fourthly, on climate, Labour will say that drilling our own oil and gas in the North sea is “climate vandalism”—I am quoting the Secretary of State—but that is patent rubbish. Every drop of gas that we do not drill ourselves, we import from abroad instead. The liquified natural gas that we import has four times the emissions of gas that we could get from the North sea. LNG, for those who do not know, has to be frozen to minus 150ºC, shipped in diesel-chugging tankers, then heated up here. That is why it has much higher emissions overall. The Labour party says that it cares about that and that climate change is the biggest threat to our national security—its words, not mine—but it has a choice today: we can be three times more reliant on that dirtier LNG shipped across the Atlantic or shipped in from the middle east, or we could use our own gas with four times fewer emissions. Do the Government prefer virtue signalling and higher emissions under the Secretary of State, or more jobs and lower emissions under our plans to back the North sea?

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend, like me, feel sorry not only for all the consumers up and down the country who see billions of taxes that could be paid if we just produced more oil and gas here—that could be used to lower their taxes when they fill up their cars and travel to work—but for the two Ministers on the Front Bench, the hon. Members for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey) and for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)? Neither of them is an idiot, but they have been captured by an ideological Secretary of State who is literally making them swear that black is white.

[Claire Coutinho]

The two Ministers are Scottish MPs. They have been to industry, and they know what people in those areas are saying. They know the jobs that are being lost. It is so blindingly obvious that we should use things that we make in this country, rather than using dirtier imports from abroad. The question they need to ask themselves is, why is it that their Secretary of State cannot see the truth?

Fifthly, the Government say that new fields will take too long to get up and running. That is dangerous, short-termist rubbish. Jackdaw and Rosebank could be up and running by Christmas. They have been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk gathering dust. The Government are hiding behind the process. I was part of the process, and it is in the Secretary of State’s gift—it is up to him to make the assessment. We are in an energy crisis, and he could speed things up if he chose to do so. Jackdaw alone could produce enough gas to heat more than 1.5 million homes. Labour’s Chancellor commended Norway and Canada for drilling more—[Interruption.] That is what she said last week. She said that

“every country has got to play their part”

by generating more oil and gas. Government Members should ask themselves why their party position seems to be to support the oil and gas industry anywhere but Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

As the hon. Member will know, the price of gas and oil is set on an international market and, as I have said, extracting more from the North sea would not make a penny’s difference to the price in this country.

The North sea is a super-mature basin that accounts for around 0.7% of global oil and gas production. Production has been naturally falling for more than 20 years, which means that our North sea no longer has the reserves available to support domestic energy demand. Crucially, any new licences now would not make any difference to people’s energy bills because, regardless of where it comes from, oil and gas is sold on international markets, where we are price takers, not price makers.

[Graham Stuart]

If we were to accept the argument that it would make no difference to the international price—notwithstanding the fact that there are global markets and that supply and demand leads to much lower prices in some places than in others—we are still talking about billions of pounds in forgone taxes, which could be used to reduce prices, to reduce VAT and to reduce all sorts of impositions on the British people, saving not pennies but many pounds on ordinary people’s bills. That is true, isn’t it, Minister?

[Martin McCluskey]

The Conservatives want us to remove a tax that is contributing £12 billion to the Exchequer, funding our public services and allowing us to invest in our schools, hospitals and other public services. If they oppose that funding, they need to come forward with their own proposals. The only route to energy security and lower bills is to get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets over which we have no control, and on to clean home-grown power over which we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

The Chancellor has had discussions with industry and will continue to do so, and that is the right and appropriate way to conduct these decisions. I was pleased to be in Aberdeen a couple of weeks ago talking to the same workers that the right hon. Member mentions. Of course, we need to do as much as possible to ensure that oil and gas workers are properly protected through this transition, but we must not lose sight of the great potential, for example, in floating offshore wind, which will also provide a significant future for his constituents and people across Scotland.

As I was saying, the transition that is under way is the only way to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels and build a more secure energy system. Following a consultation with businesses and communities last autumn, we set out the steps we are taking to unleash the North sea’s clean energy future. That plan recognises our world-class energy workers and supply chains and the importance of supporting them through that transition.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister has been most generous in giving way. He will know that Harbour Energy was the single largest producer in the North sea—it is leaving. He will know that it has been devastating for so many workers in the industry. He will also know that, by all projections, in 2050 this country will still be dependent on oil and gas in all scenarios. Yet, by not doing new licences, we will by definition be more dependent on foreign supply, much of it having to come through the strait of Hormuz. How can that make any sense? I do not think the Minister thinks it does, but I suppose he is forced to stand on his feet and repeat the nonsense that comes out of the mouth of his Secretary of State.

