Westminster Hall

Thursday 16th January 2025 Westminster Hall

Thursday 16 January 2025

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Marine Renewables Industry

Thursday 16th January 2025 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the allocation of time for this important and, as we head towards allocation round 7, timely debate. I hope that we will be able to influence some of the Minister’s thinking. It is good to welcome him to his place in the Chamber.

It is also good to welcome you to the Chair for the first time, Ms Jardine. You and I have known each other for many years, and I anticipate—I might yet be shown to be horribly wrong about this—that the next few hours may witness the longest I have ever been able to speak in your presence without interruption. [Laughter.] I should also place on the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) is celebrating a significant birthday today. What better way to celebrate the acquisition of a bus pass than an afternoon spent in Westminster Hall?

This debate is particularly timely. As well as coming in the run-up to AR7, we anticipate in the next few weeks the publication of a fairly comprehensive piece of work by one of Scotland’s finest universities, the University of Edinburgh. Its school of engineering is about to publish a report on the future economic potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland. I will not spike the release of the report, but it is an enormously significant piece of work, which will significantly progress the debate as we head towards AR7.

Among the headlines from that report may be an indication of the potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland and across the whole United Kingdom. Marine energy could contribute £37 billion gross value added to Scotland’s economy by 2050, and £28 billion of that, most significantly, is from exports. When the Minister speaks to colleagues in Government about the opportunities to grow our manufacturing base, contribute to the economic growth to which we are all committed and, as a consequence, improve export performance, this is the direction in which he might want to point them. Marine energy has the potential to create 62,400 jobs—to put that in context, the wind industry currently supports in the region of 20,000 jobs—and we have the potential in Scottish waters alone to deploy 9 GW of tidal stream and wave energy by 2050.

The opportunities for tidal stream generation come from the fact that as a brand-new industry—how often do we get to say that?—we can shape the supply chain and then export the expertise and products from that supply chain around the world. Tidal stream is not unique to Scotland or the United Kingdom; when we show that it can be done here, others will want to do it in other parts of the world. Devices that are currently in the water have produced a UK supply chain input in the region of 80%. Not many technologies are in a position to make that boast.

The vibe in the industry, if I can put it like that, is fairly positive and upbeat: there are opportunities coming down the road. However, this “overnight success” has been at least 20 years in the making. It has been a long march, and progress is never linear. We have had false dawns and disappointments, but in the last few years it has been demonstrated beyond any measure of doubt that obvious and visible demonstrations of Government support make a real difference in getting this industry towards the point of commercialisation and the opportunities that that will bring.

At the time of the fourth allocation round, the then Government committed to the first ringfenced pot for tidal stream generation. That had a massive impact, not just as a consequence of the opportunity that it provided, but as a signal that the technology was taken seriously by Government and was being given opportunity and support from Government. It is to that series of signals that we now need to look, because although we have made significant progress, we are not yet at the point of commercialisation. We do need to do a little bit more in order to get there happily.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to give leadership and clarity to the tidal sector, including by explaining whether the criteria for well developed tidal range proposals published by the last Government are being taken forward by the current Government, so that projects like the Wyre tidal barrage in my constituency will be better informed when going forward with their proposals?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree. I suspect that I do not have as much expertise as the hon. Lady in tidal barrage—or whatever we are calling it these days. Most of the interest I have developed over the years is in tidal stream, but there is never going to be a single technology or a single silver bullet here; there has to be an opportunity for all the different technologies to contribute. The USP of tidal energy, however we capture it, is of course its predictability, so it can contribute to baseload. I will discuss later how the industry is able to engage with Government, because there are parallels to be drawn with what has been done in the past for the oil and gas industry, which might now be done for renewables, particularly marine renewables.

I shall first dwell briefly on the progress we have made thus far. Orbital Marine Power, for example, now deploys the world’s most powerful tidal turbine—in Orkney, obviously. It is estimated that that device, manufactured in Dundee, has on its own created something in the region of 80 full-time equivalent jobs across the United Kingdom. Since its incorporation, Orbital has raised and deployed £84 million of capital. It won two contracts for difference in round 5, totalling £7.2 million, on top of the £7.4 million that it had been awarded in AR4. It is expected that the first power from these contracts will be collected in 2026. These are serious companies doing serious business. This is no longer a sort of aspirational, slightly hippy niche subject; these are serious businesses that require serious attention from Government and regulators.

Nova Innovation, which operates in Shetland, as it happens—I am told other island groups are available—installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound between Yell and Unst in Shetland. It has six two-bladed horizontal axis tidal stream turbines and is the largest array yet deployed. In AR6 Nova secured three 15-year contracts totalling 6 MW of tidal energy capacity. As a consequence of the last allocation round, the UK is on track to have in excess of 130 MW deployed by 2029. Nova is also involved in floating solar developments, and it is estimated that floating solar has the potential to produce 9.343 TWh in the future. That is the scale of the opportunity that presents itself.

The real catalyst of this serious and determined progress was the setting up in 2003 of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, a body that had its roots in a report of the Science and Technology Committee of this House, which was taken up and driven by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and then the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who as Deputy First Minister of Scotland saw the opportunity, got the resource and the political drive behind it, and set up EMEC, which is the facility for demonstrating and testing wave and tidal devices.

EMEC’s operations since 2003 have contributed £370 million GVA to the UK economy. EMEC’s success is due in no small measure to Neil Kermode, its director since 2005. I am not going to turn around because he is in the Gallery and I know that he will be staring daggers at me for singling him out, but Neil’s contribution to the success of that institution must not be underestimated, as it shows the difference that one person in the right place at the right time can make.

Another significant driver of progress in Orkney is Heriot-Watt University’s campus there, the International Centre for Island Technology. In recent years, its postgraduate taught courses in renewables have grown a skills base at postgraduate level which has been an important part of driving the progress we have seen. We cannot make progress without skilled people; we can get in all the investment we like, but it will only take us so far if we do not have people who are capable of using and developing it. Despite that, in 2019, the Scottish Funding Council grant scheme that had supported the tuition for these postgraduate taught courses ended. That has precipitated a fall in student numbers.

