Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). While we do not always agree on everything, there are many things that we do agree on. I, too, would like to see the mass scale-up of renewables, but I also want to be pragmatic about where we are, some of things that we need to do, and what the Bill does.

The issue of energy is one that impacts every person in the UK, from the one-bed flat owner to the 200-bed hotel owner. The ability to secure safe and reliable energy is essential, and spiralling costs are having an effect on the day-to-day lives of people throughout the UK.

I think it is important that I make this point and perhaps explain where I am personally on the matter. I grew up, and others in the House are probably the same, in an age of throwing another jumper on. My children used to laugh at the stories I told them of how cold it had to be before the heating was turned on. For us today, it is no longer a laughing matter for many people. My researcher, who owns a modest home, had to put more than £250 of gas into her home in December. She was at home during term-time with the children. She tells me that the gas was not even running constantly; it was turned off whenever she went to visit her parents or her husband’s parents or went out. I thought of how much more a wee—I use that word often in the House as a descriptor—widowed pensioner would be paying in their home when they are there almost all day, every day. That figure is not one that their pension and a single winter fuel payment could cover. There are only so many jumpers that someone can put on, and a jumper does not help with a damp wall.

It is clear that the cost of energy dictates what steps we take to secure the current energy supply, while also striding for new alternative renewable energy sources. As many in this place will have heard me say on numerous occasions, tidal energy in Strangford lough and other such areas needs a great deal of funding. The pilot scheme worked, but it was at the wrong time because the cost of the energy that it produced was not financially feasible, but it would be now. If we can harness that power, which is as reliable as the sun rising in the morning, we are on to a winner. However, I understand that that is not the point of today’s debate and will leave it at that.

The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is in her place, and I know the Government have taken giant steps to meet the net zero targets and have committed themselves to green energy. I wish to put on the record that I am committed to the same targets as well, but we need to strike a balance. The balance that I put forward to the House—and I wish to make a declaration—is from my point of view as a farmer. We own land. My neighbours are all dairy men or farmers of beef, cattle and sheep. They are willing to commit themselves to the net zero targets because they see that net zero is something that must be done. As part of that target, they must reduce the number of their animals. That is not possible to do while continuing to have a feasible and financially viable farm. There are other things that the farmers wish to do.

In the countryside where I live there are not enough electric vehicle points, so people do not buy an electric or hybrid car, probably because all the EV points are up in Newtownards. I drive a diesel vehicle—have done all my days and, if I am spared, will probably continue to do so because I believe that it is a choice. It is a choice we may not wish to make every time, but is one that we have to make because electric cars are just not feasible because the EV points are just not there.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Farmers Union has been positive on many of these issues? Does he agree with what it says about hydrogen being a source of sustainable power in the future, and that it is coming soon?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend—I call him that because I have great respect for him—and agree wholeheartedly with what he has just said. The farming community, the NFU and the Ulster Farmers’ Union are clearly committed to the targets. They are committed to looking at the alternatives, but the alternatives have to be practical. The point I am trying to make is that it is about where things are practical.

There is no doubt that to meet not just our net zero target but, more importantly, our environmental obligations, we need to do a better job of accessing and using renewable energy fuels. However, the fact is we will simply not be there any time soon and, in the meantime, it is vital that we secure safety and security for our constituents. I support the aims of the Bill, which would enhance the procedures currently in place, and note that no financial hardship should be passed on through the Bill. That is vital as I know that households are struggling with the current pressures. No longer is it a matter simply for households in poverty, working families with decent wages are being affected.

It is a transition. It is about meeting our net zero targets and increasing green energy and renewables, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to. At the same time, the Bill gives us the opportunity to progress those renewables in a way that is positive in the short term.

The Library briefing makes it clear that licensing rounds are run when the NSTA decides they are necessary. However, it should be highlighted that they have been held broadly on an annual basis up to the 32nd licensing round, which opened in 2019. The latest—33rd—licensing round was launched in October 2022, following the introduction of a climate compatibility checkpoint in September 2022. In October 2023, 27 new licences were awarded as part of that licensing round. That is not onerous, but it is necessary not just to safeguard our industry by enhancing investor and industry confidence, as the Government have highlighted, but to ensure that we do not see families scraping pennies together to afford heat.

My contribution to the debate is clearly for those who are in energy difficulties. Today, the papers referred to food bank referrals being up some 30%. The food bank in my constituency of Strangford in my major town of Newtownards saw a 30% increase in referrals over December and early January from people who are middle class who are finding it difficult to deal with energy prices.

I know of several young families who usually enjoy a few days away when the kids are off at Christmas, and they told me that they were just not able to do it this year. People may say, “For goodness sake, they can’t go on holiday…” I am not saying that because it is their right to have that break, but I am highlighting the knock-on effect for families of increased prices is that they cannot afford to sow into the local economy in the way they used to. That means the little 20-bed hotel they usually visit does not get their business. The knock-on effect is that they do not hire the cleaner for as many hours. Her income drops, and she cannot spend the way she usually does, so the knock-on effects continue.

We need the people who spend locally to do so, and for them to do that, energy bills need to be manageable. We are failing when it comes to energy provision. If the Bill helps safeguard our provision as we continue to find better ways to source reliable renewable energy, I support that. When the Minister or Secretary of State sums up, if they could give us that reassurance, I would be a whole lot happier about this debate. Of course, we need to explore tidal energy, but safeguarding domestic production can go hand in hand with that. Indeed, it must do so. I am committed to renewables, green energy possibilities and net zero targets because the farming community that I live in want to commit themselves to that as well.

I support our families, our vulnerable, ill and elderly, and those living in cold, damp homes because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, I support the Bill on behalf of all those struggling to heat their homes and keep their families warm. We must commit ourselves to more renewables and ensure that the renewables percentage rises. If it rises, we can reduce gas and petroleum usage. By doing so, we can balance the process. That is what I am hoping for from the Minister’s reply; I hope we can deliver that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to emphasise again, and I will do so when he has finished, how important it is for those who have contributed to the debate to be here for the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hold a contrary position. I am proud of the fact that this country is open to inward investment and, indeed, attracts attention from some of the biggest companies in the world to invest in our future energy security and net zero objectives. Of course, in unveiling all these exciting announcements, as we did last week, at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve is to create those high-wage, high-skill jobs as we move forward across the United Kingdom, building up that supply chain, and tidal will be an important part of the mix as well.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that most progressive answer. The progress made in nuclear safety and the need for clean energy clearly indicate that the Government must invest in the security of this sector. That would lower energy costs and help us to meet our green targets, which we all want to meet and should meet. Will the Minister outline what progress has been made to secure this investment?

[Andrew Bowie]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, just last week we unveiled our civil nuclear road map. I committed to meet him and, indeed, anybody else from Northern Ireland to seek to build up the manufacturing and supply chain workforce in Northern Ireland, so that all parts of our United Kingdom can benefit from the once-in-a-generation investment that we are making right now.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

Again, I welcome my hon. Friend’s support and I thank him for hosting me on a visit to Dungeness—the fish and chips were exquisite. I agree that we will look at every site and possible site and judge them on the basis of what type of technology could be built there. That will benefit his community, communities around the country and the United Kingdom more widely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is great that the Government have outlined plans for the biggest expansion of nuclear power in 70 years to reduce energy bills, which so many of our constituents struggle with on a daily basis. Minister, I ask you this question because you admitted that Northern Ireland—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer directly to the Minister. Let us have another go.

[Jim Shannon]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. What provisions does the UK civil nuclear plan include to involve Northern Ireland? How will it ensure that the region’s perspectives and concerns are adequately taken into account in the development and implementation of nuclear politics and policies, so that we can create jobs and strengthen our economy at the same time as other areas in the United Kingdom?

[Andrew Bowie]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman champions his constituents and the people and economy of Northern Ireland. It is essential to me that every part of our United Kingdom benefits from this once-in-a-generation investment into new nuclear. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss how Northern Ireland and his constituents in Strangford could benefit from investment in skills and the supply chain. Deployment of nuclear capabilities is a devolved competency, but I would be happy to meet him to see what his constituents can get from this historic announcement.

Tidal Range Energy Generation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered tidal range energy generation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline.

The UK, more than any other country in the world, is uniquely positioned to harness the power of its tides. Ten per cent of the world’s tidal resources, and half of Europe’s, are found in Britain. Already well-developed plans for tidal range projects across the west coast promise to mobilise and deliver 10 GW of net zero energy, with the potential for 10 GW of additional capacity—enough to meet approximately 12% of the UK’s electricity needs over the coming decades, when, as a result of our efforts to decarbonise transport, heating and industry, demand for electricity is set to more than double.