[Martin McCluskey]

I am more than capable of forming my own conclusions, and what is in this speech are my own conclusions. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what I have had to say throughout this speech. Harbour Energy is continuing to operate. He talks about dependence. The dependence that we see at the moment is dependence on fossil fuels and on oil and gas, which has left every single one of our constituents across this House exposed to volatile oil and gas prices and to higher prices. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the only way out of that is to get off this rollercoaster of fossil fuels and on to home-grown energy where we can control the price. That is a responsible action from a Government who are focused on the long term and not the short term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

Well, I can answer that very quickly, because many of them are in my family and among my friends. The shadow Secretary of State said before that she had visited Aberdeen. I found it extraordinary that when the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), mentioned the fact that jobs in oil and gas extraction fell by a third between 2014 and 2023, she would not even acknowledge it—she looked stunned. Well, I can tell her that for workers in that area, those job losses were painful. Every bust has been painful, and she should acknowledge that, rather than pretending it did not even happen. People who are working in that industry deserve a proper strategy for their future, not magical thinking and empty sloganeering.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will make some progress, then I would be happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

The long-term trend very clearly is for the growth of low-carbon offshore industries. That has not been the case for North sea oil and gas. Research at Robert Gordon University—just to let the shadow Secretary of State know, that is based in Aberdeen, the city that she visited—has shown that nine in 10 of the UK workforce in oil and gas have medium to high skills transferability and are well positioned to work in the adjacent energy sector. Hydrogen, carbon capture, wind and other renewables are critical to sustaining high-skilled jobs in both engineering and manufacturing. We urgently need to boost those technologies with an active labour market strategy. That is what will secure the future of those high-technology, safety-critical jobs.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who is being very generous in giving way. She is nearly making the right point, which is that the people who work in oil and gas need the transition. This Government are pulling the rug from under them. Hydrogen, carbon capture, floating offshore wind and other developing technologies—even tidal—are not growing quickly enough and fast enough to give those people jobs. That is the point. The Government are destroying the very engineering capability we need for the transition and putting up emissions while doing so, by having imports instead of domestic production. It is mad.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I have a lot of respect for him, but surely he will have seen the figures on the relative growth of the renewables industry in the UK compared with other industries. Those people see that there is now a long-term plan for that industry from this Government. That was not the case before—there was not that certainty there before. I want to see renewed, deepened engagement, particularly with the workforce and the trade unions representing them, and a move towards the active labour market strategy that we need, but to suggest that we are not on the right trajectory now after so many years of neglect is, frankly, laughable.

I want to end on this point. Even setting aside the lengthy lead-in time for new drilling, expanding it would not shield our country from oil and gas price shocks, because the price is set internationally. The shadow Secretary of State did not even acknowledge that. She spoke about imports, but she did not talk about prices, because she knows the reality. We need to stop distant conflicts impacting household bills in the UK. We need to get bills down, not keep them artificially high. We need cheap green tech and scaled-up clean power. We do not need the kind of cheap political posturing represented by the Opposition motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained.

I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any of the Government Members, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous! The Conservatives are suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the North sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case of the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), in that. This is lunacy made flesh.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

On the subject of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), it was a shame that she did not take my intervention, because she may have been able to answer this question. She was very keen to talk about what happened under the Conservative Government and how we need to have renewables, but does my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) find it incredulous that at no moment did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations? He said that he was not going to invest in something that would not come along until 2022.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

You can’t intervene on an intervention!

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is right. I was incredulous when listening to the incredible things that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said.

Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain in this country, in oil and gas. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.

I return to the point about price, because Labour colleagues put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price and we have to take that price regardless. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) interjected earlier, in the United States, the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of the price that it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference. Relying on LNG means that we have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships and put it into specialist infrastructure to bring it into the UK gas grid, which all costs money. It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority, that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the comments made by Greg Jackson, the founder of Octopus Energy, who said that importing LNG has a greater carbon footprint than extraction from the North sea? Does he also agree that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are now acknowledging that the renewables market is itself not competitive?

[Graham Stuart]

For the purposes of today, I will leave aside the renewables market, but I notice that RenewableUK agrees with the chief executive of Octopus Energy that it is crazy, along with the heads of the unions responsible. They all agree that this is crazy.

There is going to be a U-turn, and we are going to have the comic sight of the poor Minister on the Front Bench—a very likeable and very competent Minister—coming to this House to explain why the exact opposite of what he is arguing today is now the truth. That is going to happen, and it has to happen, because if the Government do not U-turn, we will lose jobs, tax revenue and energy security. I notice that those are the three qualities that are in the motion, because they are the vital things that we are missing by not drilling for oil and gas in the North sea while we continue to import it. We are importing more, with higher emissions than if we produced it here, and the net result is that we do not consume or burn a single drop less of oil or gas. The Labour party’s position is untenable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

Absolutely. If we want to make fertiliser or other industrial gases in this country, we need natural gas to power those processes. There is no other way—the chemistry simply does not exist to create the gases we need without using natural gas. As such, although I absolutely support transitioning towards net zero and towards electricity, we have to recognise that great swathes of our industries simply cannot do so, and if they can, they do not have the capital to make the research and development investments that are necessary. We cannot yet fire a kiln with hydrogen in this country. We cannot get a stable supply of electricity to kilns in this country, not least because in the places where those factories are, such as Stoke-on-Trent, the grid capacity to do the hook-up simply does not exist and will not exist for generations to come.