Although this issue is principally within the Scottish Government’s remit, I want to put it on the Minister’s radar, because if achieving development and deployment goals is part of UK Government policy, there must be a means of finding UK Government money for these courses. Whether it is done by sponsorship of places or some other means, the cost of 20 students a year at £9,200 each would be £920,000 over a five-year period. Think about that in the context of the numbers that I have spoken about—the potential that the sector adds to the UK economy. If we do not make this investment now, we will be penny wise but pound foolish.

I have some key asks of the Government as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, in consultation with the Marine Energy Council, Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK. The most important thing, as we head towards allocation round 7, is an increase in the ringfenced budget for marine energy. The last three consecutive ringfences for tidal stream through contracts for difference have delivered an unprecedented deployment pipeline, but the last round saw a fall in the contracted amount at a point where we really needed to build momentum for the sector. I am told by those in the industry that there is sufficient eligible capacity to ensure that there would be competition for a ringfence set at that level. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should set a £30 million ringfence for tidal and a £5 million ringfence for wave energy in this year’s round—a round, incidentally, that they described to me as “crucial”.

We also look to the Government to enable support for marine energy through GB Energy and the national wealth fund. High capital costs and unconventional risk profiles are hindering some of the progress in securing adequate finance for a move towards large-scale commercial construction. GB Energy and the national wealth fund could accelerate deployment of and embed UK content in marine energy projects. They could provide finance under commercial terms for viable projects that have secured a CfD. That is not asking them to make a particularly risky investment, but it would allow them to bring to final investment decision, and thus construction, some of those projects in this parliamentary term.

The third ask is to provide a voice for marine energy with a marine energy taskforce, which brings me back to my answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). In addition to supporting investment, both the Scottish and UK Governments have an important role to play in bringing key stakeholders together. Again, it is about sending signals. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should establish that energy taskforce to develop a strategic road map, to tackle barriers to deployment, to secure investment, to increase innovation funding and to deliver value for money.

When I was in Government, we set up a body for the oil and gas industry called PILOT. It was essentially the forum in which all the various majors, and those with any production interests in the UK continental shelf, could sit down and inform Government on the progress of their industry, and on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. That was a formal body, so that there was a degree of transparency associated with it. If PILOT could be set up for the oil and gas industry in the past, a similar body for marine renewables would be a particularly positive development. Again, it is about sending signals to the markets to give them the confidence to make the necessary investment.

We are looking for the Scottish Government—this is obviously not a point for the Minister—to prioritise marine energy in their energy strategy; for the Minister to speak to his colleagues in other Departments as we get the industrial strategy; and for both Governments to set bolder targets, which we believe would boost investor confidence. These asks do not come with particularly large price tags attached. The CfD levels would of course be a significant increase, but that is money that is already there and accounted for. Everything else is essentially about sending signals. We saw at the time of the creation of the first ringfence, at AR4, that sending these signals can be an enormously significant catalyst for investment.

There are a couple of issues that I want to put on the Minister’s radar. They do not necessarily fall under his portfolio, but I know that Ministers talk to each other. First, as the deployment of marine renewables and offshore wind continues to develop apace, there has to be some mechanism for holding the ring between renewables and other users of the sea and the seabed. The Minister knows that I have big concerns about the role that has been given to the Crown Estate Commission as owners of the seabed. I would like to think that the commission would be a body that could hold the ring, as it owns and licenses the use of the seabed, but experience tells me that it does not always work out like that. If we give the powers to the Crown Estate Commission that are anticipated in the Crown Estate Bill, which is going through the House, while retaining the obligation on it as a primary duty to maximise return to the estate, then there could be an issue. To be successful, we have to be able to bring island and coastal communities along with us, otherwise this becomes another thing that is done to those communities, rather than something in which they feel they have a role.

Finally, if we are going to deploy more resource at sea—and obviously, I think we should—we have to take the question of cable security seriously. We have to look at what happened just before Christmas, when the Russian so-called ghost fleet cut the cable going into the south of Finland. We know that Russia has had some activity, which we believe to be malign, in the UK continental shelf, so let us get ahead of the game and take that seriously.

The placing of cables on the seabed will only become more significant. I recently met Xlinks, which is bringing a significant amount of solar energy from Morocco to the United Kingdom via a subsea cable, which it is burying as it goes. It is at these points that we realise that with every opportunity there is a threat, and we must take the threats seriously. That is not within the Minister’s purview, but at the end of the day it has to be part of the way that we approach the outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring these concerns to the House, Ms Jardine. I am thankful that a good number of colleagues have stayed here on a Thursday afternoon. I appreciate their commitment, and I hope it will bear fruit.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

13:51

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.

I want to begin by talking about the exciting link between the Edinburgh North and Leith constituency, and Orkney and Shetland. Nova Innovation, based in Leith, has a very simple mission: to be a global leader in marine energy, delivering clean, predictable energy across the world. In 2016, it installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and ever since then the array has went from strength to strength. Three turbines were installed in 2016, a fourth in 2020, and a fifth and sixth two years ago. That installation is not just the world’s first offshore tidal array; it now has the largest number of tidal turbines anywhere in the world. In last year’s contracts for difference allocation round, Nova secured contracts to deliver 6 MW of tidal energy at the Fall of Warness site in Orkney. It is innovating at pace and is demonstrating the potential for tidal and new marine renewables to deliver energy security, and to help with the sprint to clean power.

It is essential that the Government support and guide marine renewables—first, by setting a 1 GW tidal stream target by 2035, which would send a signal to industry about their support and ambition. I am keen to hear from the Minister what consideration the Government have given to putting in place such a target.

Secondly, GB Energy could help to harness the potential for tidal power here and across the globe. Nova in my constituency has demonstrated that the technology can work, and our tides and sea mean that we have 11 GW potential domestically. If GB Energy took equity stakes in tidal stream projects, those projects could be scaled up not only to benefit from that 11 GW earlier, but to build up domestic manufacturing, domestic supply chains and to deliver jobs. I appreciate that there is smaller demand for tidal overall than for other renewable sources, but at present 8% of the tidal supply chain is in the UK.

Thirdly, we need to speed up the consent process, and I welcome the decisions taken by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in that regard. Stakeholders have expressed their dismay to me that, although Canada can secure consent and start construction within two years and France can do similar within three, the process can take up to a decade in the UK. I am concerned that if the timescales cannot improve, we will fritter away our competitive advantage not just with marine renewables but across a large number of established and innovative technologies. I appreciate that consenting is devolved to Scotland; the Minister knows that I have raised the unacceptably long process for consent decisions with the Energy Consents Unit and Marine Scotland, and I would welcome an update on the recent discussions he has had with Scottish Ministers on consenting.

