Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
In my oral statement on 30 June, I informed Parliament of the deeply disappointing news that the Prax Lindsey oil refinery had entered insolvency and that the court had appointed an official receiver to manage the situation on the site and determine the next steps. Since then, we have worked urgently to ensure the safety of the refinery site and the security of fuel supplies, and to protect workers. That also allowed time for bidders to express an interest in the site. Following a thorough process, the official receiver has rigorously assessed all the bids received and concluded that sale of the business as a whole is not a credible option.
I visited workers at the site on 17 July, and I will be meeting them again shortly today. I know that this will be hugely disappointing news to them, their families and the wider community. They are all in my thoughts at this time. A package has been offered to all directly employed at the refinery which guarantees their jobs and pay over the coming months. Alongside the usual support that is offered to workforces in insolvency situations, the Government will also immediately fund a comprehensive training guarantee for those refinery workers to ensure that they have the skills needed and the support to find jobs in, for example, the growing clean energy workforce.
Furthermore, we understand that the official receiver continues to explore various proposals for assets on the site. I therefore remain hopeful that a solution will be found that creates future employment opportunities at the Immingham site. The refinery will continue to process crude for the rest of the month, and the official receiver will continue selling refined products for a number of weeks, giving buyers time to adjust their supply chains.
The former owners left the refinery in an untenable position and gave the Government little time to act. That is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded an investigation into their conduct and the circumstances surrounding the insolvency, and why I have repeatedly called on the owners to do the right thing and provide financial support to the workforce at this difficult time.
Andrew Bowie
When the Prax Lindsey refinery closes its doors in October, there will be only four oil refineries remaining in the United Kingdom, following the news about Grangemouth a few months ago. This is the second oil refinery to close in the United Kingdom in only six months, prompting serious questions about our energy security and resilience. In Immingham, people are waking up today to the reality that redundancies are now inevitable. It is estimated that about 625 jobs will be lost. For the community in Lincolnshire, that is seismic.
As the Minister said, we are aware of the long-standing financial issues with Prax Group, and I reiterate my support for the Government’s investigation into its directors. What progress has been made on that investigation? When does he expect the report to be made?
We cannot escape the fundamental crisis facing our manufacturing sector. As Jim Ratcliffe has said, the sector is “facing extinction” because of
“enormously high energy prices and crippling carbon tax bills.”
The Minister’s Department knows that to be true and has exempted some industry from paying the net zero levies, recusing specific businesses from paying the extortionate green subsidy costs. That is a ridiculous situation that sees subsidies being paid by the Government to businesses to exempt them from the charges being imposed by that very same Government—we are truly through the looking glass. The Department is wilfully talking down the oil and gas industry with hostile language and an impossible fiscal regime while overseeing the deindustrialisation of the United Kingdom through the perpetuated high cost of industrial energy. This is not simply managed decline; it is accelerated decline driven by ideology and steered from Whitehall.
Will the Minister tell us what work is being done to ensure the future of the four remaining oil refineries in the United Kingdom? What, if any, assessment has been made of the UK’s resilience, given the steep reduction in our refining capacity over the past six months? What, if any, assessment has been made of the increased reliance on imports that will be necessary as a result of the reduction in British refining capacity? Will he please change course and start speaking up for our oil industry—upstream and downstream—which sees from the current Government a disregard for it, its workers and the communities that rely most on it?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the shadow Minister, who was right to point out the impact that news like this will have on the workforce, who are hearing it this week, as well as the wider impact it has on their families and the community. That is why it is so important that we provide that support.
On the investigation, there is not much that I can update the House on at the moment. The Insolvency Service is carrying out that investigation, and it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in that, but we have obviously given the direction that we expect it to be completed as quickly as possible. Given the mess we found the company in, I would not be surprised if it takes a bit of time for the investigation to get to grips with what was going on there, but that is for the Insolvency Service to resolve.
On resilience and fuel supplies, we have been really clear throughout that we have done everything we can to try to find a buyer to keep the site operating as a going concern, which is important for the workforce as well as for local resilience, but Prax Lindsey oil refinery comprises about 10% of our remaining refinery capacity; Phillips 66—a much larger refinery—is immediately next door. In the past few weeks, we have already seen fuel supplies adjusted and commercial contracts renegotiated. Although we clearly wanted the refinery to stay open, our assessment suggests that there is not an immediate risk to fuel supplies locally or in the wider area, but we will continue to monitor that.
On the shadow Minister’s wider points, I will first repeat what I have said on a number of occasions: we do support the oil and gas industry. I have spent a lot of time with the industry understanding some of its challenges, which are long standing, particularly around jobs lost over the past decade, and we consulted widely on what the future of energy in the north-east should look like to give confidence to the industry. We inherited the fiscal regime from the previous Government. We have consulted quickly on what the future of the energy profits levy should look like to ensure certainty about the fiscal landscape. The Treasury will respond to that consultation in due course. We want to give certainty, but we also want to recognise that this is an industry in transition, and burying our heads in the sand and pretending that that is not the case does nothing to protect the workforce in the long term. We will therefore continue to invest in the new industries of the future and in that wider strategy.