While I want to approach this debate constructively, the Government’s ambition in supporting the development of new tidal range projects has been sorely lacking. Tidal range technology was excluded entirely from the Energy Act 2023, and the one reference made to tidal power in the 2022 energy security strategy—a commitment to “aggressively explore” the possibilities of tidal power—has not been delivered on. Although we see encouraging steps in the right direction, including moving towards the inclusion of tidal in the national policy statements on energy and the publication of guidance on tidal range on 18 December last year, much more still needs to be done.

In his correspondence with me dated 26 October, the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), stated that

“the government remains open to considering well-developed proposals for harnessing tidal range energy”,

but that

“any such proposal would need to demonstrate strong evidence of value for money in the context of other low carbon technologies.”

The issue of value for money has long been cited as the main obstacle to unlocking the potential of the UK’s vast tidal resources. Indeed, when the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy declined in 2018 to provide the proposed tidal lagoon project on Swansea bay with the price stabilisation mechanism that was needed to guarantee investor certainty, it was on the grounds that the levelised cost of energy was higher than that of low-carbon alternatives, including new nuclear.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I support the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this issue, which is really important for my constituency of Strangford. He has given the example of Swansea. Strangford lough has obvious potential for a tidal stream, which is why there was a trial there in 2008 with SeaGen. I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly at the time. It was a successful pilot scheme but did not seem to go any further. As energy prices have risen, the possibility of a new scheme is even more likely. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the devolved Administrations have a role to play in developing tidal stream and tidal range, which the Government should utilise so that we can all play our part in tidal energy?

[Mick Whitley]

Yes, I do. There are more examples of tidal energy to come. If the Government take cognisance of the points being made in today’s debate, hopefully some progress can be made.

The former Secretary of State’s decision was met with incredulity by many figures in the industry, coming as it did only 18 months after Charles Hendry’s independent review found that tidal lagoons could

“play a cost effective role in the UK’s energy mix”

and constituted

“an important and exciting new industry for the United Kingdom.”

In retrospect, and particularly in the light of the conclusions of the study undertaken at the University of Birmingham in 2022, which found that the Swansea tidal lagoon would have returned profits to the low-carbon contract company, the Government’s decision not to provide support for the Swansea bay project seems to have been seriously misjudged. It has deprived us of a credible pathfinder project of the kind advocated by Charles Hendry’s review.

However, I have not called this debate simply to revisit debates from a long time before either the Minister or I had entered Parliament. Today is not about looking backwards; it is about facing the future, and asking what we can do to guarantee our energy security in a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty and climate breakdown, and the role tidal range generation has to play in that process. In that vein, I ask the Minister and his colleagues to recognise that the fundamental question of value for money needs revisiting.

Principally, that means adopting a whole-systems approach when assessing cost-effectiveness. The levelised cost of energy can be a useful tool, but it can also be a blunt instrument when it comes to gauging the comparative costs of renewable and low-carbon energy sources that fails to take into consideration the additional costs of solar and wind generation caused by grid transmission constraints, rebalancing and storage.

It also fails to account for the fact that, uniquely for a renewable, tidal energy is a timetabled predictable resource, giving it an important role to play when seasonal factors interrupt supply from solar and wind. In my previous engagements on this issue, I have made the case that when a whole-systems analysis is made, the costs of tidal power are comparable to offshore wind and new nuclear.

I am sure the Minister will take great interest in the research currently being carried out by Jacobs for the British Hydropower Association, soon to be published, which confirms that analysis.

Grangemouth Oil Refinery: Energy Security

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

“Bathgate no more, Linwood no more, Methil no more, Irvine no more” sang the Proclaimers as they detailed the devastation caused by industrial closures and the hardship and emigration that followed. That was in the 1980s as Thatcher mercilessly shut the pits, decimating Scottish industry. Not just the many individuals who lost their jobs, but entire communities and the whole country suffered as de-industrialisation took root. The country has recovered but much has still been lost and for some it is irrecoverable, irreplaceable, or both. Scars remain and pain runs deep. The devastation will neither be forgotten nor forgiven. But is there now to be a new line of “Grangemouth no more”?

Scotland’s oil refinery stands threatened. Its closure would result in the perversity of an oil-producing nation lacking refinery capacity. I asked the House of Commons Library for research on oil-producing nations and refinery capacity. There are few nations which are oil producers yet lack refinery capacity. Norway has two refineries, and of those nations which lack a refinery capacity none are in the top 25 oil producers, as Scotland is. Instead, they are countries which neither produce as much oil as Scotland nor even have a developed economy. They are largely developing nations such as the Congo or Trinidad and Tobago, not a developed and industrial land like Scotland, which now faces the absurdity of being a major oil producer yet lacking refinery capacity.

If closure proceeds, Scotland will be getting treated like a developing nation: its raw product taken for a song and then sold back as a refined product, but at a premium to people and nation. Exploitation is what it is called. The Rosebank field and the North sea are to be the saviours of the UK economy, yet Scotland is to lose its refinery and face social and economic hardship as a result. Exploitation is what it is. That is what we will inherit if action is not taken.

Oil was first discovered in the 1960s and it would have made Scotland one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, but it was deliberately hidden from the Scottish people. That was to downplay expectations and diminish ambitions. Norway across the North sea has been transformed socially and economically by its oil resource, with a standard of living that Scots can only look at with envy and a sovereign wealth fund that Scotland can only dream of. Yet Scots have continually been told that the resource would soon be gone, and in 2014 at the referendum it was not just running out but even an impediment, a drain on an independent Scotland. Yet now it is at the heart of the UK’s economic recovery.

Although it has been rediscovered, what is in it for Scotland? As has been said, some nations discovered oil and made the desert bloom, but Scotland discovered oil and is seeing an industrial desert created in so many of its communities, and one could well now be Grangemouth. It is not just absurd but perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no oil refinery capacity. It is more than an economic argument; it is vital for economic security. War in Ukraine and conflicts in the middle east have shown the consequences. In the world in which we live, energy is essential and securing all aspects of the supply chain is common sense.

Let us look at the economic arguments and consequences of any closure. The loss and hardship would be significant for thousands, not just hundreds, sending shockwaves through industrial Scotland. The plant’s workforce is 500 but there are also some 2,000 contractors attached to it. Moreover, they are skilled jobs and their loss, as with past industry closures, will impact on future generations. Not only have current and past generations benefited from working there, but numerous apprentices were trained there, even if ultimately plying their trade elsewhere. We already have a skills gap; this would worsen it considerably.

Job losses would be significantly higher than those simply at the site. Closure would reverberate across industries clustered nearby because of the refinery. If it closes, many of them will also be lost. They are in a variety of sectors, whether chemicals, plastics or other fields. That is without even considering the huge number of individuals who depend on the site whether for their corner shop, as drivers or in other trades, both locally and from more distant parts. There is always a multiplier effect in any redundancy but, given the pivotal nature of the industry to the country’s economy and its impact across a swathe of sectors, it would be huge. Both the town of Grangemouth and all of Scotland would suffer. The knock-on effect would echo across the entire country as industrial closures did decades ago, whether the pits or car plants.

Grangemouth’s refinery is a national asset upon which our energy security and industrial economy depends. That is why it must be retained. There has been a refinery there for a century. It currently provides 70% of Scottish filling stations, as well as many in northern England. It is also the primary supplier of aviation fuel for Scotland’s airports—not an insignificant issue for an island nation with many remote island communities. As I have stated, energy security demands it.

We are seeking to transition from a carbon economy, but it must be a just transition and at a pace allowing our economy and society to adapt. The cumulative impact of closure might not be the 4% loss of GDP suggested by Petroineos, but even the 0.25% or 0.3% loss of GDP suggested by the Fraser of Allander Institute would be damaging enough. Where is the outrage and anger? Where is the ministerial statement here at Westminster or the call to action at Holyrood? Instead, there has been silence or sanguinity, hope that it just might not happen or, even more disgracefully, quiet resignation to its fate.

Thankfully, Unite the Union and the workforce are strenuously making the case, and I am grateful for their assistance and input. Closure is still only potential rather than actual, but the threat is real, and there has to be a balance between causing unnecessary alarm and taking urgent action. Unless action is taken now, disaster will befall Grangemouth refinery and the impact will be grave upon all—workers, the wider community and the entire nation.

What needs done? Ownership has changed over the years, and profitability has been affected by under-investment. No blame can be attached to the current or past workforce. Responsibility may also rest with previous owners other than PetroChina and INEOS, currently in charge. Steps can and must be taken to address the current profitability and buy time so that a transition can take place both at the site and across our economy. Moreover, there are also actions that will increase capacity and thus profitability and productivity. That means linking Scotland’s oil refinery with Scotland’s oil production. Finally, there is the just transition and the need to prepare for the new world. That can and must be done at this site.