I hope that the Government will listen to today’s debate and fully back marine renewables, and that in the future there will be a stronger link between Edinburgh North and Leith, and Orkney and Shetland, with more tidal energy generated.

13:54

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate.

As the Member for South Devon, I am proud to represent a constituency with a long and rich history of maritime activity. From the bustling port of Brixham to the naval port of Dartmouth, the sea is very much part of our identity. It is for that reason that I am here today in firm support of the development of marine renewable energy. However, progress must be pursued in a way that respects and supports our fishing industry, ensuring that these two vital sectors can thrive side by side.

The UK is a global leader in renewable energy, and marine renewables present a unique opportunity to further that leadership. The water surrounding our islands hold enormous potential. Living on wet, windy islands, would it not be great if we could put some of that weather to good use?

According to the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, tidal stream energy could provide up to 11.5 GW of capacity —following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, I think that figure is probably more now—which is equivalent to approximately 15% or more of the UK’s current electricity demand. Wave energy, though less mature technologically, offers additional capacity for long-term energy generation. These technologies, which include tidal stream turbines and oscillating wave surge converters, are capable of harnessing predictable and consistent energy, which is a crucial advantage over more intermittent renewable sources, like solar and wind.

Investing in marine renewables is not just an environmental imperative. It is a huge economic opportunity for the UK. The sector, as we have heard, could create tens of thousands of jobs and attract billions in private investment. Projects such as those we have heard about in Orkney and Shetland demonstrate the potential for large-scale deployment, with capacity to generate a substantial element of our electricity once fully operational.

The integration of marine renewables into our energy mix will not only diversify supply, but enhance our grid stability through predictable energy output. The economic benefits extend way beyond energy production. The sector could contribute billions to the UK economy annually, with supply chain opportunities for our coastal communities and the manufacturing sector alike.

As we pursue this promising future, we must not lose sight of the vital role that our fishing industry plays. Brixham, one of the UK’s most productive fishing ports, landed a record breaking £43.6 million-worth of seafood last year. That is not just an economic statistic—it represents the hard work of the fishing community and their contribution to our food security. As we navigate the transition to renewable energy, it is essential that the voices of our fishermen are heard and their expertise is valued.

Marine renewable energy projects must be carefully planned to avoid disrupting fishing grounds and marine ecosystems. That requires advanced spatial planning tools, such as geographic information systems, to identify suitable sites for development that minimise conflict with established fishing zones and sensitive habitats. Consultation with the fishing community must be a fundamental part of the development process, not an afterthought. Fishermen know the waters better than anyone and can provide invaluable insights into where installations can co-exist happily with fishing activities. With good collaboration, we can ensure that marine renewables are located in areas that minimise conflict and maximise benefit.

This approach is not just a matter of fairness. It is also a matter of practicality. Energy security and food security are two sides of the same coin. As we strive to achieve net zero and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, we must also ensure that we are protecting our ability to feed the nation. The sea can provide both energy and food, but only if we manage it wisely and sustainably. It is worth noting that the development of marine renewables can also enhance marine biodiversity if designed thoughtfully, creating artificial reefs and habitats that benefit marine life.

I must, though, express some concern about the lack of clear Governmental targets for marine renewables. Neither the previous Government nor the current Government have set—yet—any specific targets for the installation of wave or tidal energy. Although the Government have committed to achieving at least 95% low carbon generation by 2030, the December 2024 clean power action plan fails to set explicit goals for marine renewables. Instead, it relegates them to a potential long-term role in decarbonisation objectives.

I believe that lack of ambition is a missed opportunity to capitalise on the UK’s vast marine resources and risks leaving us behind in the global race for renewable energy innovation. As an island nation, where the one thing we can rely on is the tide coming in and going out day after day, we should be doing more to capitalise on it. That seems more logical than shipping in solar energy from Morocco—although if we could ship in sunshine from Morocco, I would be up for that. I urge the Government to rectify the oversight by setting binding targets for the deployment of wave and tidal energy. Doing so would provide clarity and confidence for investors and developers, fostering rapid growth in this critical sector. Moreover, it would align marine renewables with the broader decarbonisation agenda, ensuring that they contribute meaningfully to our energy transition. I also call on the Government to provide long-term funding for research and development, such as the UK’s £20 million ringfenced budget for tidal stream innovation, and streamline the regulatory process to accelerate deployment. The Government must create a supportive framework for private investment, through mechanisms such as contracts for difference, to ensure market confidence, with a ringfenced budget for tidal and wave. The Government must also commit to robust engagement with the fishing industry to ensure that livelihoods are not sacrificed in the name of progress. There is room for everyone in this endeavour, but only if we take the time to plan and act responsibly.

Marine renewable energy offers a bright and sustainable future for our coastal communities and the nation as a whole, so let us seize this brilliant opportunity but do so with care, collaboration and respect for all those who depend on the sea.

14:01

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate, which is of great interest to me as an MP from Cornwall and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea. I will probably replicate some points that have been made but it is telling that we are all calling for similar things, so I will say a little more about some of the industry’s asks.

Cornwall is ideally placed to play a leading role in the development of the marine renewables industries. We have 400 miles of coast, strong tides, south-westerly winds and proximity to the Celtic sea. We are in a prime location for offshore wind and tidal stream energy. The port of Falmouth in my constituency could service floating offshore wind turbines, and Truro and Falmouth is home to world-leading businesses such as Inyanga and Tugdock, which are at the forefront of marine renewables innovation.

However, the tidal and wave industries, like floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, need support from the Government and particularly ringfencing for AR7, to which I will return. As hon. Members have noted, tidal stream is a highly reliable method of energy generation because it is unaffected by weather, offers a stable energy supply and complements other more intermittent renewable sources, such as wind and solar. It also presents a number of benefits to UK jobs, supply chains and energy security. Tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content, which is a much higher percentage than for some other renewable technologies. However, tidal and wave are smaller, less developed industries than solar or fixed offshore wind. Tidal energy currently forms less than 0.01% of the UK’s electricity generation, but the UK Marine Energy Council says that it has the potential to meet over 10% of demand.