Refineries are important to our economy and will continue to be important. That is why I brought all of industry together in a roundtable to discuss the challenges facing the refinery sector. I was shocked to discover that that was the first time there had been such an invitation from the Government in 13 years. I ask the shadow Minister to reflect on who was in power for 14 years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister is absolutely right—so was the shadow Minister—to focus on the jobs and the communities affected by the worrying news coming from Lindsey. He was also right to say that the problems are the result of shockingly bad management. My Select Committee will look at the future of refining in this country in a one-off session in the autumn, and we will be able to take further evidence at that point.
In response to what the shadow Minister said about energy prices, will the Minister confirm that the way to get industrial energy prices down—just as with domestic energy prices—is to reduce our reliance on the volatility, uncertainty and high prices that are determined by Vladimir Putin and the petrostates, and that we have to manage the transition, not shut our eyes to it or somehow play into culture wars as Reform wants us to do?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right. Separate from all the wider issues facing the refinery sector and the oil and gas sector generally, it is right we recognise that this week there are workers hearing some devastating news. Detailed work will be going on into how much of the site we can utilise in the future, and assessments are under way about how credible some of the bids are. We will do more work on that, and I am sure that his inquiry will be useful.
On energy costs more generally, one of the conversations I had when I met the refinery sector was about how we could do more to bring down its costs. We are looking at how we could support refineries more through including them in the energy intensive industries compensation scheme, which would obviously cut costs and help UK refineries with their competitiveness. That is not straightforward, but we are determined to look at that.
On my hon. Friend’s final point, he is right that the overall context of what we are doing as a Government is driving forward the transition to clean power, because it gives us back our energy security and takes away the volatility in prices that has been so devastating to households and businesses over the past few years. It is also the economic opportunity that helps drive forward refineries into what could be profitable businesses in that transition. They will continue to play a part in that, and we will support them to do so.
Mr Speaker
We have a lot of business today, so if we could help each other, that would be very useful. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The closure of Prax Lindsey oil refinery is deeply troubling, with up to 1,000 jobs at risk across the supply chain. It is a devastating blow to workers, their families and the communities that rely on the refinery. We need a clear strategy to support those whose livelihood is in jeopardy. That means practical help with reskilling and retraining. This is also an opportunity for targeted green investment in industries that can offer decent, secure jobs for the future.
This crisis speaks to a wider failure. The UK still lacks a proper plan for a just transition that gives oil and gas workers real confidence about what comes next. We need to wind down fossil fuels in a way that provides genuine opportunities—well-paid green jobs, clean energy infrastructure, and proper support for the communities that have long powered this country. As other parties embrace climate denialism and internet conspiracy theories, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to ensure that we do not backtrack on our climate targets, undermine green investor confidence, and abandon our leadership on the world stage when it comes to climate change.
First, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that contingency plans are in place, so that those whose jobs are at risk are guaranteed support and opportunities to redeploy their skills? Secondly, how are the Government ensuring that investment in skills and regeneration is targeted, so that it has the greatest impact where it is needed most? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the transition to renewable energy makes the best use of the skills and experience of oil and gas workers in the places affected, such as the Humber estuary?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman is so wide of the mark it is unbelievable. The Grangemouth closure was foreshadowed before this Government came to power. We have worked hand in glove with his colleagues in the Scottish Government—all the way along, Gillian Martin and I have been working on it—and for him to try to make party politics out of the issue is, frankly, a disgrace.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The British oil and gas industry is a resilient sector—it has had to be, given this Government’s actions over the past year—and it takes a lot to shock it, but shocked it was when, on 2 July, sadly the Energy Minister claimed to the Scottish Affairs Committee that there was no “material difference” between oil and gas imports and production from the North sea. Might the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise and clarify those remarks, because thousands of workers in the energy industry supply chain in Aberdeen and across the UK are very worried that the Department has such scant regard for them, their work and this world-leading industry?
Ed Miliband
First of all, Mr Speaker, let me congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his promotion to shadow Secretary of State. [Laughter.] On the specific issue he raises, we will take no lectures from the Conservatives. Some 70,000 jobs were lost in the North sea on their watch. And here is the difference: we are building the future. The Acorn project was talked about for year after year by the Conservatives but nothing was done. This Government are delivering.
Andrew Bowie
The Secretary of State will not apologise. That is absolutely fine. The industry already knows that this is a Government who want nothing to do with it, and who take every opportunity to talk it down and make every effort to shut it down. In that same session last week, the Minister who is sitting to the Secretary of State’s left also claimed that
“much of the gas that is extracted from the North sea is exported”.
That is simply not true: 100% of all the gas extracted from the North sea is used in Britain. The Secretary of State knows that, so why is he so determined to talk down this industry, spout falsehoods and myths, drive investment out of the UK, rely more on imports and, crucially, cost people’s jobs and drive the skills we need out of this country? That is exactly what he and his colleagues are doing.