Let us examine those three aspects that must be done. First, there is the need to fix the hydrocracker at the refinery. Its current inoperability is impacting on profitability. Restarting it would increase profitability threefold. That is significant, and would allow an extension of life at the plant, even without any additional steps being taken. It is estimated that it would cost between £60 million to £80 million to do so, but it must be done. The money must be found, whether from Westminster, Holyrood or the existing business. Surely, from all three, finance can be found. It is a small cost for such a huge asset that is essential to not just our economy but our society. After all, there is a moral as well as a financial economy. The price must not be paid by the individuals and communities who would suffer from its loss.

As well as restarting the hydrocracker, there should be an increase in capacity and in what is refined. It will surprise many that North sea oil is not refined at the Grangemouth refinery, despite the pipeline for the Forties field coming ashore at Cruden bay and being pipelined on to Grangemouth. Almost all the product refined at the plant is brought in on tankers from elsewhere. It comes in on ships and goes away in trucks. Meanwhile, North sea oil is transported to other refineries, whether in the UK or abroad. That must end. It has always been absurd, but now it is criminal. Oil from the Forties field pipeline, which last year moved approximately 40% of the UK’s oil from the North sea, must be refined at Grangemouth. It requires technological and engineering changes, but they must be made. As Rosebank comes on stream, and as the Forties continues to flow, refining must be at Grangemouth. Scotland is entitled to expect no less from its resource.

The Prime Minister has trumpeted the necessity of continuing to exploit North sea oil, and while I can take issue with the extent and pace of it, I agree with the logic. It is absurd to import oil when we have our own resource. Not only is it economic self-harm, but it is environmentally daft to transport it across the seas when it is off our shores. Why spew out the significant fumes of a supertanker by the hundreds of thousands when we can pipe the oil ashore? To achieve that requires ensuring that the oil is refined here, which it currently is not.

The hypocrisy of the Prime Minister’s position has been exposed by those who oppose development. Their arguments have legitimacy unless steps are taken to ensure that the resource is refined here, rather than having the environmental double whammy of transporting our product far away for refining and then having those ships cross with others importing refined product from elsewhere. The Forties field oil supply must be refined at the site, and the technical and engineering work to achieve that must be done. It is bad enough that ownership of the Rosebank field lies with the Norwegian state energy company, but to have that product refined abroad compounds the agony and the absurdity.

Finally, there needs to be preparation for the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Steps must be taken to prepare the site for biofuels, which will be required in the future. The sites to refine them need to be established. It makes sense to secure the short-term future of the site by restarting the hydrocracker. Similarly, extending the refinery’s capacity by ensuring that North sea oil is processed there is essential. Steps need to be taken towards that transition, which humanity is required to make for the sake of life itself, not just the planet. But it must be more than just warm words and empty rhetoric; it requires preparation and action. Making Grangemouth a future site for biofuels refining must be part of that.

In summary, securing the refinery is essential for Scotland, not just Grangemouth. The arguments for it are social, economic and environmental, and the case is overwhelming. It is simply perverse that an oil-producing nation should have no refinery capacity, or that an industrial desert be created where a natural bounty should see a country and its communities bloom. It is for those reasons that I ask the Minister to meet me and workers’ representatives from the site. Additionally, and most essentially, will he ensure that these three steps are taken? First, will he ensure that funds are found to restart the hydrocracker? Secondly, will he ensure that oil from the Forties field that is piped to Grangemouth is refined there, and that oil from new developments such as Rosebank will also be refined there, negating the environmental harm of the trans-shipment inward and outward of oil?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. Does he agree that the East Lothian oil refinery at Grangemouth is a necessity not only for Scotland, but for all the United Kingdom? It must stay open not in opposition to renewable targets, but in partnership with them.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Yes, I agree with that.

My final point is that as we transition, we must ensure that actions are taken at the site for that new future by ensuring a biofuels capacity there. We simply cannot have the absurdity of an oil-producing nation lacking a refinery capacity, never mind the perversity of the oil it produces being shipped across the seas for refining.

COP28

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which, as ever, is well informed and extremely reasonable. He is absolutely right. I visited the port of Nigg. I was interested to see nascent floating offshore wind work, fixed-bed offshore wind work and oil and gas work, and I wandered into a hall where they were making a large and sophisticated piece for Hinkley Point C, extraordinarily. That was all at Nigg.

The hon. Gentleman gets to the point about financing and whether the auction, which has been brilliant at lowering prices, has in fact helped drive too much of the industry out of this country. Behind the day job of transforming our generation, my passion will be to see how, without following some others with WTO-breaching local clauses, we can nudge and support more industry here. That is why we are bringing in sustainable industry rewards—non-price factors, in the jargon. We expect those to come in from allocation round 7 onwards as we work to make sure that we look after consumers first, while not missing any opportunity to utilise, maintain and grow jobs here. On offshore wind alone, our expectation—this is what the industry says—is that we will go from around 30,000 jobs in the industry today to more than 100,000 in the next six years. One of our biggest challenges is finding those people, training them and making sure we are ready to deliver them, as much as it is having more done here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for the positives in his statement and the significant targets that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is setting to achieve our goals. Some of the figures he has referred to are encouraging. I wholeheartedly support help for poor countries, as he will be aware. Will he outline the parameters of the loss and hardship fund that has been mentioned as they pertain to ensuring that the fulfilment of human rights obligations is in the requirements for any award?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his as ever gracious question. One of our disappointments—there were things we were disappointed with in the UAE consensus—was the watering down of elements we would have liked to see on human rights. He is right to highlight that. We have always wanted loss and damage to focus on the most vulnerable. The least financeable of all are people in an already parlous economic position, often at low scale, who are under threat from climate change. We hope that the funding that has been created for loss and damage can complement adaptation funding as well as mitigation work, and have climate justice at its heart. We have to look after the weakest and poorest on the planet. However unsympathetic the science, we have to ensure that policy recognises the realities for people all over the world.

Energy Costs and Charges

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is making a compelling case for Scotland. May I suggest to the Minister that there is also a compelling case for Northern Ireland? We have not had the opportunity to advance to the same level as Scotland, but we wish to do so. Does the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) agree that if we are to move forward, there has to be a joint strategy for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because we can and must all play our part? I envy what Scotland has done. We in Northern Ireland want to do the same.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Well, I prefer an independent strategy, similar to what Norway and Denmark are doing, but I concede that Northern Ireland is frequently ignored because so much of the gas grid is pan-Great Britain, rather than across the Irish sea.

Let us look at how Scotland’s resource is pooled and shared. I have detailed the 35 TWh rising to 124 TWh, but I have not explained that no payment is received for that resource. The energy is sent south, but there is no financial return to Scotland. Besides nothing being paid for it, there are now efforts to take it directly south with neither a bawbee nor a pretty please being given for it. Off south it is to go, and for no payment.

The Eastern HVDC—high voltage direct current sub-sea—transmission cables, also referred to as the Eastern Green Link projects, are the longest HVDC cables to be laid in the UK and will run from Peterhead to Redcar and from Torness to Drax. It is estimated that those links will take 5 TWh, or 5 billion kWh, of Scotland’s renewable energy source south, again with no payment. Additionally, the proposed Berwick Bank offshore wind farm in the firth of Forth will alone produce sufficient energy to supply more households than Scotland possesses, but a cable is proposed to be laid to take 40% of its energy directly south, again with no payment.

What about the sharing? Where is the benefit from the supposed broad shoulders of the Union? Where is the return for what we contribute? A recent question to the now Department for Energy Security and Net Zero asked whether consideration would be given to crediting domestic energy users in the localities where energy is produced and landed. After all, it is being produced onshore or offshore in Scotland, so we might have thought that some credit or benefit would accrue to Scotland, and it might even be cheaper there. But no—the answer was simply that it is a matter for Ofgem, which we know is a creature of statute and can act only within its set powers or as directed by Ministers. No such rules exist and no direction has been given. The energy is not only to go south for no payment, but no benefit is to accrue to Scotland from it.

There is talk of payments to those facing having pylons placed near them, but what about those who live in the land where the energy is being produced? Winter will soon be upon us. The weather is changing and the temperature is falling. The cold is being felt and the need to heat homes is increasing, but it is not simply heat but power that is required. Energy, and especially electricity, is needed not just to keep the cold at bay. It is required by the mother to wash her children’s clothes, keep them clean and uphold the standards she seeks to maintain. It is required by the parent seeking to power up an iPad or laptop to help their child’s education and advance their life chances. It is required by the worker charging their phone to allow them to find employment or do the additional hours that the Government want, or simply to keep body and soul together. More shamefully, it is also required by the sick, including those on dialysis and those recovering from cancer, whose immune systems are weakened and for whom warmth and power are a necessity for life, not a luxury for living.