I welcome the Government’s recent clean power action plan, which recognised the potential for tidal stream and floating offshore wind to be important components of long-term decarbonisation in the UK. However, for that to happen—and if marine renewables are to follow a similar cost-reduction pathway to solar and fixed offshore wind—the marine renewables industry does need Government support.

From AR4 onwards, tidal energy has benefited from ringfencing, which led to Inyanga, based in my constituency, being awarded CfDs in AR5 and AR6 for their HydroWing technology, which will be deployed in Morlais, Wales. Previous allocation rounds show that the sector can respond successfully to a ringfence. Inyanga had the only successful pot 2 offshore project to win a CfD in AR6.

The ask of Great British Energy is to commit, say, 3% of its budget to investing in marine energy because tidal stream projects are being deployed with over 80% UK supply chain content spend, which is significantly higher than for other renewable technologies. GB Energy should seek to embed and accelerate deployment of that UK content in projects installed here and around the world. It could take equity stakes, under commercial terms, in projects that have secured a CfD.

Other hon. Members have asked about a Government-industry marine energy taskforce. The purpose of that taskforce would be to bring together key players from Government, industry, regulatory and other relevant organisations to enable marine energy development—the embedding of that UK content in projects deployed here and around the world—to support the Government’s ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I have also been pushing for that kind of masterplan and leadership for floating offshore wind. Others have asked about the 2035 targets, including a 1 gigawatt tidal stream and 300 megawatts of wave energy deployment. Setting those targets will boost investor confidence and support investment in coastal communities and beyond.

The UK could also introduce innovation funding, particularly for marine energy. Between 2017 and 2022, such projects received only £17 million in innovation funding. Wave energy projects received £57 million of funding, £39 million of which came from the Scottish Government. That targeted innovation funding has been proven to reduce the overall cost associated with commercialising these emerging renewable technologies. Two tidal scheme projects in Scotland were successful in the last Horizon Europe call, which demonstrates both the importance of a close UK-EU relationship on marine energy and the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for that innovation funding.

I cannot stand here and talk about renewable energy in the sea without mentioning floating offshore wind, so I will reiterate some of the asks that that industry would have as well to kick-start floating offshore wind, particularly in the Celtic sea. Like tidal and wave energy, floating offshore wind needs a ringfenced element in the AR6. The one-size-fits-all route is disadvantaging the Celtic sea due to the comparative lack of port infrastructure, skills and wider supply chain support. We are a virgin area; unlike Scotland, we have not had oil and gas before, so we are starting from scratch.

We need technological and geographical ringfencing, CfDs for the test and demo sites in the Celtic sea, and support for stepping-stone projects such as TwinHub, which has a CfD but is facing the challenges of developing that supply chain and the now out-of-date cost of the CfD. The £1.8 billion ports fund can now be distributed quickly in a multi-port strategy that was developed, allowing ports across the region, such as Falmouth in my constituency, to work together to prepare for and benefit from the opportunities that floating offshore wind presents.

The Crown Estate Bill passed through the House recently. Those option fees could, for example, be diverted to local supply chain building. Additionally, outside of the industry, other hon. Members have mentioned that we need that strategy for the ocean as a whole. It is crucial that we have a long-term marine spatial strategy, so that everything in the ocean has its place and we balance energy generation with important industries such as fishing, and with protecting the natural environment.

Creating clear frameworks for each sector would give certainty to developers, which would help speed up the deployment of these renewables projects. Co-ordination would involve linking existing plans, such as the Crown Estate’s whole of seabed programme, the strategic spatial energy plan and DEFRA’s marine spatial prioritisation programme, ensuring that the UK harnesses the benefits of marine renewables while supporting fishing and safeguarding marine habitats.

14:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have quickly written this speech while others were speaking, so if it is a bit general, it will be because of haste. I have just read it twice, and I thank the Lord I should be able to decipher my writing.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I have said it before, but I really do mean it: he brings many issues to Westminster Hall and the Chamber, and always with calmness, which is quite a talent. He also makes sure they are subject matter that all of us from the Gaelic nations—Northern Ireland, in my case—are right away interested in.

I have a big interest in this subject. Since I became an MP, way back in 2010, I have always been aware that Strangford lough, which is in the constituency I represent, has the potential for tidal green energy provision. There was a pilot scheme so many years ago. That was probably the wrong time, simply because the energy generated was too expensive. Things have moved on, and what was not possible way back then is possible now. That is why I wanted to speak on this issue.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned fishing, and I also want to reflect on that. I am a great believer that, when we move forward, as much as possible we have to bring everybody with us, although that is not always possible in this world.

I want to mention a Queen’s University Belfast marine development scheme in Portaferry. Exciting stuff is happening there, and it reinforces the ideas advanced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Strangford is being used as a test site for a groundbreaking marine energy project. That is something that I hoped to bring forward many years ago—for the record, I have not brought it forward, but I have supported bringing it forward. It has been great to see it, and to tell people about it.

Ocean Renewable Power Company Ireland and Queen’s University have announced the successful deployment and commencement of the testing of a new generation of marine hydrokinetic turbines on the Strangford lough tidal test site. This is groundbreaking and visionary, and I am particularly pleased to see it. It is a significant milestone for ORPC, because it is the first time that the company has generated electricity from one of its turbines outside of North America—that is where the innovation and excitement comes from—after 17 previous deployments in America and the USA. We are on the frontline.

The deployment in Strangford lough is the company’s first in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is part of the deployment of the X-flow project, which is led by Queen’s University. The project includes Applied Renewables Research and the Shell Technology marine renewable programme as industry partners, and is supported by the green innovation challenge fund. That fund is led by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy, and is delivered in partnership—again, partnership is how it all works—with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is another initiative that I pushed in my time as an Assembly Member, but more so as an MP here, working in conjunction with the Assembly back home.

The purpose of the deployment in Strangford lough is to collect data on turbine performance in a real tidal environment, building on laboratory testing undertaken earlier this year in another project—it never sounds great when I speak Italian, so I will not try to pronounce this; an Ulster Scot speaking Italian is a real challenge. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, I am definitely not doing it; it would be embarrassing. Suffice it to say that the company comes from Rome, in Italy—I will leave it at that. The European Commission funded the project, which is called CRIMSON—commercialisation of a recyclable and innovative manufacturing solution for an optimised novel marine turbine project. It is no secret that I am a Brexiteer, but Europe does some good things, and we have to acknowledge that this is one of them.