Michael Shanks
That sounds like a fantastic opportunity. Our ambition is to see solar panels on as many rooftops across the country as possible. It is a win-win opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman rightly puts it. He and I have spoken about a number of these issues previously, and I am happy to discuss this one with him. If he could write to me with the specifics, we will certainly look at the matter. In the meantime, we are looking at reforming all those processes to make sure that we can get as much power as possible.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The challenges of increasing electricity grid capacity include the ability to get planning consent and to achieve grid connections, as the Minister knows. In the report that the Select Committee published last week, we referred to the problem of inconsistency in some of the guidance and energy plans over which comes first—the grid connection or the planning consent. Will the Minister please address that and ensure that the Government clear up that inconsistency, so that we can move forward with increasing electricity generation and grid capacity?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is right to raise this situation; we know that it is very difficult, and we have been engaging on it. There have been long-standing issues with how the plant is run. We are trying, across the piece, to support businesses to make the transition—and support them within the transition—so that we can protect jobs across the country.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
When the price cap fell last month, the Labour party boasted, “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. The Minister knows that energy bills fell as wholesale gas prices fell, and she knows that her policy is to take the country off gas and keep increasing policy costs on bills. That is why she refuses to repeat the claim. Will she take this opportunity to apologise for her party saying something that she knows is untrue?
Kerry McCarthy
Yes, of course we look at the cumulative impact of these developments. Having been in the Department, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we have an excellent team of scientists led by Professor Paul Monks, who I want to pay tribute to because he is standing down later this year. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want to do so too.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State tried to argue yesterday that he is a climate change believer and everybody else who disagrees with him is a denier, because he does not want to engage with any legitimate criticism of his policies. He is offshoring British industries—in other words, replacing British goods with dirtier imports with higher emissions. Can the Minister confirm what the scientific evidence is that doing so will help to tackle climate change?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to talk about the potential of solar on our commercial buildings. We know that solar can reduce energy bills by about £600. We are looking at all the options, because we are absolutely serious about a solar rooftop revolution, whether on our homes or commercial buildings.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcomed the joint agreement signed in May between the UK and the EU, in which small steps were taken to address the impacts of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal on energy costs and bills. What further steps will the Secretary of State take to forge energy co-operation through a recoupling of the UK and EU electricity markets and the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market, to boost trade, bring down renewable energy costs and reduce energy bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the strategic spatial energy plan will set out where we need our energy infrastructure, so that we can have a planned system that matches power needs and infrastructure at least cost to bill payers and taxpayers.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Yesterday, the Secretary of State said I was hiding when I was, in fact, with my six-month-old baby, who I know he is aware of. On behalf of all young mums who face those kinds of comments in their first few weeks back at work, may I gently suggest he reflects on those remarks?
I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: is £82 higher or lower than £72?
Ed Miliband
GB Energy will prioritise a whole range of projects, and that is a matter for GB Energy, as a publicly owned energy company at arm’s length from Government, but there are huge opportunities right across our country, whether in floating wind, tidal, hydrogen or offshore wind and supply chains. GB Energy is owned by the public and will benefit people right across Britain.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Across Europe, we have already seen 2,300 heatwave-related deaths—avoidable deaths—and the Met Office report says that things will just get worse. The Lib Dems and I have a really cool idea. Will the Secretary of State work with local authorities to open up public spaces with air conditioning, such as leisure centres and libraries, so that they can provide relief from extreme heat for the elderly and vulnerable?
State of Climate and Nature
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a rare pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, given that he turned down the opportunity to defend his plan for clean power by 2030 or the report from the National Energy System Operator that was published earlier in the year. Perhaps that is why we are being given a slightly longer statement than usual, making up for missed opportunities. However, we welcome the Met Office’s report, which makes for interesting reading. I think we can all attest to the fact that Britain today is warmer than it was before.
We all agree that the challenge of the changing climate is vast, and it is one of many challenges facing the United Kingdom today, but I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that ridiculous statements such as that made this morning by the Environment Secretary, labelling opponents of net zero “unpatriotic”, is as offensive as it is risible, and does nothing to advance the cause. I must also express my growing sense of unease, and that of many others, about the language emanating from those surrounding this Secretary of State, accusing anyone who dares to question the policies or plans being worked on by his Department of being “deniers” or being supportive of an “end to our British way of life”. We need to bring back a sense of rationality, or proportion, to this debate, because out there, language such as this is alienating more and more people from the important cause of ensuring that the planet we pass on to our children and their children is in a better state than the one we have inherited.
The Secretary of State calls this “radical truth telling”, but I am afraid that he is not being honest with the British people about the impact of the Government’s plans on the climate, bills and jobs, or about the sacrifices it demands. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: chasing “Net Zero by 2050” is unachievable without making the country worse off. That is the truth. Global warming is a global issue, which we cannot face alone. The global climate challenge will not be solved by the UK alone, and it cannot be solved on the backs of British workers or British bill payers.
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to be careful about what we say. I think that the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Secretary of State was not honest, and I think we are all honest Members here.