When we talk about the transition towards net zero and more electrical generation, what are we going to say to the places that cannot do it? When we say, “It’s all going to be done through renewable energy”, what message do we send to workers in Stoke-on-Trent and in Denby in Derbyshire whose sector simply cannot transition away from gas? I want there to be more renewable energy. I want that technology to exist, but it is not there yet, and every time we forget that, we are talking about writing off jobs and livelihoods in the places that need them most.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Very briefly.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to see the hydrogen storage and transport model issued by the Government as quickly as possible?

[Gareth Snell]

Hydrogen has to be part of the future mix. Some very interesting tests are being done in Germany, where hydrogen is being mixed with gas to power some kilns and energy-intensive processes. That technology is very expensive, though, and most companies in the UK cannot afford it—only a handful can—so, yes, we need that investment strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

I am going to make some progress.

I can see, though, why distractions are so attractive to the Conservatives, because facing up to reality would mean facing up to the failure to deliver more on renewables, which we know would have reduced prices by about a third last year.

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise—he may not, because I know that some of the stuff he is fed by those on the Government Front Bench may not help him—that whereas only 6.5% of electricity came from renewables in 2010, the proportion was over 50% when we left power? He can criticise the Conservative Government all he likes, but suggesting that one of the greatest transformations and moves to renewables by any country in the history of the world was some kind of non-event is to mislead the House, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is an honourable man, would never seek to do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The right hon. Member is very experienced. He should say “inadvertently mislead the House”. We do not accuse colleagues of misleading the House. Would the right hon. Member like to correct the record?

[Graham Stuart]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I said anything to that effect, I withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades.

I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences.

My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face.

Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem.

The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this. The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that.

We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next.

The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.

[Graham Stuart]

The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker.

There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world. That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact.

Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future.

I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for.

The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills.

There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it. It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Heating Oil Support

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

I can confirm that LPG is included in the package, and guidance will be provided to local authorities to make it clear that it is for LPG as well as for heating oil. My hon. Friend referred to medically vulnerable people. They are eligible under the existing household support fund and the crisis and resilience fund if they fall into crisis. There is still a lot more that we have to do for people who are medically vulnerable. That is why the Government are taking action to look at how data can be better shared in order to ensure that medically vulnerable people can receive the support they need.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I welcome the Government coming forward with a proposal, but many of my constituents are facing £600 or £700 increases on bills that are coming immediately at them. The Minister cannot tell us today who exactly will be eligible for help—perhaps he can answer that. He cannot tell us how much they will actually get when they are looking at an increase of £600 or £700 on one bill just to fill up. He did not even seem to know which particular council is going to administer this help. Can he please give some clarity? Otherwise, we are getting the appearance of action and no real relief for most of my constituents.

[Martin McCluskey]

We are providing action quickly, while the previous Government waited nearly 200 days to provide action. The funding will be available from 1 April, as I said. The Minister for Local Government has today written to local authorities to inform them of the additional funding that will be available to them, but, as the right hon. Member will know, the funds are administered by local government. We are providing clear guidance to people and to local authorities that those funds should be available to people using heating oil and LPG.

Factored Energy Arrangements: Pricing

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I will call Graham Leadbitter to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister—you need both. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. We are trying to bring this debate swiftly to a close in order to allow the proposer to reach Scottish questions.

Energy

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to introduce a plan for cheap power by cutting public expenditure to remove the ‘Carbon Tax’ (UK Emissions Trading Scheme) from electricity generation and end Renewable Obligation subsidies; notes that the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world and the second highest domestic electricity prices; further notes that high power costs are holding back economic growth and making households poorer; believes that cheap energy is essential to enable economic growth, the expansion of the artificial intelligence sector and the electrification of heating and transport; further calls on the Government to stop the Allocation Round 7 auction, which will lock consumers into high energy bills for decades; also notes that three quarters of the UK’s energy needs are met by oil and gas, and recognises the vital contribution of the North Sea industry to the nation’s energy security, to skilled employment, and to the public finances through billions of pounds generated in tax revenue; notes that shutting down domestic oil and gas production would increase reliance on foreign imports with higher carbon emissions; and also calls on the Government to end the ban on new oil and gas licences and to scrap the Energy Profits Levy in order to maximise investment in that sector.

Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills for everyone by 20%, and under it, we take a common-sense approach to British energy security by backing the North sea. The plan recognises that the biggest problem the country faces is the cost of our electricity. It is a problem for living standards, for industry, for artificial intelligence and for electrification. The focus of any Government should be making electricity less expensive, not more expensive, as Labour’s plans will. They should be about making electricity cheap. Under our cheap power plan, we would axe the carbon tax—which has gone up by 70% this year under Labour, pushing up everybody’s energy bills—and scrap the renewable obligation subsidies, which result in some wind farms get three times the market price for electricity.