Carwyn Frost, who is senior lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast, says that the marine laboratory tidal test site at Strangford lough

“is a unique facility providing developers the opportunity to deploy and monitor their technology in real tidal flows.”

I have had the opportunity to experience that a few times as an MP, as well as when I was at the Assembly. At one time, people swam across Strangford lough for charity; I always wondered how anybody could swim across Strangford lough, because the tidal flows are so extreme that swimmers can start in Portaferry and end up well round the tip of the peninsula. Mr Frost went on:

“The X-Flow project will provide unique insight on the impact of turbulent flow conditions on the control of the crossflow turbine and its blade loading. The fully instrumented turbine by ORPC will provide vital data for assessing the impact of turbulent flow conditions on performance, blade loading and control.”

I want to put that on the record because I believe that the project, which is happening right on my doorstep, is incredibly exciting. I have lived in the Ards peninsula for all but four years of my life, so I feel great pride about this.

The work will facilitate condition monitoring by the Queen’s University marine team, which is committed to working in collaboration with partners. That is how it works: big business along with universities and local government. It is great to see Queen’s University leading the way, and I look forward to the conclusion of some of that research. The way forward is to energise the tidal flows at Strangford lough so that we can all gain—homes and businesses across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who are crying out for it.

I am conscious that others want to speak. I should have said, Ms Jardine, that I welcome you to the Chair. I apologise; I should have done that right away. It is lovely to see you in your place, and it is well deserved.

As an island nation with a rich history of maritime culture, we must recognise the incredible wealth of life beneath the waves and the imperative to protect it. The hon. Member for South Devon referred to fishing; I want to say a quick word about how important fishing is for my constituency of Strangford. Ours is an inland shore fleet, by and large, based in Portavogie in my constituency and further down in Ardglass and Kilkeel. Marine ecosystems, essential for not only biodiversity but the economy, are facing mounting pressures that demand urgent action. Fishermen depend on the sea for their livelihoods, and I want to support those who fish in Strangford lough and out on the Irish sea.

Northern Ireland has a close connection with the sea. We have 650 km of coastline. The sea is home to an amazing variety of marine life, some of which is found nowhere else in the world. Isn’t that great to say? It cannot be found anywhere else but Strangford lough. That reiterates what I have always said: Strangford lough is unique. Strangford is unique, and I am pleased and privileged to be the MP for the area.

[Mr Carmichael]

And they’re fortunate to have you!

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind.

Strangford is at the junction between significant bodies of water, and it contains a thriving commercial fishing community, primarily based on the inshore fishery. A significant number of fishermen fish out of the local fleet and there is also an important processing plant sector, tied to the inshore fishery, that produces mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps. The fishery is one of the most important in the country and local people feel passionately about it. They and their families have been fishing these waters for generations and their views are deeply rooted in tradition.

The hon. Member for South Devon put forward a case: to move forward with all our great technology and establish all the green marine energy that we can. I support that. Some people in Northern Ireland may not share my opinion, but I think it important for us to move forward. However, we also need to protect our fishing sector, and I make a special request on its behalf. What is required is a regulatory framework that is flexible, adaptable and responsive to changing conditions at sea. Unlike land-based conservation, whose ecosystems are more static, marine ecosystems are dynamic and can change year by year. We must be able to adapt our policies to the changes, ensuring that our approach to marine energy also supports our fishing sector and those who—let us be honest—vote for me. Let us make sure that we deliver for them as well.

14:19

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Ms Jardine. It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, and I welcome you to your place. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. Given the importance of the debate, it is again disappointing to see that so few Members from His Majesty’s official Opposition are here to contribute. But I am encouraged that so many Members from the Celtic nations of the United Kingdom are represented today.

Support for the marine renewables industry demonstrates not just awareness of our developing energy system up to 2030, but foresight into how we achieve energy security in the long term. Julian Leslie, the chief engineer at the National Energy System Operator—the body responsible for advising the Government on their clean power strategy—has described the 2030 clean power target as reaching the base camp of Mount Everest. He describes the next stage, decarbonising heat and wider industry on the way to 2050, as climbing to the mountain’s peak. What that means is that the next generation of technologies, such as tidal stream and wave energy, will need to develop and proliferate deployment at scale as our economy becomes increasingly reliant on electricity.

According to the Government’s “Clean Power 2030” plan, marine renewables—tidal stream, in particular—will be an incredibly useful source of energy that, as has been mentioned, can be deployed without correlation to other energy sources, therefore acting as a predictable component of our clean energy infrastructure.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) refers to rolling the technologies out at scale. The only eligible English project that has the marine lease, environmental licence and network connection offer is in my constituency, on the Isle of Wight. Does he agree that local communities must benefit directly from projects in their areas—through direct jobs, obviously, but also through other indirect benefits?

[Perran Moon]

Yes, I entirely agree. Social value is an absolutely core element of a lot of these renewable opportunities; I am thinking not only of value going back into the community—including community ownership, potentially—but of the creation of good quality, highly skilled local jobs.

I echo the words of my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), in championing Inyanga Marine Energy Group, which is based in Penryn. It is developing the exact cutting-edge technologies that we will require in the form of its HydroWing structure, which produces exceptionally high and reliable yields.

I also highlight the work of Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult’s marine energy team, which focuses on tidal stream and is, I am proud to say, based in my constituency of Camborne and Redruth, and in Hayle. As has been mentioned, according to the Marine Energy Council tidal stream technology can meet over 10% of UK electricity demand, with the UK leading in the planned installation of over 130 MW in its seas by 2029. We must show support for the commercial development of such marine renewable projects through greater funding from Great British Energy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) mentioned, and by ringfencing contracts for difference funding in AR7 later this year.

In the 20th century, the UK’s power system was dominated by coal; in the 1990s, that system evolved into the “dash for gas”. We are now pivoting towards the use of offshore and onshore wind, partnered with flexible and low-carbon dispatchable power. Generations before us in the last century would scarcely have been able to imagine what our energy system looks like now. However, I believe marine renewables represent immense potential, which we must support today to achieve the net zero goal of tomorrow.