Andrew Bowie
I completely agree, Mr Speaker, and I apologise if I insinuated the opposite in any way.
The UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. That is also the truth. In fact, now that I come to think of it, it is rather shameful that the Secretary of State should be using this report from the Met Office as cover, while ratcheting up the language and increasing the shrill criticism of all who question the Department and its policies, all to distract from the fact that the plans mean that Britain will be poorer and that no one looking at how we are decarbonising could ever claim that this is a model to follow. We are proud to have been a world leader—
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Select Committees look at the evidence, follow the evidence and make recommendations on the basis of the evidence. Today, we have heard from the Secretary of State the evidence from the Met Office about the seriousness of the threat, the reality of the nature of the crisis and the fact that that will only grow. The shadow Minister missed something because he needs to acknowledge not just the costs of taking action but the costs of not doing so. The Secretary of State read out those costs: £200 billion or 8% of GDP if we get 3° of warming, according to the OBR.
Those opposing climate action in this place can also see the evidence that cheaper driving and home heating are already available to many people, and we should be making them available to as many people as possible. They also know that switching to low-carbon electricity as much and as fast as we can will make this country safer by getting control of our energy generation and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree that the patriotic approach is to work together to cut emissions for financial, security, nature and climate reasons?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend puts it very well. As I have experienced over the last 20 years, we have not had a culture war on climate, because the Conservative party and the Labour party chose to say that this really matters. The Conservative party has apparently abandoned its belief in climate action at precisely the time, as the CCC has shown—in carbon budget 7, for example—that this is the way to reduce costs for people.
I would make another point. I notice there are young people watching in the Public Gallery and elsewhere. What message do we send to them by saying, “Look, we just can’t act on this”? It is such a betrayal of future generations, who have genuine anxiety about what world they are going to inherit from us.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank both the Energy Secretary and the Environment Secretary for today’s momentous statement, which I trust will be the first of many annual climate and nature statements. I also thank them for recognising the role of Zero Hour and the campaigners behind the Climate and Nature Bill—the private Member’s Bill that I am proud to have brought to this House, with cross-party support. I warmly welcome the move to more joined-up thinking between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and applaud the willingness of the Government to work across the House, even if that willingness is not always reciprocated.
However, this statement has missed a trick. The Secretary of State promised collaboration with campaigners, non-governmental organisations and communities. In reality, engagement so far has been very limited. If stakeholders had been involved, he might have acknowledged calls from the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to remove the threats to nature protection in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, or the Nature Friendly Farming Network’s concern over the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive. He told the Environmental Audit Committee that this would be a “public participation issue”, yet there was no consultation of the Climate and Nature Bill campaigners ahead of this statement. If we want to bring communities with us, we have to include them and listen to them. People across the country are already driving change in their communities, schools, farms and businesses, and to build a better, greener future, the Government should be tapping into that Great British human energy—to coin a phrase.
The Liberal Democrats are proud to be doing exactly that, with policies such as an emergency home insulation programme, solar panels on every new build, investment in cheap renewable energy, support for community energy, local nature recovery strategies and an extra £1 billion for nature-friendly farming. People need hope and a role in shaping the solutions. Despair is not a strategy and action is not optional. It is essential and urgent to protect our health, our economy and our national security. So I ask again: when will the Secretary of State meet me, my fellow Liberal Democrats, Zero Hour and the environmental non-governmental organisations to create an annual climate and nature Bill that is bold and ambitious, brings transparency and hope, and shows that the Government are genuinely bridging the gap between policy and delivery?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I really want to get everybody in—I am sure the Secretary of State wants that—so I need a lot of help from those on the Front Bench to speed things up. A good example will be set by Toby Perkins, the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda. Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please! I need Members to help me get colleagues in. All colleagues from all sides of the House want to get in on this statement. Without your help, that will not happen.
Ed Miliband
That bit was great, though. My hon. Friend is so right: that is not where the British people are on this issue. The British people want action on climate, not a culture war. Frankly, wherever they live in the country, people want to pass on a liveable country to their kids and grandkids.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on confirming whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is the most beautiful part of England—I will leave that to him. However, what he proposes sounds like a fantastic idea and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further. We see huge potential for a whole range of renewables. Those kinds of innovative projects—smaller scale as well—are what could deliver not just benefits for the system but real benefits for the communities that host them.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Moving from gas to electricity in home heating is an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet at the Select Committee hearing last week, we heard real concerns that people in energy debt are unable to disconnect from gas and are therefore still stuck paying standing charges. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are to remove that problem and ensure that more people can take up the opportunities presented by electrifying home heat?
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Mr Speaker, The Times has told the world how old you are today.
Sir Roger Gale
I do not propose to write it into the record, but I note that you are catching up on me. [Laughter.] Happy birthday.
Sir Roger Gale
Yesterday, a Minister said from the Dispatch Box that only 1% of farmland was being damaged by development, yet solar panels are smothering east Kent’s best farmland. It must stop. Given what the Secretary of State has said, what further steps will he take to protect our farmland and really do move solar panels on to rooftops, car parks and public buildings?