Despite the fact that Scotland is energy rich, our people are fuel poor. Already more than a third of Scots have been assessed as being in fuel poverty. Even more shamefully, almost a quarter are in extreme fuel poverty.

COP28

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). She may be disappointed by what she hears from others, but she never disappoints with what she says in this House. We were in Pakistan back in February. We have an interest in issues relating to persecution and freedom of religious belief, and in how we can help through work on human rights. She is experienced and knowledgeable on the subject of water, and we visited some encouraging projects, but we were reminded of the impact in parts of the world where, unlike here, water is a scarce commodity.

I am very happy to speak in the debate, and I cannot believe it is again time for the annual COP meeting. This year it is in Dubai, where I am sure the weather will be much better than in the UK, given the storms we had recently. This year’s cross-cutting themes aim to address our main targets: technology, inclusion, finance and front- line communities.

It is great that we have the opportunity to discuss these issues. It is always a pleasure to provide a Northern Ireland perspective in debates in this Chamber and elsewhere, so that we have a united and joint approach to our climate change and net zero targets. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I was encouraged by some of the things he referred to, such as the targets met and the goals achieved. I believe in giving credit to those who do well. At the same time, if targets are not met, then we challenge. Let us put on record our thanks where goals have been achieved. It was also a pleasure to hear from the Labour shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and the SNP shadow, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). They made valuable contributions, as others have.

I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, because I will speak about agriculture. Across the world, we have fires, floods, droughts and tsunamis. Those things do not just happen; man and woman have a role to play in the world in which we all live. Nature, I would suggest, is angry. It is nature’s way of reminding us that what we do has repercussions.

To go back to Northern Ireland, it is no secret how crucial our agriculture sector is. I live on a farm. All my neighbours are farmers and most of them are dairy men. Farming is the largest emitting sector in Northern Ireland, contributing some 27% of emissions—and that increased over the 30 years covered by the statistical bulletin to which I refer. The Government, the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the National Farmers Union have committed to reducing those emissions, and it is important that that happens. It is no secret how challenging it is to cut emissions. Large organisations such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the NFU have had to cope and adapt in a short space of time, so it is promising to see that COP will address that this year. It is important that that happens.

On 10 December, the theme for the day will be food and agriculture. The aim will be to address innovation investment, regenerative agriculture and national transformation. That is a positive sign that our agricultural industries are being given the means of contributing to climate targets. At the Democratic Unionist party conference about a month ago, the UFU had a stand, and it has a paper on how to achieve net zero targets. Be under no illusion: farmers, landowners, my neighbours and the unions are totally committed to doing their bit to achieve climate targets. There is definitely a clear, central role for farmers.

Many comparisons can be made between the state of our climate and prevailing health issues across the UK and further afield. As my party’s health spokesperson, I am greatly pleased that health issues will also be addressed at COP. It looks like a terrific conference, and there are lots of key issues on the agenda that I would like discussed.

I have been in contact with organisations about the clean air programme, which is tackling the air quality issues facing us all. For the first time at a COP summit, a full day’s agenda has been devoted this year to initiatives designed to

“protect livelihoods and support community resilience and stability”

in the face of the advancing effects of climate change. While some may say that there is no such thing as climate change, the facts—the evidence that we all have in front of us—tell us that there is, and that something must be done about it. There will be high-level discussions about the importance of clean air, which has been proven to lead to improvements in both mental and physical health.

Some three weeks ago, I spoke in a debate about circular economies and their importance in our local communities. Ards and North Down Council, which covers the area in which I both work and reside, has a proven commitment to acting sustainably to create a vibrant and healthy economy. Recognising the contribution that local councils and devolved Administrations can make to net zero targets across the UK is perhaps the smallest but most important step to take in regulating environmental sustainability. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly all have a key role to play. We all play that role in our own places, but when we all come together, it is the teamwork that delivers. Whether we discuss these issues at events as large as COP or more internally back home in local council chambers, we will never progress without having the conversations. It is great, and commendable, that efforts in that regard are being made at all levels of government.

I look forward sincerely to hearing the comments made at COP28, and not only from the perspective of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Again, it is no secret that I love this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I believe that it is better together. Some may have a different opinion—at least one Member who is in the Chamber now, perhaps—but the rest of us are committed to the importance of that. When it comes to looking further afield and globally, the United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, as well as all the regions, has a part to play—at all political levels: council, regional, and Westminster. COP provides an opportunity for a joint and united approach to meeting our targets, and that is something that we have to achieve. There are no “ifs” about it; there are no questions. We must ensure that efforts are made in this place to achieve those goals.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Minister to wind up the debate.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

It is a pleasure to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. Throughout history, economies have succeeded when they can source enough cheap and secure energy. Now, as we face a new challenge—the global challenge of climate change—it is important that we source enough clean energy too. We have been a coal superpower and an oil superpower; if the Opposition are looking for a clean energy superpower, they should look no further. Britain today is a clean energy superpower, and our plans will enable us to go much further.

While the Labour party never ceases to talk this country down, I am proud that we are leading the world in this great energy challenge. In the first quarter of this year, 48% of our power came from renewables, up from just 7% in 2010. We are a world leader in offshore wind. We have increased our country’s renewable energy capacity fivefold since 2010—more than any other comparable Government. We are building new nuclear for the first time since Margaret Thatcher’s Government, and this brilliant innovation nation is leading the world in new technologies like small modular nuclear reactors and fusion energy. As recently as 2012, coal was generating 40% of UK electricity, but we are now on course to be one of the first major economies with power that is coal-free.

This work led by the Conservatives is dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. We have had the fastest reduction in emissions of any major economy, down almost 50% since 1990. Meanwhile France is down 23%, the US has not changed at all, and China has increased its emissions by 300%. And we are not stopping here. Which is the major economy with the most ambitious target to cut emissions by 2030? Is it the US, at 40%? Is it the EU, at 55%? No, it is the United Kingdom at 68%.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am very conscious that the net zero targets are set for the United Kingdom, but unfortunately Northern Ireland cannot participate nor can we add our physical support to achieving those targets, because the contracts for difference scheme is not in place in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to our Ministers about this. Will the Secretary of State also look at this on behalf of all the constituents in Northern Ireland who want to contribute to achieving the net zero targets and be part of the contracts for difference scheme?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will happily look at that.

The UK was the first major economy to set a legally binding date for net zero. Our ambitions for 2030 are ahead of those of our peers and we have the plans in place to meet them. In fact, we have met every single one of our stretching targets to reduce carbon emissions, thanks in no small part to our clean energy success. Labour seems to have conveniently forgotten about the shameful state of our renewables sector when it left office. Just 7% of our power came from renewables in 2010; today, thanks to the actions of the Conservatives, that figure stands at near 50%. Never forget that it was the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) who described the idea of the UK getting to 40% renewables as “pie in the sky”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

I am afraid that all the hon. Gentleman is pointing out is the Government’s failure to go fast enough in driving towards renewables. Of course we need a mix of energy, but this is the question for the House and the country: do we decide that drilling every last drop, which is the Government’s position and which would be a climate disaster, is the right strategy? Or do we decide that the right way to go is home-grown clean power? We say it is home-grown clean power.

The problem is that all the nonsense the Government are coming out with really matters, and it worries me. By the way, I think it will be an electoral disaster for them, and we already see that because the intelligent Conservatives are asking, “Why are we doing all this?” Members on both sides of the House did this together. We built a consensus on climate over the past 20 years, to work across parties and not to weaponise it. People look at America and say. “Well, America has a culture war on climate. Thank goodness we do not have that in Britain.” That was the case until this Prime Minister—not the previous Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister before her—decided to do it.

On the day of the Prime Minister’s climate U-turns, the Home Secretary had a licence to go out and say that the danger of climate action is that it will “bankrupt” the country. The Home Secretary freelances on most issues, but on this issue she is actually speaking for the Prime Minister, because it is echoed by other Cabinet Ministers. This is a massive retreat from the position of both parties for two decades, that leadership on climate is not somehow a danger to our economy but is the way to seize and build our economic future. They have opened the door to the old, discredited idea that we can choose either our economy or the climate, but not both.

It is not just a retreat from the consensus; it is a retreat from reality. The reality is that there is a global race, with countries seeking to go further and faster to create the jobs of the future. No wonder business is horrified. Just last Monday, Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, warned about the Government’s commitment to unlimited oil and gas drilling. She said that our climate goals as a country are “under threat”, which

“puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires”.