14:23

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and to welcome you to your place. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing what we all surely agree is a really important debate.

Many people do not support renewables. I guess they are not here today but we occasionally hear them in the Chamber, saying things like, “What are you going to do when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine?” We see the answer when we look out to the sea: the tide rises and falls twice a day, every day, 365 days a year, so we can build a future on renewable energy. We must do that if we are to achieve net zero and protect our planet.

The Celtic sea has massive opportunities. I am going to discuss something that Members may not have expected: the maritime importance of Taunton, which is in the middle of Somerset. Taunton is the headquarters of the UK Hydrographic Office, which produces the Admiralty charts—famed throughout the world for being the biggest mapping system of the ocean floor around the world. It is the world leader and its charts are used by navies and merchant navies around the world. No one is quite sure why the office came to Taunton in Somerset, although it may be because it is not that near the coast; one story is that enemy bombers would therefore find it harder to find. We are very proud of that link, and of course we are only a few miles from the coasts to the north and to the south.

As the county town of Somerset, we are an important regional centre. Under the previous Labour Government, we hosted the regional assembly in Taunton and the Government office for the south-west was in Taunton because we have an equidistant position in the greater south-west region. Our transport links are excellent—it takes 99 minutes to get to Paddington in the heart of London or 30 minutes in either direction to get to the heart of Bristol or of Exeter. All those reasons make it the ideal location for the south-west office of Great British Energy; I am almost certain that the Minister will announce that in his summing up. Seriously, it is an excellent location for regional centres.

Taunton would be an ideal place to host many of the headquarters of the companies involved in the offshore industry. In the Celtic sea, we have the welcome 4.5 GW of offshore wind that has been announced. Sometimes people underestimate the scale of that; I always translate it into four and a half nuclear power stations being built in the Celtic sea—hopefully it will not take the 20 or 30 years that Hinkley seems to be taking. Generating that clean energy is vital.

As well as offshore wind, I want to put in a word for tidal stream, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) have talked about eloquently. Tidal stream is vital—we need energy from all these sources—but tidal range is as well: it generates, project for project, hundreds of times more electricity, as shown in northern France with La Rance in Saint-Malo. That was built by de Gaulle and is still generating around 60 MW of energy.

When I was working for the Government inspectorate, I was privileged to be the lead inspector on the Swansea tidal lagoon, which got its consent. In my view, it was a massive mistake of the previous Conservative Government not to fund that project; we could have had a new generation of tidal energy from this country. We have the second highest tidal range in the world—up and down by 9 metres at the maximum, which is second only to western Canada, where there is a thriving tidal range energy industry. We should be building on that for the future.

Tidal range, tidal stream and offshore wind bring big opportunities to the south-west of England. Although I recognise that Members from Cornwall may be at the sharper end of the Celtic sea than us in Taunton, there are important benefits for the whole south-west in terms of upskilling, investment in skills training and the construction industry. The Great South West regional development agency has identified energy as a key driver of the south-west economy. Government support for skills, training and research projects could be absolutely crucial to the economy of the whole south-west, and particularly my part of Somerset, with University Centre Somerset and the UK Hydrographic Office working together in my constituency. There could be some really exciting projects, looking at Horizon funding as well as skills investment. I hope the Government will support those kinds of projects and applications.

As well as getting support for skills, training and research, we need to bring the community with us. That means we need to give a lot more thought and attention to the compensation and the community support from these projects. We need reliable levels of community benefit from each project. There have been some advances on that from solar projects onshore, although my constituents in Ham would like to see more community benefit for the solar farm there.

It is less developed with wind, and we need a reliable system in which communities that will be affected by offshore wind, because of the massive onshore infrastructure, know that they will benefit in some way from that project. The industry needs to be held to account so that it clearly meets established standards of community benefits. I hope that the Minister will say something about that in his summing up.

We also need more sensible approaches to mitigation for the natural environment. Surely we cannot go on any longer with a system in which every offshore wind project comes up against a debate about whether it will kill 0.5 birds or 0.9 birds in the course of 20 years, and then people design an elaborate mitigation system for that one project. We know that we will be building offshore wind projects. We need to build them. We know what the impacts will be on wild birds and other natural species. Therefore, we need to put in the compensatory measures in advance in a strategic way. I know that the Crown Estate is beginning to look at strategic compensation, but it is far too late. We need to get on with this now. We know the impacts. We know that it is one of the biggest factors slowing down our offshore wind projects. We can look at the experience in Denmark. The Danes are building islands to support their offshore wind industry before it starts, so they know the compensation will be there.

I would like to support the points that have been made on the need for a taskforce, which would certainly be important and should encompass skills, training and research in the whole offshore energy sector, and I urge the Government to recognise the regional powerhouse that the south-west can be and is in renewable energy. We have six energy NSIP DCOs—development consent orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects —across Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire, for example. It is a vital part of the UK economy, and Taunton lies right at the heart of it.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

14:31

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ms Jardine. I welcome you to your first chairmanship role here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate.

With a wind-lashed coastline stretching for a grand total of 1,680 miles, Wales has an abundance of marine energy potential. This growing sector already contributes significant sums to the Welsh economy. Last financial year, the marine renewable energy sector delivered £29.9 million to the Welsh economy, and it currently sustains 429 full-time jobs. We would like the number of jobs to be way more than that, please.

Tidal stream is the largest contributor to the sector at present, and developers are set to deliver 28 MW-worth of development by 2028. That number is expected to grow with each annual auction round. For the future, it is estimated that Wales has the potential to generate up to 6 GW-worth of wave and tidal stream energy.

I have mentioned jobs. Development and installation of 1 GW alone could support 440 full-time jobs during generation—and those in communities that currently suffer deprivation. That is a theme for many Members of Parliament from what might be called the Celtic fringe, but it really matters to us. We have such potential to generate more energy for the United Kingdom in its entirety and to generate energy security, but at the same time this can be a real levelling-up prospect for communities that have suffered in low-wage economies. Particularly in relation to Wales, I could mention Holyhead; I could mention my own community of Dwyfor Meirionnydd; and I could mention Milford Haven. We should plan ahead and look at the futures of those communities, particularly somewhere like Milford Haven, which is so dependent on fossil fuel at present.