I would like to start by thanking the Liberal Democrats, who came out this morning as backing the second part of our plan. I would also like to thank Reform, which appears to have copy and pasted the plan wholesale, and the Tony Blair Institute, which just two weeks ago said that we need to ditch Labour’s disastrous clean power plan in favour of a cheap power plan that takes off carbon taxes. That sounds familiar.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Even before my right hon. Friend came into the Department and asked for a whole-system energy cost analysis when I was the Energy Minister, our strategic objective was to be among the countries with the cheapest electricity prices in Europe by the 2030s. Does she have any idea why the Labour party has now dropped that as a strategic objective?

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is so knowledgeable on matters to do with energy. He is right: the only people who have not got the message are Labour Members, who are on the wrong side of this debate. The Secretary of State promised to cut bills by £300, but bills have gone up by £200 since the general election. I warned Labour Members over and over again that this would happen, but they did not listen. Now, under their plans, energy bills will keep on rising. They might not want to hear that from me, but they should listen to the trade unions, or to energy bosses, who came to Parliament just a few weeks ago and, in a bombshell moment, said that even if gas prices went to zero, bills would still rise because of Labour’s plans. I would hazard a guess that their view is shared by the Prime Minister, given that he tried to sack the Secretary of State at the last reshuffle. What does the Prime Minister know that these guys don’t, I wonder?

Our electricity is already some of the cleanest in the world, but it is also the most expensive. If we want people to adopt electric cars or electric home heating, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want artificial intelligence or industry to succeed in this country, we need to make electricity cheap. If we want people to have a better standard of life, so that they can spend more money on their families than on their bills, we need to make electricity cheap. Our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, and not just for a favoured few, whereas Labour is pushing up bills for 22 million families to give handouts to 6 million. Our plan would cut bills for everybody—households and businesses. It would mean £165 off the average family’s bill, but even more if they spend more—and we could do it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

I have mentioned the war in Ukraine in 2022, but this was not a crisis caused only by the war in Ukraine. It was a crisis caused by 14 years of under-investment—as I just said there, it was dither and delay.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister talked about honesty, which is ironic given where he sits at the moment, in the Government of which he is a member. The Minister is better than this. He was talking specifically about renewables. Less than 7% of our electricity came from renewables in 2010, and by 2024 the figure was approximately 50%. To suggest that the Conservatives did not transform and improve our renewable energy is a falsehood, and because I know he is a better man than this, I am sure the Minister will now withdraw the allegation he made.

[Martin McCluskey]

The Conservatives are turning their back on the policy they followed for 14 years, which the shadow Secretary of State supported for years.

Bills did not rise because we built too many solar farms or wind turbines. As the Conservatives’ motion helpfully points out, we are still dependent on oil and gas for three quarters of our energy. Bills rose precisely because they did not build enough clean, home-grown energy. They were not ambitious enough. They buried their heads in the sand and accepted the status quo.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin McCluskey]

We have been net importers of oil and gas since 2004. The Conservatives are making the precise point for us. We want to reduce the reliance on imports and we want to reduce the reliance on oil and gas by building clean, home-grown energy here in Britain.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Martin McCluskey]

One moment—the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress.

We have been investing billions in carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. We are also providing up to £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure that the existing workforce benefits from new opportunities in new industries, including through the oil and gas transition training fund, which provides thousands more offshore workers with bespoke careers advice and training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

That is not the case. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning two of the sources of the additional income that we would raise. It is all very well just to blandly say, “We will get the money from somewhere,” but not to say where. The Liberal Democrats have said where we will find the money. His party has done nothing of the sort. The people who support sound money and wise economics are leaving his party in droves, and many of them are coming to the Liberal Democrats.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

I will not because we need to let other people speak later.

Given the Conservatives’ record in government and the complete lack of detail about which spending they would cut, it is very rich that they are asking us for details—we have given some. Once upon a time, the Conservatives did not believe in the magic money tree, but today their plans seem to rest entirely on its fictional bounty. The only other part of their plan that would supposedly bring down bills is the scrapping of the current auction of new renewable projects altogether.

Let us remember what that would actually mean. It would cut between £11 billion and £15 billion of private investment in cheap, clean power.

[Tim Farron]

The right hon. Lady says that it is not cheap. Over the lifetime of the projects, yes, it is cheap. Does the Conservative party not understand that the up-front costs are one thing, but the input costs over time—over 20 years—are as cheap as chips? This is basic economics, and I struggle to comprehend how a party that was in government for so many years has lost touch with reality so very quickly.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Tim Farron]

I will not.

That would be a disaster for our economy, our communities and our young people. Far from bringing down energy bills, it would make us even more reliant on imported fossil fuels, which are expensive. Energy bills skyrocketed in the past few years because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That shows what a truly terrible idea this is. What happened to the Conservative party being the party of national security? That idea is long gone, too, alongside its commitment to sound money. Putin would profit, while British families and pensioners struggle.