Michael Shanks
As so often, my hon. Friend is correct on these matters. He usually has a quote that shows that, just a few months ago, Opposition Front Benchers agreed with us on many of these matters, but have suddenly changed their position. As my hon. Friend says, our proposals are not only critical to delivering energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, but to tackling the climate crisis, which has such an impact on our lives now and in the future, and to the economic opportunities of the 21st century.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We need to ensure that the technology that we import to increase grid capacity is secure. US officials recently found kill switches in Chinese-made components for solar farms. The Conservatives have been clear about the security risks that China poses in our energy supply chain, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he discussed that issue in his recent meeting with Chinese officials? If not, why not?
Sarah Jones
When we hear the SNP opposing jobs, it seems sad for the people of Scotland. We are supporting jobs up and down Scotland. The hon. Gentleman does not have long to wait to hear about Acorn, because the spending review will be published later this week.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and very many happy returns. We obviously welcome new jobs when they are created, but will the Minister acknowledge the destructive impact of her Government’s policies on jobs in oil and gas in the North sea? On Friday evening in Westhill, in my constituency, I met many workers who are terrified for their future, their family and their community, because the skilled jobs in the supply chain that is maintained by oil and gas are not being replaced at the pace needed by renewables. That is due to a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in oil and gas activity. Will she not admit that the Government have got this dreadfully wrong?
Michael Shanks
I always agree with my hon. Friend, but on her initial point, I probably do not. I am not sure that we do all agree in this House that we should remove the volatility of fossil fuel prices. Some want us to remain linked to fossil fuels for longer and longer. We are determined to remove that vulnerability from people’s bills, so that we do not face the price spikes that many families still struggle with. She is right to point to targeted support as well. We are looking at social tariffs. Part of the challenge is that the phrase means different things to different people, but we are clear that bringing down bills for everyone is a top priority for this Government, and the clean power mission is how we will do it.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Energy Secretary has said that there is a “principled case” for removing green taxes from electricity bills, and the cost being met by increases in green taxes on gas bills. That would be a net tax rise for every household—80% of the country—that uses gas. This was not an argument that he made before the election, so can the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any increase in taxes, charges or levies on gas bills?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am working with the Minister for Energy Consumers and others across Government on this as part of the warm homes plan. We have to make sure that those who can least afford it can take advantage of the huge opportunities of insulation, solar panels and batteries.
Ed Miliband
The east of England will be a clean energy powerhouse for the country. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about workforce, and we will be publishing the workforce plan soon.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as
“a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.
Does he still agree with that?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The North sea’s future lies in clean energy, but despite the UK’s billing as a wind superpower, we still import most of our wind turbine components while communities around the North sea are losing jobs. Trade unions and industry are united in calling for £1.1 billion a year to build up domestic renewables manufacturing, but the Chancellor has committed barely half that. Will the Secretary of State work with his Cabinet colleagues to secure the investment that is needed to realise the job-creating potential of the green just transition?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker—I suspect you may be relieved that we cannot sing in the Chamber.
I was recently approached by a small business owner in my constituency of Edinburgh West who faces bill of almost £30,000 for the period of lockdown when her business was closed. She is getting no sense out of British Gas Lite about why she is facing this bill, and I am getting no response from it. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can find out what is happening?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on two fronts. First, we are not closing down oil and gas. It will continue to play a part for many years to come, but there is a transition under way, as there has been for many years. The truth of the matter is that, while we want to create the jobs that come next, he turns his face against all the investment in what those jobs will be, which means that, under his plan, the transition will not lead to a future for that incredibly skilled workforce. We are determined to do it differently, so that there are good, well-paid jobs in the future and a secure energy mix for decades to come.
Mr Speaker
I thank everybody who has wished me well for my birthday. I got the best birthday present, and that was the knighthood for Sir Billy Boston, who had to leave Wales to play rugby league. This is the first knighthood for rugby league, so it is the best present I could have had.
Nuclear Power: Investment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.
Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:
“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]
That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.
The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.
First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.
I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.
Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years, and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.
This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.
Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.
In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.
Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.
Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.
I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.
We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.
Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Miliband
I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.
On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.
In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will decide when things are out of order. I do not need any help. I want you to get the question finished quickly, so come on.
Ed Miliband
To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station.
Ed Miliband
Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.
Ed Miliband
We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend, who is also a really powerful advocate for his constituents, is absolutely right. Project Willow was left on the shelf by the previous Government. We put the money in to take Project Willow forward and we are now going to implement it. Absolutely crucial to that is ensuring the skills of oil and gas workers are properly used in the future, including with the skills passport which also lay dormant under the previous Government and which we are powering ahead with.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Through my work on the Select Committee, I have heard repeated concerns from industry leaders that existing workers in their 50s and 60s see no point in retraining because they believe they will see out their careers supporting old technologies. That has a knock-on impact on young entrants to the workforce, who have traditionally learnt their skills from more experienced workers. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to incentivise retraining to support growth in the renewable energy sector?