Wales is clearly poised to play a leading role in marine renewables. However, the sector is still in the early stages of development and needs Government support so that it can truly flourish. The Welsh Government have recently announced strategic resource areas for tidal stream, and I welcome that. It is a form of marine planning to designate the future availability of these areas for potential tidal stream energy projects. Of course, in Wales, as elsewhere, it is important to work with other key users of the sea, such as fishermen. There are tourism considerations as well.

This includes, just with regard to my own constituency, the sea off the Llŷn peninsula, where Swnt Enlli—Bardsey sound—has some of the strongest tidal races in the Irish sea. Proudly, Nova Innovation had a project there, but sadly, because of the lack of grid capacity, it eventually pulled out. It is exactly these problems with grid capacity that often hinder the bringing of projects to fruition in bringing their energy onshore from the sea.

Now, of course, I turn to Ynys Môn. I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who is glad to be reopening one of the berths at Holyhead. As of today, ferries are again sailing from Holyhead, which is very good news for not just Holyhead and north Wales, but the connections with Ireland. We have existing tidal stream projects there, such as the Morlais project, and we see a potential model that addresses the problem of grid connection, which might be replicated elsewhere.

Morlais came about with major investment from both the European Union and the Welsh Government, with a grid substation already developed and the environmental consents already in place—that is the important point. That provides an offering to tidal stream developers in which there is a reduced cost and risk that mean that they are sure of getting their technology into the water.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I know that the National Energy System Operator has just put forward proposals to Government on how to address the grid queue and how it should be renewed and reviewed. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need to hear from Government as soon as possible what the reorganisation of the grid queue would mean and which projects would be prioritised?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

When we find ourselves discussing any large-scale energy project, we come up against some of these pragmatic, practical questions. Until we have answers to those, it is difficult for us as local MPs to do more for our constituencies than promote. I have found myself in a similar situation with Trawsfynydd and small nuclear reactors; I have been in this place talking about that for 10 years and have not got past the pragmatic first points to actually see further developments.

The UK Government could use Great British Energy to invest in and develop pre-leased and consented grid connector sites for marine energy projects in Wales and elsewhere. However, the Great British Energy Bill does not make any reference to tidal stream or to marine renewable technologies, and, sadly, the Welsh Government’s announcement of tidal stream SRAs does not make any reference to GB Energy—if only those things were joined up and we had that co-working between Cardiff and London that is so vaunted. In his summing up, can the Minister set out what relationship GB Energy will have with the Welsh Government’s SRAs, because at present there seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking? I also echo the sector’s call for the Government to commit £250 million of Great British Energy’s budget to accelerate the development of and embed UK content in tidal stream projects and for a 1 GW target for deployment by 2035.

I turn to a particularly Welsh issue, although other hon. Members have touched on it—namely, the relationship or partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate, which will be crucial in the development of marine energy projects, given that it owns the sea bed to 12 nautical miles from the coast, including in Wales. It is therefore vital that Wales has full control over the Crown Estate, as is the case in Scotland, so that the people of Wales, not civil servants in Whitehall, shape the development of marine renewables to fit our nation’s needs and aspirations. That comparison between Wales and Scotland will not go away, and in a moment I will show hon. Members why. We could therefore ensure real benefits to Welsh communities, including the use of local supply chains and jobs in deprived, low-wage areas that will follow on from those projects. We could shape those with Welsh needs in mind.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I have a question about the Crown Estate and the devolution of it. How would that work in the Celtic sea, where Cornwall would obviously benefit a great deal from some of the floating offshore wind in other installations there?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Some of the politics of Cornwall already looks to Wales for guidelines; the same question arises from Scotland regarding where the border lies with England there. None the less, from Wales’s point of view, we have suffered a long tradition of extractive industries, and that looks set to continue.

There is a fair argument for the devolvement of the Crown Estate in Wales. The only argument against it is that it would cause confusion in the intervening point, but any change causes confusion. Devolution of the Crown Estate, which would give Wales, rather than the Treasury, the power to manage local supply chains is a call from many politicians in Wales—including many Welsh Labour politicians—that will not go away.

Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved, has successfully aligned the Crown Estate with the marine planning process and sought to make use of those local supply chains. The Scottish Government also distribute the net revenue generated by the Scottish Crown Estate marine assets to coastal local authority areas—those poor areas which we all want to seek every means we can to support. That coastal community benefit amounted to £11.1 million in 2023-24. Why are we preventing that from happening in other places? Wales should be able to do the same. The Minister will no doubt say, because this is the argument we have heard before, that devolution will fragment the market and deter investment. The success of the Scottish Crown Estate emphatically proves that not to be the case.

I want to touch on the contracts for difference auction process and EU innovation funding. To date, the marine renewables industry has been set at £20 million, £10 million and £15 million ringfenced in the last three auctions. If we want to build a renewable energy industry with high levels of UK content, the level needs to be set—as the lead Member for this debate, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, has said—at £50 million for tidal stream and £5 million for wave. I am very supportive of that for this year’s renewable auction. Marine Energy Wales says that without this ringfence, Welsh tidal projects will be disadvantaged, stalling momentum and undermining the benefits already delivered by sites like Morlais.

In addition to ringfenced funding domestically, we should maximise institutional flows of funds for the sector. Leaving the European emissions trading scheme has meant that the UK no longer receives sums from the related EU innovation fund. Rejoining that scheme would help unlock further sources of funding for marine developments.

I welcome the discussion of the marine energy task force. Of course, skills are devolved to Wales. We need to make sure that the advantages work between the Welsh Government and what is being proposed here, and that there is discussion on that.

Given the weather we have today in London, we are not going to be doing much in the way of tidal stream in the Thames, but this is the sort of day in winter—grey, no wind, renewables not otherwise generating—when we should take the opportunity to bring forward further electricity supplies.

14:42

[Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and everyone who has spoken so far in the debate.

Back in 2009 I was involved in an as yet conceptual tidal project known as the reef. It was projected to stretch from Aberthaw in south Wales to Minehead in Somerset, a distance of some 17 km. It was designed by Rupert Armstrong Evans at the behest of the University of Southampton, which asked Mr Evans to design a scheme that would be environmentally benign and would generate significant energy for the UK.