The Government try to claim that this is somehow consistent with climate leadership. I mean, come off it!

Seven hundred British climate scientists oppose the changes, and so do the International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) quoted:

“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”

The Government’s own net zero tsar, the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place, also opposes them. They appointed him to advise them on climate and energy. They said how brilliant he is, and I agree—sorry to ruin his career even further. He is a very intelligent guy. [Interruption.] He is denying it. He has great ideas, and what did he say?

“There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield.”

Those are not my words, and they are not the words of eco-zealots or Just Stop Oil; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman, who sits on the Government Benches. He signed the net zero target into law, for goodness’ sake. We have to grow up.

In contrast to the right hon. Gentleman, we have the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, whom I like —[Interruption.] I do. We have worked together on climate, but I will now say something not so nice about him. This is what he said yesterday:

“There is nothing fundamentally wrong with oil and gas, it’s emissions from oil and gas that are the problem”.

For goodness’ sake—what does that even mean? Here we are: the people who know what they are talking about do not speak for the Conservative party, and the people who speak for the Conservative party do not know what they are talking about.

I can tell the Secretary of State and her colleagues that this strategy is doomed to fail. The British people do not want a Government who say, “We are going to weaponise the climate crisis.” They do not want a Government who say, “We are desperate. We are behind in the polls”—I remember that feeling—“and we therefore have to turn this into a wedge issue.” They want a Government who will cut bills and tackle the climate crisis. All the Government are doing day after day with all this nonsense is proving that they are not the answer.

What would a Labour King’s Speech have done? Today, every family is paying £180 more on their bill as a result of the onshore wind ban that has been in place since 2015. The Government could have lifted the ban but, two months ago, they did not. They offered a weak, half-hearted compromise that will make no difference. As RenewableUK says,

“the planning system is still stacked against onshore wind”.

Why not lift the onshore wind ban? Why is it harder to build an onshore wind farm than an incinerator? The Government had to shell out billions of pounds in subsidies when the energy crisis hit. I think those subsidies would have been something like £5 billion less if we had not had the onshore wind ban. Then we have offshore wind and the disastrous auction, which added £2 billion to bills, according to the industry.

A Labour King’s Speech would legislate to lift the ban on onshore wind, to speed up the planning process and to sort out the grid, so we can decarbonise our power system by 2030. Clean power is the foundation, and next comes energy efficiency. I am afraid that here the Government have utterly failed, and their complacency is extraordinary. This is what the Climate Change Committee said about the whole sector:

“since 2010 progress has stalled, with no further substantive reductions in emissions.”

It has been a shambolic 13 years. We all know the litany: the disaster of the green deal, the green homes grant, David Cameron’s “cut the green crap”. Insulation measures were running at 1.6 million in 2010, and last year—any offers?—they were running at 78,000, which is 20 times lower. A Labour Government would do what the country is crying out for and have a proper plan, funded by public investment, ramping up to £6 billion a year to provide support for home insulation and low-carbon heating.

Next, let us talk about the green economy and building our economic future. The Government are never short of boasting about their record, but we are actually eighth out of eight major countries in Energy UK’s projections for renewable investment up to 2030. And get this: in the seven months after the passage of the US Inflation Reduction Act, which the Government do not like, the US created almost 10 times more green jobs than the UK created in the previous seven years. So in seven months, the US created 10 times more jobs than we did in seven years. What is the Government’s response to the Inflation Reduction Act? They say it is “dangerous”, “distortive” and “protectionist”. This is not some accident; they do believe that this is a role Government. I am afraid to say that that is a recipe for Britain losing the global race.

What would Labour do differently? We would have a national wealth fund, not with one-off, ad-hoc investments, but a proper plan. We would be investing in ports, our steel industry and electric battery factories. We would also have a new publicly owned energy company, GB Energy, which I am glad the Secretary of State mentioned. It would be partnering the private sector in the industries of the future. The Government object to GB Energy, because they say that we do not need public ownership of energy in Britain. I have to say to the House that the Government may not realise it, but we already have public ownership of energy in Britain, with EDF, Vattenfall, Ørsted and Statkraft. They are all companies wholly or partly owned by states—foreign states. They own our industry. In fact, nearly half of our offshore wind industry is owned by foreign states—by state-owned foreign companies. So the Government take the extraordinary position that it is okay for state-run companies to invest in Britain, so long as they are not British state-owned companies; let French, Swedish, Danish and Norwegian citizens get the wealth from our energy industry, just not British citizens. That is the Government’s position.

This makes me a nerd, but let me say that the late Ian Gilmour wrote an autobiography—[Interruption.] It is not that that makes me a nerd. [Laughter.] He wrote an autobiography about his time in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, and some here will know that its title was “Dancing with Dogma”. That is what we are seeing here, because the Government are in favour of public ownership of our energy assets, so long as it is by foreign states. That does not sound very Conservative to me.

GB Energy would be investing in the industries of the future, partnering local communities to create jobs and wealth for Britain. A Labour King’s Speech would have contained an energy independence Act to make all of this possible: clean power by 2030 to cut bills; a proper energy efficiency plan; a national wealth fund; and GB Energy. That is an energy Bill equal to the scale of the crises we face.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I am going to finish.

The Prime Minister has been in the job for more than a year and he has been rumbled, just as his party has been in power for 13 years and it has been rumbled. For all his talk of change, the public know, as does the House, that he cannot bring the change this country needs. The Government’s pathetic, small legislative programme shows it, and they all know it. They are out of ideas and out of time, and the only solution for our country is for them to be out of office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Maria Miller]

If he does not, people will judge him all the more badly for that.

As I said, I warmly welcome this historic King’s Speech, which comes at a time when the challenges our country faces are starting to crystallise. We have had three major impacts to our economy in the past few years, and the doorstep conversations we were having at the time of the last general election in 2019 were nothing like the ones I am having with my constituents now. Whether we are dealing with the impact of the war in Ukraine, the appalling situation currently in Israel, our leaving the European Union or the impact of the global pandemic, the things that people are talking about now are interest rates and inflation—issues that have not been on the lips of our electorate for a number of years. I am pleased to see that the Government have understood this challenge and are looking at the long-term challenges our country now faces, rather than simply looking at what has happened in the past 10 years. We need to look forward to make sure that we are planning for the very different set of challenges that our economy faces. The King’s Speech will be just the beginning of that process.

When we consider clean energy, it is worth looking first at the track record of this Government. We were the first major economy to legislate for a net zero target, and since 1990 we have cut emissions by 48%. One could be forgiven for not understanding that, given the right hon. Gentleman’s initial contribution. We are aiming to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030. Until we start to agree that there is success we can talk about, the electorate will continue to be confused. When we look at the progress that is being made and applaud it, we can then start to plan properly for the future.

In the first quarter of this year, 48% of our energy came from renewables, which was an increase from just 7% when the Conservatives took power in 2010. Perhaps some of the questions the right hon. Gentleman should be answering are why we were in such a relatively poor situation in 2010 and why more had not been done by the previous Administration. We are now an acknowledged world leader in offshore wind. I will address that later in my speech, because we could be working more with our friends, particularly countries such as Canada, to see how we can make sure that our renewable energy goes from strength to strength.

[Jim Shannon]

One success story of the past few years has been Wrightbus, in Ballymena in North Antrim, and its advancements in hydrogen and renewables. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we do not hear enough about some of the good things? That is one of the good stories and we should hear more about it.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I heard a great deal about the importance of hydrogen to our future on my recent trip to Canada as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy. There are a lot of complications associated with hydrogen and we need to do more work on it, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that good things, such as those that he mentions, can be eclipsed by the Opposition’s rhetoric if we are not careful. I think also of new nuclear power stations, small modular reactors and fusion energy, for which we have the test bed at Culham, which is being used the world over for the development of that innovative technology. There is also the work being done by the Minister for Industry and Economic Security on critical minerals, which I will come back to later.

Gas and oil will continue to be part of the mix of energy that we use into the future, as they will for most developed countries. Our Bill in this area safeguards those domestic supplies, which is really important, because we cannot leave our country open to not having that safeguard in place, particularly given recent events. The King’s Speech clearly demonstrates a commitment to remaining at the forefront of the world’s transition to net zero, but the Government have also made sure that they have that safeguard in place through gas and oil.