Kerry McCarthy
I would dispute that it is threatening the environment, but we will be looking at the wider issue the right hon. Gentleman raises through the solar industry taskforce.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The overwhelming majority of those at the international energy summit last week said that the transition to low-carbon energy is crucial to energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in this Chamber and beyond who do not support the transition to low-carbon energy are playing fast and loose with this country’s energy security?
Kerry McCarthy
I cannot pre-empt what is in the report. We will wait for it to come out, and then respond in due course. On local leadership, the hon. Lady and I share a local authority, and I would be very happy to discuss with it what more we can do to set an example—as Bristol has done so many times in the past—on how things can be done at a local level.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
As we have seen in Portugal and Spain, renewable energy can sometimes be unreliable. Given the dominant role that China plays in our renewable energy infrastructure, will the Minister set out for the House the full details of the deal that the Secretary of State signed in secret with the Chinese Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that every part of the country must benefit from this transition, so whether it is through our warm home scheme or the work that we are doing locally through Great British Energy, we are making sure that there is a solution for every single part of the country. In my Department, I am doing a lot of work to make sure that we have a set of propositions for households in rural areas, so that they can upgrade their homes and have bills that are cheaper and homes that are warmer, which is the central plank of our warm home scheme.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Several times now, I have asked Ministers to rule out aligning the British carbon price with the European one and each time they have refused to do so. They have already abandoned their promise to cut energy bills by £300 a year, but alignment would increase wholesale costs and therefore increase bills for every family in the country. Can the Minister, at last, be straight with the public and tell us whether the Government plan to match the European carbon price—yes, or no?
Michael Shanks
I think the right hon. Gentleman gives the game away there. Although the Conservative party did not particularly care where the supply chains were, we in the Labour party are committed to delivering good, well-paid jobs in this country. If he was so concerned about investing in British supply chains, he might have bothered to vote for Great British Energy in the first place.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday,
“they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing”
the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.
Ed Miliband
One hundred per cent—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The Minister for Energy Consumers and I often discuss how we have to ensure that our warm homes plan takes account of the particular needs and challenges facing rural areas.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Voters
“feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices…when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal… Present policy solutions are inadequate and…therefore unworkable… The current approach isn’t working… Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with his former boss Tony Blair?
Ed Miliband
The shadow Minister talks about the Tony Blair Institute report. I agree with a lot of what it says. It says that we should move ahead on carbon capture and storage, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on the role of artificial intelligence, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on nuclear, which the Government are doing. The shadow Minister said only three weeks ago, after his party dropped its net zero policy—this will surprise people, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. No, Secretary of State. This is topical questions; I do not need a full statement.
Andrew Bowie
To be honest, I was looking forward to hearing what I said a few weeks ago, Mr Speaker. It is okay for the Secretary of State to admit when he is wrong. As Tony Blair said yesterday, this strategy is “doomed to fail.” Why can the Secretary of State not see what the GMB and Tony Blair see, which is that clean power 2030 is doomed to fail and it is time for a change of approach?
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Office for Clean Energy Jobs is focused on developing a skilled workforce in core energy and net zero sectors that are critical to meeting our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working with Skills England to assess skill needs and engaging with the Department for Education on apprenticeships and the wider growth and skills offer.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Following the publication of the Severn estuary commission report on tidal power, will the Government produce a national policy statement to support tidal range energy, and will they publish a review of the available opportunities?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of Members I need to get in. These are topical questions—they are meant to be short and punchy.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to point out that public charging points are critical. That is why the regulator, Ofgem, allocated £22 billion over the next five years to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. I have had a number of meetings with network operators about this question, and I work closely with my colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure we are rolling out more points.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Moon, please. You will not get called again if you carry on like that. I am sure the Minister will know the answer.
Ed Miliband
I am delighted to remind the House that it was the Conservative party that left us with energy insecurity, and we are never going to leave this country vulnerable in the way that it did.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
Once again, we hear from Conservative Members about all these grand plans that they wish they had done in the 14 years that they were in government. They could have moved forward on undergrounding if they were so keen on it, but of course they did not. The reality is that it is for individual companies, not us, to set forward the design of individual projects, and cost estimates for undergrounding are five or 10 times more expensive.
The bottom line on all of this is that the leader of the hon. Member’s party earlier today moved away from the commitments that she had made on net zero. Just a few years ago, she said that
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes”
can make it
“harder…to heat our homes”.
They recognised then the importance of this net zero transition; now they are running away from how we deliver on it.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas. Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that where once there was consensus in this country on how we tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, how we deliver the economic and industrial advantage, that consensus seems to have been splintered by the Conservative party. It was only two years ago that the leader of that party made an important point, which I agree with strongly, when she said
“if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.”