The whole argument being put forward by the Conservative party, and by our habitually absent colleagues on the fourth row back, is that bills are too high because we are investing too much in renewable power. They say that we should stop investing, scrap our climate commitments, and bills will magically come down, but it is just not true. It is not the price of renewables that is pushing up bills; generating electricity from solar or wind is now significantly cheaper than gas, even when we factor in extra costs for back-up power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. However, people are not seeing the benefit of cheap renewable power, because wholesale electricity prices are still tied to the price of gas, even though half of all our electricity now comes from renewables, compared with just 30% from gas. That is because the wholesale price is set by the most expensive fuel in the mix, which in the UK is almost always gas. That is not the case in some other countries in Europe such as Spain and France.

[Graham Stuart]

As this is supposed to be a debate, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tim Farron]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very persistent—go for it.

[Graham Stuart]

One of the hon. Gentleman’s fantastical suggestions is that he has a way of breaking the link between gas and electricity prices. I do not know which model he wants to follow—that of China, or perhaps a Korean model—but will he please explain how exactly we do that? When I was the Energy Minister, I looked to see whether that could be done, and we could not find a way of making it work. I am really interested to see the Liberal Democrats’ detailed work, and for them to explain it to the House.

[Tim Farron]

That the right hon. Gentleman was the Energy Minister makes me question the selection standards of the previous Prime Minister. How far do we need to look? The channel is not that wide. Look at France and Spain. France has nuclear, and Spain has renewable energy—[Interruption.] If people stop chuntering, I will explain. In Spain and France there is no reliance on gas, partly because of nuclear in France, and in Spain it is down not to nuclear but entirely to renewables. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked not very far away at the other side of the Bay of Biscay down in Spain, he would see that it is entirely possible. How do we decouple ourselves from reliance on gas? It is blindingly obvious: do not make it so that we have to rely on gas, and invest in renewables—it is so obvious that it is almost beyond belief that people who held that brief not long ago do not get it. Investing in cheap renewables, and making sure that people see the benefit in their bills—that is the answer.

The Conservative’s plan would rip up our crucial national commitment on climate change. I will not repeat quotations from previous Prime Ministers such as Baroness May of Maidenhead and Boris Johnson—Boris Johnson, now a moderate and a progressive by comparison, which is utterly stunning. It is distressing that the Conservative party has left behind traditional voters who do care about the environment and our economy.

Communities such as mine bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, as well as farmers whose businesses are blighted by ever-lengthening droughts and ever more severe floods. Communities such as Kendal, Burneside, Staveley, Appleby, and Grasmere are experiencing appalling flood damage. In just three weeks, we will note the 10th anniversary of Storm Desmond, which did hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of damage to our communities, and devastated lives, homes and communities. An apparently once-in-200-years event happened only a few years after two once-in-100-years events. It is obvious that things are changing; do not dare to tell Cumbrians that climate change is not a clear and present danger.

Fuel poverty is worse in our area too, and 27% of our housing stock was built before 1900. Those homes have solid walls, and are hard to insulate and expensive to heat. North Westmorland has the least energy-efficient housing in the whole of England, with 17% of homes classed as either F or G, but we are well placed to provide the solutions. Our coastal waters hold huge amounts of latent energy, yet like the rest of the UK they are largely untapped for tidal power. Britain has the second highest tidal range on the planet after Canada, and we are making use of nearly none of it—what an absolute waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Lewin]

As I will go on to say, I am telling them that investing in a decarbonisation scheme and having warm homes is exactly the way that we get bills down. Just last week, I met Tina in Hatfield. Tina is a council house resident, and she benefited from the social housing decarbonisation scheme. Her home was retrofitted last year, with new insulation, triple glazing and a host of other improvements, and she is thrilled with the results. She told me, most importantly of all, that last winter, her monthly energy bill fell from £140 to £67 a month.

Tina’s experience proves that we can cut emissions and cut costs. It also proves that there is not a fight between fighting climate change and providing support with the cost of living; the two can and must work together. That is precisely why our Labour Government have expanded the social housing decarbonisation scheme, and why I am proud that funding for wave 3 will see more than 600 council homes in Welwyn Hatfield brought up to energy performance certificate rating C by 2028.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Under the last Conservative Government, we went from 7% to nearly 50% renewables. We cut emissions more than any other major economy on earth, but as has been said, we also saw electricity prices go very high. When I was the Minister responsible for net zero, we were looking at heat, transport and industry, and the fundamental way of decarbonising each of those is through electricity. How can we decarbonise them if we keep driving electricity prices ever higher? I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ideological fervour, but we have to get prices down if we are to take a balanced approach that looks after families and decarbonisation.

[Andrew Lewin]

I recognise that improvements were made by the last Government, but if the right hon. Gentleman is listening carefully—I am sure he is—he will hear that that is the theme of my speech, and of comments from Government Members. It is so sad to see the Conservative party walk away from the Climate Acts and from being a party that takes these issues seriously. That is the sad thing, and that is what matters.

Hundreds more families in my constituency are about to enjoy the same experience as Tina, meaning that they can live in warmer homes and have dramatically lower energy bills. Upgrading our homes is the right priority; it is yielding results, and will continue to do so, but it will take time to scale that up across the country. The same is true of our investment in new nuclear power, the continued growth of all forms of renewables, and mandating that from 2027, every new home must have solar panels on the roof.