I particularly wish to address the importance of making sure that as we transition to clean energy, the Government, and others, keep a close eye on its impact on our communities. I was reminded of that recently when there was an application for planning consent for an industrial lithium-ion battery plant in a sensitive part of my constituency, right next to a hospital and a river. Industrial lithium-ion batteries are an essential part of our transition to clean energy, because they help iron out the supply of energy, particularly wind energy. As one Member pointed out, the wind does not always blow at the right time and in the right place, so lithium-ion battery storage facilities can help to make sure that energy is available throughout the day, on every day of the year, but they need to be correctly located.

Our planning consents have not been updated to properly recognise the problems that such plants can cause. I am grateful that the Government listened to the arguments I made and have already made changes to planning guidance to introduce mandatory environmental permits soon, which will prevent the granting of planning permissions for those sorts of plants in inappropriate locations. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to make sure that they continue to look for those sorts of issues as they arise.

New technology and a continued drive for clean energy will inevitably mean that further new technologies and processes will emerge. We need to ensure that our existing permitting systems are fit for purpose. Many hundreds of lithium-ion battery plants are planned for this country—I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look in their own constituencies to see if any are planned—and although they are a fire risk and an environmental risk, they are an essential part of the transition. We need to make sure they are safe when they are put in place.

The remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made me think about the importance of rare earth minerals, which are an essential part of our transition to clean energy. I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security has already put together an important strategy in that regard.

When I was in Saskatchewan recently, I met the chief executive officer of the Saskatchewan Research Council, Mike Crabtree, which runs the rare earth processing facility. He described the incredible work that is going on in Canada to make sure we have supplies of rare earth minerals that can help us continue to see the transition to clean energy in the future. Wind turbines need such rare earth minerals, and we need plans and treaties in place with countries like Canada that can safely ensure we have a supply of these minerals into the future, so that we are not held to ransom by countries that may not have such stable and democratic regimes in place.

Contracts for Difference Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Contracts for Difference scheme.

This matter is of some interest to myself as an advocate of renewable energy projects, such as the enormous tidal stream potential of Strangford lough in my constituency. I had had a request in for some time to discuss this topic, and I will be referring to the impact upon Northern Ireland, but I know that others will refer to the impact upon Scotland, England and so on. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members in advance for their participation in this debate. I understand that some of those who wished to be here are unfortunately unable to due to Storm Babet in north-east Scotland, so our numbers may be reduced.

I took part in yesterday’s debate on using our ports for green energy, which seems like it is going to be the future. The Minister was here for that debate yesterday, and it is very pleasant to see him back in this place again today; we look forward to his answers. On the surface, this is an energy issue, but it goes much wider than that. It is also about the Northern Ireland economy, and I know the Minister is, like me, increasingly committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland plays its part in the economy of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is about building a Northern Ireland supply chain into the process. It is about Northern Ireland’s desire to contribute to the Government’s net zero targets and to reach the target together. It is about Northern Ireland’s desire to be an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to provide support for low carbon delivery for all in this great nation of four nations as one.

Without access to the contracts for difference scheme, Northern Ireland has almost been made a no-go area for renewables, and that does not serve the interests of either our Government here or the people of Northern Ireland. In fact, 82% of renewable developers unfortunately do not currently see Northern Ireland as an attractive place to invest. We need to improve that, and my contribution in this debate will be to suggest ways in which that can happen.

In a previous answer to a parliamentary question of mine, the Minister stated that in order to address the contracts for difference question, the issues regarding the Northern Ireland Assembly must be dealt with. However, I suggest to the Minister that things have happened since the decisions of the Assembly and the review that the Assembly did in 2019-20, and I will return to that shortly. It is in no one’s interest to insist that one cannot move ahead without the other, because there are ways of moving forward.

I respectfully remind Members that other legislation has been imposed on Northern Ireland in the absence of an Assembly, so there must be some balance here. I will give three quick examples only to illustrate the issues of where the UK Government have the power to step in. First, the abortion legislation—the most liberal in Europe—was inflicted on us without thought. Secondly, the Northern Ireland legacy Bill was imposed against the wishes of all political parties from Northern Ireland in the Chamber, and yet victims are now left with no avenue for recourse. Thirdly, and most recently, before the summer recess an incomplete and incredibly inflammatory RSE curriculum change was brought in by direct rule.

Those examples show that such things are possible. They are just examples and I will not get into the details, because I know you would not want me to, Dame Angela. I urge the Government to do the same in relation to this matter to show that it is not just on morality issues that legislation is passed without an Assembly, but in fact things that are useful, such as this request from me and others, for Northern Ireland.

The UK Government first introduced the contracts for difference scheme in 2014, following the passage of the Energy Bill in 2013. The scheme ensures that renewable energy projects receive a guaranteed price from the Government for the electricity they will generate, giving companies certainty and the confidence to invest their private capital in the UK. I know the Minister has always said that the Government are committed to that, so that issue is not in doubt today.

Contracts are awarded to developers through a series of competitive auctions, where the lowest price bids are successful, ensuring value for money for consumers, as they should. Since its introduction, the scheme has been instrumental in providing a route to market for numerous renewable energy projects and has allowed the United Kingdom to become a global leader in technology, such as tidal stream and offshore wind, both fixed and floating.

Last year, the Government announced that the scheme would be transitioned into annualised auctions. The first round to take place since the transition was allocation round 5. Others will speak to that and have their own opinions, but allocation round 5 produced a disappointing set of results, as the total gigawatt output was far less than the previous round—mostly because there was no update for either fixed or floating offshore wind. Despite that, for nearly a decade the scheme has provided a route to market for numerous renewable energy projects across Britain, creating green job opportunities, reducing emissions and enhancing energy security. All those are important and we welcome them as giant steps forward.

The change to annualised auctions presents a timely opportunity for parliamentarians in this debate in Westminster Hall to come together to debate reforms that will ensure continued success for all renewable technology across all the nations and regions of the entire United Kingdom, including—indeed, especially—Northern Ireland.

When the Energy Bill was passed in 2013, it was designed to allow Northern Ireland to join the GB CfD scheme at a future time, should the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive believe that was in the best interests of the United Kingdom. I will outline the case and where we are.

Energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland and, under normal circumstances, should be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Department for the Economy. There has been a desire to design and deliver a Northern Ireland-only CfD, but the ambition is as yet unrealised and has no realistic prospect of happening any time soon. That is where we are and that is the reality, but there is a way forward, which I will put forward.

Will the Minister advise what discussions he has had with the permanent secretary for the Department for the Economy, if any, in the last few years, in relation to CfD? The reasons given to justify Northern Ireland’s exclusion from the Great Britain CfD were primarily around systems difficulties with the Northern Ireland shared grid and energy market with the Republic. The justification looked reasonable enough when the UK Government arbitrarily excluded onshore wind from allocation rounds 2 and 3. However, in developing its energy strategy, “The Path to Net Zero Energy”, the Department for the Economy carried out a consultation from December 2019 to March 2020. That has an impact on what I am requesting and the reasons why we have brought those requests forward. The consultation asked respondents:

“Do you agree that we should explore with BEIS the possibility of extending the contracts for difference scheme to Northern Ireland?”

That is important, as I have highlighted. The consultation found that a massive 92% of respondents answered “yes” to that question.

“The Path to Net Zero Energy”, published in December 2021, confirmed that the Northern Ireland Executive are exploring whether the contracts for difference scheme should be extended to Northern Ireland. Why? Because things have changed. Since that time—from 2013-14 and then from 2019-20, or whenever the consultation process took place—opinion has changed, as has the realisation of where the future lies better. I am a great believer, as you and others know, Ms Bardell, that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is always better together. We can do things better together. We can deliver things and think things better together by exchanging views. I know the Minister, like me, is committed to the Union and the importance of that.

The UK Government should step up to follow through with the plans in motion that allow for Northern Ireland to be included in the GB scheme. In the consultation process an overwhelming 92% of respondents said that they want that change, that integration, that participation and partnership together. This would mean that future allocation rounds have greater success for renewable energy projects across the whole of the United Kingdom—not just mainland GB alone, but elsewhere. That is so important.

One reason why Northern Ireland did not join the scheme was due to the exclusion of onshore wind. However, that argument has moved on. Onshore wind returned to the scheme in AR4 in 2021 and has been hugely successful in Scotland in both rounds. The inclusion criteria have changed from what it was in 2013-14 when the Northern Ireland Executive looked at it, and the consultation process has moved that along to another stage. A different approach is needed—not the 2013-14 one, but the one that comes off the back of the consultation process in 2019-20.

In this year’s allocation round 5, onshore wind made great gains, adding more than double the number of successful projects compared to the previous year. Again, that is an indication that the change in the United Kingdom is real, and we in Northern Ireland want to be part of that change. In allocation round 5, 24 projects were successful and they will go on to create some 40% of the total capacity in the round. If Northern Ireland had been included in the scheme, onshore wind would have had even greater success and would have benefited the whole of the United Kingdom to reach those targets of renewable and green energy that we all want to be part of. It is a technology that Northern Ireland has in abundance. We can add to the net zero targets in a culmination that the Minister always talks about in the Chamber.