The Conservative party now wishes us to be on the backfoot, but we are determined that we will drive forward because that is the best policy for consumers, economic growth and energy security.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to check his facts. The price cap went up, which was disappointing for families, because of the spike in wholesale prices. That is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. [Interruption.] I will say it incredibly slowly for him, so he can understand: it is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. We must break that reliance. We have to wean ourselves off this rollercoaster of price spikes and price falls, which is harming consumers across the country. The sprint to clean power will achieve that. It is a shame that he cannot see that.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Consumers are concerned about the rising energy price cap. What will the Secretary of State do to strengthen existing energy schemes and initiate new schemes? Will it include delivering the £300 reduction in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election?
Ed Miliband
I join the hon. Lady in warmly congratulating the six students from her constituency whom she mentioned. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that when we meet young people who are engaged in the potential of clean energy technology to transform our country and our world, it is an incredibly important reminder, both about its potential for jobs, and about our duties to future generations.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that by 2050, we need to be removing 10 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year if we are to stand a chance of keeping below the 1.5° target. It is clear that carbon removal, and not just carbon capture and storage, will play a critical role in our avoiding a climate disaster. In the face of the Conservative party once again embracing climate denialism, what steps will the Government take to support the research, development and deployment of carbon removal technologies to ensure that British companies become leaders in this emerging sector?
Mr Snowden
Whether one agrees with the Government’s net zero targets or not, they will not be able to achieve them without nuclear energy playing a significant role, which is why I was delighted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State chose to launch their nuclear strategy in my constituency—I can only assume that my invite was lost in the post. A key part of the nuclear fuel strategy is the nuclear fuel industry in this country. From the aggressive actions of Russia and other countries that have pushed western commercial providers out and dominated elements of the nuclear fuel enrichment and manufacturing market, we see that it is ever more important for our national security that we develop whole-of-lifecycle nuclear fuel production. When will the Government announce the concrete steps that they will take, as part of the strategy, to improve the whole-of-lifecycle manufacturing of nuclear power?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister for nuclear in the other place have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and seen the good work that is happening there, and just shy of £20 million from Government grants has gone into that work to help develop nuclear fuels, which will be part of the future. The big nuclear developments at Sizewell and Hinkley, SMRs and advanced modular reactors all need to be in the mix, and he is absolutely right to make that point.
Peter Prinsley
Small modular reactors, as the Minister says, will play an important part in delivering clean, cheap and secure energy across this country. However, current rules require that any reactor must apply for regulatory justification, as if nuclear power was an entirely new practice instead of an existing one. That delays reactors getting online and lowering energy bills for people across the country, including in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, by up to two years. Will the Secretary of State consider working with his Cabinet colleagues to simplify the system and recognise that nuclear energy technology is an existing practice, thereby accelerating the deployment of small modular reactors?
Sarah Jones
I am hoping that it will take less than the 14 years in which the previous Government failed to deliver anything. We will see the announcements on the first SMR in the spring. Our door is open to anyone who wants to suggest building new nuclear in this country.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
On 6 February, the Prime Minister announced that he would “take on the blockers” and build new small modular reactors, but do those blockers include his own Government? With essential work being delayed and paused at Sellafield, possible job losses at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and still no certainty for Sizewell C due to a general fear in the industry that the spending review will stymie the ambitions of Great British Nuclear, are the biggest blockers to new nuclear in the UK not in Labour’s Treasury?
Sarah Jones
I am not sure how many times the hon. Member promised he would get to the final investment decision on Sizewell under the last Government—I think he and his colleagues promised that at least five times in the House—and of course it did not happen. I gently repeat that the previous Government managed no new nuclear in 14 years, and he himself admitted that the Government had moved too slowly in getting nuclear projects off the ground. We are working at pace, and we will deliver the result of the competition in the spring. Sizewell C is also moving at pace, and we will have final answers in the spending review.
Mr Speaker
We are going to run on a bit because we are behind. We have hardly got through any questions.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituency, and on this issue of manufacturing jobs. If we look at what this Government are doing—from GB Energy to the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus—we see that this Government are determined to ensure that we manufacture in Britain. We care about where things are made, and we will make those good manufacturing jobs happen.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Michael Shanks
Under even the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about their being holistically planned, the strategic spatial energy planning that we have taken forward is important in having a coherent view of the entire energy system. That is work that we should have done many, many years ago. We are now moving at pace to do it, but individual planning applications are—
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Now that the Conservative party opposes large-scale solar, net zero and onshore wind, I am tempted to ask the Minister what he makes of that party’s new energy policy, which is to take us back to the past, rub two sticks together and hope for the best. Instead, will he update the House on the progress of Great British Energy in delivering our clean energy mission?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?
Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Lady raises important concerns that we are very much alive to. As I said in my first answer, energy security is critical to the Department’s work and that is why we have the clean power mission to end our dependency on fossil fuels. International investment is a crucial part of that and helps to support growth and jobs across the country. As part of that, we have discussions with a wide range of international investors, but we absolutely recognise that this needs to be balanced against national security implications. We work on that constantly across Government with input from a number of Departments, and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Security from the Home Office here for the urgent question.
The Government have to consider both those aspects together: the need for investment and for greater capacity in our supply chains, and the security risk. While I cannot get into the details of the individual case, given the nature of the ongoing discussions, I reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking these factors into account. We do want to make sure that the most robust processes are followed as we look at the details of this particular issue.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm the importance of our energy security, in contrast to what we saw under the previous Government. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can groan all they want, but that is the reality of what was inherited in July last year.