In parallel, the Government are right to recognise the urgency of now. Energy bills are down from their peak, but they are still significantly higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, so it is absolutely right that we have targeted plans to ease the pressure on families on lower incomes this winter through the warm home discount scheme, which will reach 2.7 million families across the country and around 11,000 families in Welwyn Hatfield.

The Conservative motion reflects the sad journey of the Conservative party. At best, they are ignoring climate change; at worst, they are playing to the climate sceptics, who might be plentiful on Elon Musk’s X, but there are very few of them in this country or, I suspect, in the constituencies of Conservative Members. In contrast, this Labour Government are absolutely right to invest in warm homes, to back renewable energy and to declare that tackling climate change is, and will remain, a national priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their contributions in this short but punchy debate this afternoon. This issue of how we build an energy system for the future has rightly become a huge political topic—a conversation not just in this House but much more in the public domain than it has been for some time. Energy is hugely important, and that is why it is even more important that we rise to the occasion to plan a future energy system that works for everyone in this country and that is based on a credible long-term plan, not on what we saw from the Conservatives today.

It has been an interesting debate, not least because quite a lot of it seemed to contain the echoes of the Tory party of late debating with itself. We had mentions of Boris Johnson and Baroness May, and I think we have doubled the number of visitors to the shadow Minister’s website just in the past half hour. Of course, there are plenty of quotes to go around. We do not need to go right back to the dim and distant Boris Johnson days. We can go back just to 2023, when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said that

“the climate transition presents huge opportunities for this country and the people of this country when it comes to jobs, investment and improving our energy security.”

She apparently does not believe in any of that now. She said in the same speech:

“We are not rolling back from our targets at all”—[Official Report, 16 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 114-115.]

However, she stands here today and proudly seems to dismiss all those targets.

I was particularly pleased to hear from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) earlier. He seems to be the only person left in the Conservative party who is willing to defend 14 years of investment in renewables. Everybody else in the party wants to turn their back on that investment, but I am delighted that he is here, in this debate and in many others, to remind us of his contribution.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is a thoughtful person, and I think he will share the concern about North sea oil and gas, for instance. On the specific topic of renewables, we are proud of what we did, but under the Climate Change Act—which has no cognisance of what happens to the economy; it is just decarbonisation or bust—we now have extraordinarily high electricity prices. We need to decarbonise heat, transport and industry, and the main way to do that is by electrification, which puts us in a bind. That is why I believe we are right to look at getting rid of the Climate Change Act and look at a new, balanced system that recognises that we must balance economics with the righteous move towards tackling climate change.

[Michael Shanks]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman was able to have another opportunity to speak positively about the Conservative party’s record on renewables when no one else in his party seems to want to talk about that at all.

A number of hon. Members said that the reason we are still subject to the volatility of gas prices is that it still sets the price far too often. The only way that we will bring down prices in the long term is by removing gas as the price setter. That means that we need to build more renewables, but another key point that the Conservatives have missed is that they built lots of those projects while not building the grid to connect them. They talk about constraint payments, but that is the legacy of a party that for 14 years failed to build the grid that would bring significantly cheaper power to homes and businesses across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received any notice of a statement on this matter, but the Treasury Front Benchers will have heard what he has said and will no doubt share that information. Other parliamentary mechanisms are available for pursuing such matters. I am sure that the Table Office will be able to assist the hon. Member, if he needs further advice.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope it is not a continuation of that point of order, because I have made my statement clearly.

[Graham Stuart]

The Prime Minister is of course responsible for the enforcement of the ministerial code. If he has breached it, as appears to be the case, is there a role here for Mr Speaker? What other methods are there, not just for securing a debate on the matter in this place, but for the Prime Minister to be held to account for not doing what he is supposed to have done, and what his ethics adviser said he should have done?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Member is incredibly experienced, and will no doubt know that the ministerial code is not a matter for the Chair. He will obviously pursue all avenues available to those in the House—there are many—to continue this conversation.

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of recognising that the most important thing to get right is the transition of workers. I have said that in other answers. That requires us to recognise that a transition is under way, and to put in place a plan, which has not happened in the past decade, during which we lost more than 70,000 workers in this industry. It is really important that we grapple with those issues, and it will not be easy. The starting point is to bring together everyone with an interest in this, as I have done—everyone from the trade unions and industry to those making the green investment that is driving this forward—to make sure that we deliver on jobs, and to make sure that training and support are in place, so that workers can transition. He raises an important point.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Grangemouth, it was not breaking news that Grangemouth was in a precarious position, and the previous Government could have done more to ensure a just transition there. I met the investment taskforce yesterday, along with my colleague Gillian Martin, the Energy Minister in the Scottish Government, to look at the prospects for the sites. There are some interesting propositions coming forward; there are 84 bids in total for £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, and I hope that we will have good news on jobs and investment in Grangemouth soon.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his briefing yesterday, but there is a pattern developing, is there not? Some 800 jobs were created every single day in the 14 years of the Conservative Government, but unemployment has gone up every single day under this Labour Government. Some 400-plus jobs have been lost at Vivergo, on the north side of the Humber, and perhaps 600 jobs will be lost directly, and others lost indirectly, on the south side of the Humber. Can the Minister reassure those affected that this Government will not destroy our industrial base, and that there is a future for us, because it looks like we are heading in the wrong direction?