Another winner of allocation round 5 was tidal stream energy, partly thanks to the Government’s ring-fenced budget for tidal stream that helped to return a record 11 tidal projects with a total capacity of over 500 MW. The scheme and the support provided through contracts for difference would also benefit tidal stream projects in Northern Ireland. For example, Strangford lough in my constituency of Strangford has obvious potential for a tidal stream, which is why there was a trial there with the 2008 SeaGen project. It was an incredibly successful pilot scheme, but it never seemed to get off the ground.

I want to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for his response to my request to visit. He was well received and I hope he enjoyed his time in my constituency, down in Portaferry with all the scientists at the Queen’s University research station. They think we could be part of this great, great scheme for the whole of the United Kingdom. Every one of us who had the opportunity to see the Minister present that day recognised his interest in the subject matter, and those that we met that day are keen to see the project—SeaGen as it was then —commissioned.

The trial was commissioned by Marine Current Turbines with an investment of £12 million. The project involved the installation of two 600 kW turbines producing 150 kW of electricity to the grid in July 2008. SeaGen generated electricity at its maximum capacity for the first time in December 2008. I remember that scheme very well; I was a member of the Assembly back then. I was also a member of Ards borough council. We were incredibly excited. Those of us who had a vision for net zero and green energy recognised, even back in those days, that this is where we want to be and need to be. It is more of an issue today because we are all looking at it as time has marched on.

The scheme has produced 5 GWh of tidal power since its commissioning. That is equivalent to the annual power consumption of 1,500 households. That is exciting because we had the evidential base and could see that producing the energy for every house in Portaferry and maybe every house in Strangford—just as examples. Including Northern Ireland in the contracts for difference scheme can ensure more projects like this one go beyond a trial to help strengthen the UK’s energy security and meet net zero targets.

That brings me to my final point. It is important that we recognise that, as it stands, Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged. The unavailability of contracts for difference is deterring British investment in Northern Ireland. As one who believes honestly and proudly in the strength of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it is clear to me and I am sure to other Unionists, as it is hopefully clear to the Minister and everyone else, that extending the remit of the CfD scheme will significantly support the United Kingdom to meet its net zero commitments. Crucially, it will enable Northern Ireland to play an increased role in reducing UK carbon emissions, if all the regions are working together. I want Northern Ireland to be a part of that and, if I can accumulate and sum up in one sentence what I hope to achieve, I hope the Minister will agree that that is worthy of consideration.

I believe that the alternative of providing Northern Ireland with access to the GB CfD scheme is the best available option for us in Northern Ireland to allow for greater levels of private investment and faster delivery of renewable energy. The 2019-20 consultation, along with the recommendation and the final figures from 2021, saw 92% of businesses saying the same thing. Northern Ireland’s inability to participate in CfD is placing it at a competitive disadvantage to mainland GB. I know of at least two companies that are keen and willing to consider tidal energy possibilities and potential in Strangford lough. The change in the CfD scheme will be the difference for that success, which I want us all together to have within this great nation.

In the light of our shared commitment to strengthening our Union, I ask and request that the Government investigate providing Northern Ireland with access to join the contracts for difference scheme. The reform we are asking for would benefit everyone—especially us in Northern Ireland—when it comes to meeting net zero targets across this great United Kingdom, and would ensure that Northern Ireland’s generators are provided with access to the GB scheme to ensure greater levels of private investment and to increase Northern Ireland’s capacity to deliver renewables. We want to be part of that, and I know the Government want us to be part of it too. I am putting forward a solution for how we can deliver that together for everyone, to help the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland secure its pathway to net zero.

I know the Minister, right hon. and hon. Members are all committed to the Union—except for maybe one person! We are committed to delivering on the CfD scheme. We all see the benefits of that. Northern Ireland industry and her people are in grave need of support and help, and this inclusion in the United Kingdom can make change happen and will make a real difference to industry. The Minister’s hands are not tied. The precedent has been set. He must do the right thing and level the playing field to ensure that Northern Ireland can be part of that team of the four regions together, delivering net zero by making sure that Northern Ireland is part of the CfD scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress, if I may.

The CfD scheme is a major UK success story. It has secured more than 30 GW of capacity, including 20 GW of offshore wind, since 2014. It has driven down the price of offshore wind by about 70% in that time, helping to grow the industry and its supply chain both in the UK and globally, although as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington says, I have previously publicly expressed the desire to do more. We are coming forward with non-price factors as a way of encouraging more of the supply chain to be in the UK. But have no doubt: this has been a phenomenal success for us, for British jobs, for British consumers and for the world. We have the four largest offshore wind farms in the world, with more than 14 GW already in operation and a further 77 GW in the pipeline. It is a pleasure for me that of course the largest offshore wind farm in the whole world is Hornsea 2, named after a small town in my constituency. The UK is a world leader in floating offshore wind, with one of the largest amounts of operational capacity anywhere in the world, at 80 MW to date.

The hon. Member for Strangford says that the results of allocation round 5, which concluded in September, were disappointing because the total capacity secured was less. As I have said, I do not accept the characterisation of that round, because it has in fact realised the highest amount, on an annualised basis, of any of the rounds we have ever run. It resulted, in fact, in more projects—95—than we have ever seen successfully done, even though it covered just a one-year window. The round delivered a combined total of 3.7 GW, which is enough to power the equivalent of 2 million homes. As I have said, there was more than double the number of onshore wind projects. We also secured—I have touched on this already—another good result for solar, and four times as many tidal stream projects as AR4 did.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his doughty support for the sector. I did not realise that his involvement had stretched to 20 years, but when I visited his constituency he was there to characteristically champion the industry. For the first time in our CfD, we had success with geothermal. This vital new renewable capacity was procured in a competitive auction set against, as I say, a backdrop of highly challenging macroeconomic conditions.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that clear achievement. I remind him that the key technology for Northern Ireland is onshore wind. There have been some advances, and I attended a meeting in Bangor, in the neighbouring constituency of North Down, where an offshore wind turbine was put forward as a possibility for the future. We cannot be part of that process unless the Minister’s Department can reconsider the fact that there is an absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive. Northern Ireland’s renewables projects are being uniquely disadvantaged. There is an opportunity to go forward—I am ever mindful of time, Dame Angela; please bear with me one second—and in 2013-2014 a decision was made. That was changed by the consultation process in 2019-2021. The recommendation was endorsed by 93% of the respondents. I gently ask the Minister that with that unique and changing position, there is a chance now and we should be looking at how we can better move forward together.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will return to the issues relating to Northern Ireland, if I may. I entirely forgive the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, who is always a very genial Member, and anyone who has such a high opinion of the hon. Member for Strangford as he does is always welcome in this Chamber as far as I am concerned. This is not what the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill does as a day job, so perhaps that explains the nature of his speech.

Let me dispense once again with the suggestion that consumers are £2 billion a year worse off because we did not secure any offshore wind in AR5. That figure is entirely wrong and misleading, because it does not take account of future wholesale energy prices. Projects that were unsuccessful in AR5, or chose not to bid, can participate in AR6 in 2024, which is just five months away. Having annual rounds means that there will be minimal delay to deployment at minimal or no additional cost to consumers.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill highlighted the broader point that the UK, alone among major economies, has halved its emissions since 1990. It can be argued that it is alone among major economies on its path to reach net zero. It is important to note that if we are to stay on track to net zero, which is one of the reasons why the hon. Member for Strangford is so passionate, and he knows this, we need Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland alongside England to make the appropriate changes. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill may or may not be aware, given that this is not his day job, that Scotland is behind the curve on performance. It is high on ambition, low on delivery relative to England, and he might want to bear that in mind and have slightly more—

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Whoever comes into this Chamber, I would always take your advice, Dame Angela, but of course the hon. Member represents his party, and when he make allegations against the Government that are unfounded, and when his own Government are failing to deliver on their ambitions and are, in fact, behind the trend for England, it is only right and proper in the spirit of honesty and transparency that that is properly exposed. I know the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, who himself is not normally a shy person in the Chamber or otherwise, is someone who can easily take it, so I am pleased about that.

I will take no lessons either from Labour, which had only 5.4 GW of wind power when it left government in 2010. The Government have more than five times that amount, at more than 28 GW of wind power, and the four largest operational offshore wind farms in the world. It may be difficult for some to hear, but we know that Labour’s record on renewables is truly dismal. When Labour was in power, as recently as 2010, renewables made up less than 7% of our electricity mix; in the first quarter of this year, we had reached nearly 48%. Lessons will not be taken from His Majesty’s Opposition, let alone the Scottish Government, on this front.