As we extend energy infrastructure in this country, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm how this Government will ensure that we have control of the operation of that infrastructure? Does she agree it is vital that through the industrial strategy we see a renaissance in our manufacturing and greater resilience in our supply chain, all of which adds to the energy security of this country?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that dealing with capacity issues in our supply chain is a crucial part of getting this investment into infrastructure. It is one of the reasons why, through the national wealth fund, we invested in lithium in Cornwall last week. Through the critical minerals strategy, we want to maximise the natural resources that we have, where we can. As I have said, we want to make absolutely sure that security concerns are addressed as well when we look at which investors invest in our new economy.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have launched the clean industry bonus, which will be crucial in protecting our supply chain. We are investing through GB Energy and the national wealth fund—I have already mentioned lithium in Cornwall. Through the global clean power alliance, which we launched at the end of last year, we will bring together our counterparts from other countries, including at the International Energy Agency conference in April, to look at a supply chain mission to deal with these issues. These issues do not just affect us in this country. As other countries seek to decarbonise and increase the role of renewables, we will all need to co-operate and deal with the capacity issues across the supply chain.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing this important urgent question. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as the Minister has rightly said, “energy security” has been a key term in this Chamber. There are two ways of looking at energy security. First, it is about generating our own renewable energy to avoid price volatility and exposure to authoritarian regimes, ensuring that we have the jobs here at home for design and construction. Secondly, it is about the national security issues around our energy infrastructure, which is also a form of energy security. A former MI6 chief has warned of the vulnerabilities, either deliberate or inadvertent, posed by foreign-controlled software embedded in our energy infrastructure. Given those serious concerns, can the Minister guarantee that any further investment in Scotland will increase both our energy and our national security?
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for clarification, you do not have jurisdiction on the planning issue, and it is no longer in the court, so I am a little bit confused by your assertion that you will be involved going forward.
Michael Shanks
I am happy to provide clarification based on the advice that I have, which is that this is a matter for the applicants in the court case, who are entitled to appeal the judgment, should they wish to do so. If they wish to make a further application in this matter, my Department will be responsible for making that judgment, and I seek not to prejudice an application by giving an opinion one way or the other on these matters. I hope that that sits well with you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.
Andrew Bowie
In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.
The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.
Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.
The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Michael Shanks
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.
What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the Government’s commitment to supporting production in existing North sea oil and gas fields and for confirming the desire to partner closely with industry and workers on the transition away from fossil fuels. Does he agree that the workers and communities that rely on the North sea would be in a much stronger position if we had not witnessed over the last decade a chaotic mismanagement of the decline in the basin that he has just referred to, and the failure to plan for the loss of 70,000 jobs in that decade alone?
Michael Shanks
The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point, which is that the failure to acknowledge that the transition is already under way is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything will carry on as it was. The reality is that in the past decade a third of the oil and gas workforce—70,000 workers, as my hon. Friend says—have already lost their jobs and the transition is under way. We are determined to ensure not only that the transition leads to a future in the North sea energy sector that, yes, involves oil and gas for many years to come, but that we build the industries of the future now so that there is no gap. The alternative is to do what the previous Government did, which was to pretend that the transition was not under way and then somehow deal with the shock that would come when North sea oil and gas inevitably declined to the point where workers’ jobs were not protected. We are determined to build what comes next and to protect good, well-paid jobs in the North sea for many decades to come.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The decisions that we make in the next decade on energy will make or break the planet, and this is also key for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields. Should the proposed developers apply for a new development consent, the ruling gives the Government the opportunity to take a rational, science-based approach and make a decision on the future of the field based on what is best for the planet, the people of Britain and the UK’s international leadership.
Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), approving these oilfields this will not protect UK workers. Despite promises of jobs, not a single UK design or construction role has been created. Instead, that work has been outsourced to Dubai. Business leaders agree that a fair transition away from oil and gas will boost our economy, create jobs and attract investment. The Liberal Democrats oppose the oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead of pouring money into an energy source that is not consistent with our climate commitments, we should be calling on the Government to invest in renewables and an ambitious green energy strategy that lowers costs, creates jobs and secures our future. What assessment will the Minister make of our climate commitments?
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.
Michael Shanks
I will find the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that historical transitions in key industries have left workers high and dry, instead of recognising that a transition is under way and supporting that workforce into what comes next. The coal industry devastated large parts of my constituency in Lanarkshire, and areas across England and Wales, which continues to have consequences for generations. We are determined that that will not happen with the North sea, but it requires us to plan the transition and to put it in place now, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Fuel poverty is devolved in Scotland. The Scottish Government have had the opportunity to make a dent in this problem for almost 20 years and they have not. Even now, as we are ramping up upgrades to help people with fuel poverty, the Scottish Government are raiding more than £200 million from retrofitting funds that could help families today. I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on how we tackle this problem.