[Michael Shanks]

I will avoid the wider political points in a week when workers are finding out about job losses, because that is obviously devastating for them. I will just say that the Government have published their industrial strategy, and this is the first time the country has had an industrial strategy in a very long time. [Interruption.] Well, let us say a credible industrial strategy, if the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) thinks he had one before. Again, I ask him to present it to me. We are investing in the industries of the future, and delivering thousands of jobs on the Humber and right across the country. We are making sure that investment comes forward in jobs for the future. [Interruption.] The problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s point is that his party opposes that investment. It opposes the very thing that will deliver the jobs of the future, and I am afraid that is simply an untenable position. Either he is for or against investment in jobs; he has to say which it is. The industrial strategy is the way to deliver that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

As someone who grew up in Luton, I am not sure I am allowed to say that I love Watford, because there is an age-old rivalry there—but yes, we know that acting now with our clean energy superpower mission, scaling up renewables, reinforcing the grid and reducing our reliance on volatile fossil fuel markets will mean a cleaner, more secure future for generations to come. That is why, unlike the Conservatives, we are following the science and showing the leadership that is needed at home and abroad.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Around Beverley, there are proposals for five solar farms, totalling 465 MW. Can the Minister assure my constituents that the scientific evidence that will be used to assess this will include the cumulative impact of these projects on the area around Beverley?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Yes, of course we look at the cumulative impact of these developments. Having been in the Department, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have an excellent team of scientists led by Professor Paul Monks, who I want to pay tribute to because he is standing down later this year. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want to do so too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We have been listening to industry voices, and they are very clear about the opportunities for stronger alignment. We will continue to engage with them, and with our partners in the EU on the opportunities as we make the sprint to clean power.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Since the last oral question time for the Department, the spending review announced the largest investment in clean energy in our country’s history—investment in new nuclear; in carbon, capture and storage; and in hydrogen transport and storage. We are investing £8.3 billion through Great British Energy and £13.2 billion in our warm homes plan for energy security, lower bills and good jobs.

[Graham Stuart]

Evidence from the National Grid, Ofgem and Imperial College London shows that locational or zonal pricing would save billions of pounds a year, lower bills and reduce the need for expensive and often unpopular grid infrastructure. Why has the Secretary of State ruled it out?

[Ed Miliband]

I made a comprehensive statement to the House on this last Thursday, and the grounds for the decision are these: first, there is the question of fairness, and secondly, there is the question of the cost of the transition and what would happen in the meantime. We need investment in our clean energy infrastructure, and we need investment in growth. I believe that our way—reformed national pricing—is the right way forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities will have a critical role to play in our warm homes plan. Under our warm homes schemes, we are offering substantial support to enable low-income households to transition to clean heat. For example, our warm homes social housing fund allows grant recipients to receive an additional £7,500 clean heat upgrade, and under our warm homes local grant, £15,000 is being provided on top of the baseline to enable all households, particularly low-income households, to benefit from clean heat.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I know how on top of her brief the Minister is, so will she confirm that fewer than a third of council homes had an energy performance certificate C rating in 2010 compared with over 70% by last year? Less than 12% of homes in the UK had decent insulation in 2010 when Labour last left office and when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, was in power, and more than 50% did by the time we left office. Will she commit to a faster rate of improvement under this Government than we ever saw under the previous Labour Government?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I welcome the right hon. Member’s commitment to our plans to upgrade homes. However, he is trying to rewrite history, because when we look at the record of the previous Government, we see many failures, but the most abject and egregious was the failure to insulate enough homes to ensure that households were protected from price rises. That is the Conservatives’ legacy, and it is one we are determined to turn around. That is why we are committed to upgrading millions of homes across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right. Of course, the Great British Energy legislation is still going through Parliament at the moment; we hope that process will conclude soon, but in the meantime, hard work has been taking place to identify all the opportunities for Great British Energy to invest. Both Opposition parties—the SNP and the Conservatives—seem to oppose Great British Energy. Every single investment that it makes, every job that it creates, and every part of the supply chain that it incentivises will be delivered by Great British Energy against the SNP and the Conservatives, who have opposed it at every single stage. I ask them to rethink their position on what is a publicly owned champion to deliver for communities, create good, well-paid jobs, and deliver the clean power future that we need as a country.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We heard from the chief executive officer of Great British Energy the other day. He said that it was not in his brief to cut bills by £300. What is Great British Energy for, then? It turned out that the jobs were not going to materialise either, so how will the Government make sure that we do not have some bureaucrat job-creation scheme in every region of the country, as the Minister’s Back Benchers are calling for, but actually have a company that invests in things that otherwise would not be invested in? Technologies such as wind and solar are already investable, so will Great British Energy focus on those things that need to be brought closer to market?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman strongly makes the case for the importance of a publicly owned energy champion investing in parts of the energy system that are not currently getting that investment; I appreciate his recognition of that. What the interim chair of Great British Energy said very clearly—of course, it has not appointed a CEO yet—and what we have said consistently is that Great British Energy’s headquarters in Aberdeen will of course create jobs, but the majority of the jobs that will be created by that investment will come from the investment that Great British Energy makes in supply chains, in projects, and in developing the clean power that we need. Great British Energy will champion the industries that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about and deliver jobs in this country to reindustrialise communities, and Conservative Members will have to explain why they are against those jobs when they are created, including if they are created in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.