The absence of offshore and floating offshore wind from AR5 was, as I have said, regrettable. These are challenging times for the offshore wind sector, with increasing global demand putting pressure on supply chains at the same time as increasing costs and core materials, resulting in price uncertainty both here and abroad. As both the Secretary of State and I have repeated on many occasions, our ambition for 50 GW of offshore wind, including up to 5 GW of floating by 2030, remains. I indicate to Members to look at the 77 GW of pipeline that we can see ahead. We are listening to the sectors and, as I have said, the annual auctions mean that we can respond quickly and incorporate learnings into the next round. We will publish the core parameters, including the administrative strike prices and pot structure, for allocation round 6 in the middle of next month.

I will turn to the main focus of the debate for the hon. Member for Strangford: the GB CfD scheme being extended to Northern Ireland. When the CfD scheme was being developed around 10 years ago, it was originally intended that it should extend to Northern Ireland as well as GB. For various reasons, which I will not go into here, that did not happen. In December 2021, the Northern Ireland Executive published their energy strategy, the “Path to Net Zero Energy”, in which they set out the intention to implement a support scheme to bring forward investment in renewable electricity generation in Northern Ireland. The strategy indicated that the Northern Ireland Executive were, at that time, exploring with the UK Government the possibility of extending the GB CfD scheme to Northern Ireland, with a view to the inclusion of projects from Northern Ireland in the 2023 allocation round. If that was not possible, the strategy said that the Executive would seek to put in place an alternative support mechanism for investors.

In January 2022, the Northern Ireland Executive published the first of their two action plans, outlining progress towards implementing their net zero strategy. In it, the Executive said that they would consult on proposals for a renewable electricity support scheme for Northern Ireland. In February this year, the Executive made good on that commitment and published a consultation inviting views on design considerations for a renewable electricity support scheme for Northern Ireland. The consultation closed in April, and the Northern Ireland Executive are currently undertaking follow-up work on the scheme’s design, informed by the consultation responses they received.

I understand that officials in the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy aim to publish the design of the scheme this year, as committed to in its 2023 energy strategy action plan. The consultation clearly sets out the direction of travel: Northern Ireland wants to have its own bespoke support scheme for renewables. In June 2022, Northern Irish and UK Government Ministers agreed that the significant challenges of integrating Northern Ireland into the CfD scheme meant that Northern Ireland would be better off pursuing its own scheme. That objective had cross-party endorsement in the Northern Ireland Executive before they dissolved last year.

I believe that the hon. Member for Strangford and I agree that a bespoke support scheme for renewables is the preferred means of securing investment in renewables for Northern Ireland. However, he has argued that the Northern Ireland support scheme cannot be implemented while the Northern Ireland Executive are suspended. If I am putting words in his mouth that he does not agree with, he will intervene on me. He believes that allowing Northern Irish projects access to the GB CfD scheme is the best available option for delivering investment and faster deployment of renewables in Northern Ireland. He knows that I do not agree with him on this.

I do not believe that integrating Northern Ireland into the GB CfD scheme is viable. There are several significant challenges to integration, including systemic and technical barriers incorporating the characteristics of the single electricity market into the GB CfD model, as well as the reforms being considered in the GB review of electricity market arrangements. Furthermore, integration would require complex changes to the CfD payment mechanism, secondary legislation and industry codes, and would likely take several years to complete. Integration therefore would not lead to faster delivery of renewable energy in Northern Ireland, which I know the hon. Member for Strangford so fervently hopes for.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is summing up very well his opinion and my opinion. What we do not have is an agreement on how we take this forward. I know the Minister recognises that Northern Ireland is disadvantaged at the moment. What I was trying to seek was a method and a way forward. For that to happen, perhaps further discussions are needed with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to get its opinion. I feel that there is a consensus of opinion among those who wish to see that investment coming through. Perhaps what I am really asking is for the Minister to explore those possibilities as a potential way forward.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman always makes an extremely plausible and effective advocate for the ideas that he espouses. I—and the Government, I am sure—will remain open to discussions with those in Northern Ireland and with the hon. Gentleman to find solutions. We talked about some of the challenges of staying on the overall net zero pathway. Of the four Administrations, Northern Ireland is potentially the most off track, so there is a real need to find solutions and we always stand ready to work constructively to find the best way forward.

I continue to believe, however, that the development of a bespoke support scheme offers the best and quickest way for Northern Ireland to secure the investment in renewable electricity generation that it needs to achieve its net zero goals. I have not said it explicitly but, of course, energy is devolved, so we are looking to the institutions in Northern Ireland, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, to take this on. That is what we would profoundly like to see. I commend the work done by the hon. Gentleman and the Department for the Economy so far, and I encourage us all to support their efforts.

I will try—I hope reasonably briefly, with your permission, Dame Angela—to respond to a few of the other points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney chided me in return, to ensure that we do not rest on our laurels and that we respond appropriately to IRA and perhaps EU initiatives in the space. He talked about creating incentives, picking up on the supply chain development issues that many Members have touched on, and ensuring that seabed auctions are a good place to do that. As he knows, I set out the work that the Crown Estate is already doing to put conditions on at that stage, in addition to changes to the CfDs.

I take on board my hon. Friend’s points about the administrative strike price, and ensuring that we get it in the right place in order to balance keeping costs down for consumers with getting the generation that we want and need. We will set out the pot details in just a few weeks, so I will leave commenting on his appeal for a ringfenced pot for offshore wind. On his request for the pot to reflect the pipeline, that is the mechanism we use for the CfD. That is one of the reasons for setting out the core criteria in November and providing more details in March—precisely so that we can match the budget and the other elements that make up the CfD with a realistic assessment of the pipeline in place. His Majesty’s Treasury and the Chancellor will have heard my hon. Friend’s points on the issues that, sadly or otherwise, sit with the Treasury rather than my Department.

From the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I heard, as ever, his espousal and support for tidal, and he talked about setting a target for that. The Government remain open and we will continue to consider that, but we have not yet made a decision on whether it would be the right thing to do. It is about doing the right intervention at the right time, based on the stage of development of a particular technology. However, like him, I am proud of the fact that we have been able to see it come on, and see some of the developments in his constituency. The hope to see those operationalised and scaled up here in the UK, with a big and strong domestic supply chain, is one that gives real optimism for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who took part in the debate. I suspect there was a bit of blue on blue between the Minister and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), but it was done in a nice fashion and not aggressively—that is the hon. Member’s nature. I thank him for his knowledge and interest in this issue. I knew that he would bring a massive amount of knowledge to the debate, and I thank him for sharing it. He wants to see clear pipelines and better investment, which I think we all do. A key theme is better investment, and I thank him for his contribution.

Whenever the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) makes a contribution to a debate or asks a question in the main Chamber, we all sit up and take note, because he has a great deal of knowledge about marine renewables. He wants to see marine power ringfenced, and he is right to do so.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) may have stepped in as a replacement spokesperson for the SNP, but he made a valuable contribution. I am reminded of Bruce Forsyth’s catchphrase, “You’re my favourite,” because the hon. Member is perhaps my favourite among his party. We are good friends. We do not support the same football team—he and I know that—but there are lots of things that we can enjoy together. He referred to investment, which is so key to this issue.

The job of the Opposition is to challenge, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), did that. He tried to be positive, but he also engaged with the relevant issues. He wants to make sure that the investment, jobs, skills and opportunities are delivered by 2030, if not before.

I will outline the issue again. The Minister summarised where we are, but let us look at the consultation process. The figure of 92%, which I mentioned, refers to the proportion of businesses that say they need investment now. We do not have a working Assembly—that is a fact of life—but 92% of businesses in Northern Ireland want investment, and we need to see that happen. For me, it is quite simple: I want to see us contribute to the net zero target set by the central Government. I want to see jobs and opportunities coming through. Some 50% of global capacity is in tidal stream, and we can do our part to deliver that in Northern Ireland. It is only fair that Northern Ireland is provided with the same route to market as the rest of the United Kingdom.

I think the Minister and I will have lots of correspondence on this matter, but it does not mean that we are not friends. We need to chart a way forward so that we can ensure that Northern Ireland is a positive part of the solution that we all want to find. Again, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank you, Dame Angela, for your patience with us all. We may get a wee bit animated at times, but you kindly bring us into line in a nice way so that we are not offended. For that, we thank you.

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Thank you. In the interests of the debate, I have been very lax, because we have had lots of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Contracts for Difference scheme.