The draft regulations were laid before the House on 28 November 2024. As heat networks have not yet been debated in this Parliament, I want to say a few words about the context for the draft regulations. Some 23% of the United Kingdom’s carbon emissions come from heating buildings, so decarbonising heat is key to reaching our net zero commitments and to reducing our reliance on international fossil fuels as we sprint to clean power by 2030. Heat pumps and heat networks are the two principal technologies that we believe will achieve that.

We believe that heat networks will be key to reducing bills for the next generation. Their energy can be drawn from large, efficient heat pumps or even from heat that would otherwise be dumped into the air, such as from data centres and waste incinerators. Heat networks, which have been proven internationally to provide affordable low-carbon heat, are especially suited to dense urban areas. The Government therefore expect that about 20% of the UK’s heat demand will be met by heat networks by 2050, up from 3% today. I have visited Mersey Heat in Liverpool and seen at first hand the huge potential of heat networks, not just to benefit consumers but, critically, to regenerate our urban centres.

Alongside growing the market for heat networks, we need to ensure that the 470,000 households supplied by heat networks today, as well as the many households that will be connected in future, can receive a fair deal as the market grows. One of the biggest barriers is that heat networks are inconsistently regulated. As people on heat networks cannot change their supplier, heat networks are effectively a monopoly with a captive market, which makes it harder to ensure that consumers are treated fairly. Through lots of conversations with consumer groups and through Government-commissioned research, we can identify gaps where the current market is not providing consumers with a fair service, heating is less reliable, suppliers are less transparent and it is harder for consumers to represent themselves or make complaints.

The current situation is clearly intolerable. These are not just consumers, but people trying to keep themselves healthy and warm and trying to live their life. I spoke to the Association for Decentralised Energy in October about the need to ensure that these people are at the very heart of the energy market transition that we need to make and at the very heart of how we think about heat networks.

The Energy Act 2023 provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations across Great Britain that will protect heat network consumers comparably to consumers of other regulated utilities. The draft regulations are the first step in introducing this regulatory framework. They will introduce an authorisation regime to be implemented by Ofgem, which will work in a similar way to the gas and electricity licensing regimes that Ofgem already regulates. They take an outcomes-based approach to reflect heat networks’ diversity of scale and their nascent market position.

The draft regulations will ban running a heat network without an authorisation. To phase in market regulation, existing heat networks will automatically be given an authorisation. The conditions for authorisation are set by either the Secretary of State or Ofgem and apply rules for running a heat network. Ofgem will be able to monitor compliance with the regulations and act where appropriate. Actions that Ofgem can take include issuing information notices for compliance data, investigating suspected non- compliance, inspecting commercial premises and issuing a range of orders to require remedial action. Consumer redress orders can also be issued to require that affected consumers be given compensation.

The draft regulations will require Ofgem to publish statements of policy on how powers are used. Penalties will be proportionate to the authorised person’s size and the scale of harm that their non-compliance has caused. Additionally, the draft regulations will give Ofgem powers to set standards of performance for heat networks, determining minimum performance levels of service provision to consumers.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Like the Minister, I have visited heat networks around the country and I think they have a significant part to play. She has told us what she expects the heat network contribution to be in 2050, but can she tell us what she expects it to be in 2030? What steps are being taken now, other than changing the regulatory environment, to encourage the take-up of more heat networks around the country?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are running at the roll-out of heat networks. We want to get to 20%—for me, that is the minimum level to reach by 2050—and we want to make huge progress in this Parliament. That means getting the investment framework right, so we are talking to industry and are thinking about what investment looks like so that we can scale it up in the UK. We are trying to create a regime in which local authorities can work in a co-ordinated way to incentivise the roll-out of heat networks in their patch. Critically, we are putting in a regulatory framework, because in the end we need consumers, whether they are commercial or domestic, to have faith and confidence that heat networks will deliver for them. The draft regulations are critical to showing people that a heat network is not just good for heating their home, but good for their pockets.

[Graham Stuart]

I appreciate the Minister’s enthusiasm. Can she put any kind of number on her expectation for this year and for the coming years until 2030? The year 2050 is a long way off, so I would like to know the trajectory and the Government’s priority now.