You will no doubt be aware, Ms Jardine, that the tidal difference in the Bristol channel is the second largest in the world. The idea of a tidal barrage in the Bristol channel is not new, and the location of the reef on the Aberthaw to Minehead line was first suggested in the 1930s as being the best place to generate electricity and energy from the tides in the Bristol channel.

In 2010, when the current Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was Secretary of State for the then Department of Energy and Climate Change, he announced funding for investigations of embryonic tidal technologies. Rolls-Royce and Atkins won the contract to do the study, and their work showed that a tidal scheme on the Aberthaw to Minehead route would generate per year 30.4 TW hours of electricity, significantly more than the Cardiff to Weston-super-Mare line, which was in the region of 20 TW hours per annum.

The Aberthaw to Minehead line has the added advantage that it has no mud—unlike Weston-super-Mare, as anyone who has visited Weston in the summer will know. Its seabed is rock all the way across and so has greater possibilities for locking tidal caissons holding large turbines to the sea floor. The design of the reef would allow for a maximum of 2 metres head on both the incoming and outgoing tides, which would mean that fish could safely swim through the large turbines without getting hurt. That is a big factor, and one reason for the rejection of previous tidal schemes in in the Bristol channel.

Other factors to consider are, first, that 30.4 TWh per annum is larger than the expected annual output of Hinkley Point C, which is 30.2 TWh. Secondly, a degree of energy storage from the reef would be possible.

[Gideon Amos]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an excellent point about the centrality of Somerset—in particular, the Minehead route just north of Taunton—to renewable energy. Does he accept that tidal range and tidal barrages and lagoons could make a significant contribution? As he pointed out so well, Swansea lagoon would have done up to 30 TWh, but we could do that across the UK. There could be tidal lagoons in Morecambe bay and in Cumbria, where one was proposed. That would bring investment to regions across the UK and not just benefit the south-west and Somerset.

[Brian Mathew]

I thank my hon. Friend for his points, which of course are true. This technology could be employed right across the United Kingdom and its amazing coastline.

A third advantage would be that ships could pass up and down the Bristol channel via large floating lock gates. Fourthly, the project could be upgraded over its life so that it would effectively be time-unlimited, even with sea level rises. A fifth point, which could well be applied to renewable schemes across the UK, is that the excess energy—or the energy that the grid cannot use at any particular time—could be diverted into the manufacture of synthetic fuels. That would be one way of dealing with the problem of what to do when we generate energy and there is no call for it. In short, this project is well worth further investigation.

14:47

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his efforts to keep this issue on the agenda in Parliament. I want to reinforce the point he made about the Crown Estate Commission. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in working with communities to deliver change. The Crown Estate may own the seabed, but that does not mean the commission should be allowed to ignore the needs of others who make their living from the sea, whether through fishing, tourism or any other means. That point was picked up by a number of Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), who spoke up powerfully for the fishing industry in Brixham. The commission should also not be exempt from the duty to protect nature that other public bodies have, recognising—as we do—that the nature and climate emergencies go hand in hand.

On the wider issue, marine renewables will help us to meet our commitment to tackle the climate crisis—the single biggest challenge facing our generation.

[Wera Hobhouse]

My hon. Friend and I are members of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and yesterday we heard evidence from the Secretary of State. He said that the transition to net zero is the biggest opportunity for all of us, including those in the south-west, to create prosperity and the jobs we need for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Claire Young]

Absolutely—it is almost as though my hon. Friend has read the next section of my speech. I was about to say that marine renewables will also boost jobs and businesses throughout the supply chain, and will be part of the solution to the energy crisis that has hit people hard in recent years.

Sadly, we are living in the shadow of the Conservatives’ failure to fully invest in renewable energy and to properly insulate our homes. The previous Conservative Government rowed back on their pledges to meet net zero and shamefully watered down policies aimed at reducing our carbon emissions. That means we need bold action now to put us back on the right course. Liberal Democrats want to see this Government step up to the plate and provide a comprehensive energy strategy designed to bring down bills, end fuel poverty, cut greenhouse gas emissions and deliver energy security.

A key part of that strategy must be marine renewable energy. I welcome the initial progress being made, with a 50% uplift in ringfenced funding support for tidal stream energy as part of the contracts for difference renewables auctions. With a significant stretch of the Severn estuary coastline in my constituency, I am keen to see the UK leading the world in tidal power. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) highlighted the opportunities in the wider south-west. Given that it is his birthday, I will not argue with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington today about his plans to make Taunton the centre of that enterprise. The 50% uplift is a good first step and shows that we are beginning to take the sector seriously.

However, there is so much more potential out there, if only the Government would reach out and grasp it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the parallels with the gas and oil industry, and I would like to look at wind power as an example of how these things can be done. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, he made it his key priority to back renewables and managed to push through a bold climate agenda that embraced new technologies. That quadrupled the UK’s level of renewable power and made us a world leader in offshore wind energy.

The Office for National Statistics has stated that employment estimates within the low-carbon and renewable energy economy are at record levels. Because of the willingness to back British renewables, the industry is now worth an estimated £69.4 billion to the UK economy and supports thousands of jobs. The economic benefits and the need to make sure they are kept in the UK have been highlighted by many Members, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon).

It is good to hear about the important partnerships with universities, including Herriot-Watt, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, and Queen’s University Belfast, mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

The Government talk a lot about their drive for economic growth, and I suggest that that goes hand in hand with investing in renewable power generation. Putting a just transition front and centre allows us to not only reskill those already working in the energy industry, but upskill people to give them new opportunities around our coast. Our coastal areas have long felt left behind and forgotten about, as I know from talking to people in places such as Severn Beach in my constituency. Those areas now have the potential to become booming hubs of activity, which is why Liberal Democrats want to see marine renewables used as part of a plan to invest in them, with a dedicated skills fund to provide green skills and jobs to communities.

I would like briefly to pick up the issue of grid connections, which I have mentioned in the House in reference to other renewables and which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised today. A plan to deliver the supporting infrastructure must be part of any strategy.

Britain has long been defined by our connection with the sea that surrounds our island. We have a unique relationship with the waves, and we need to make the most of that, understanding what it looks like in the 21st century. Our marine environments are already under threat from sewage and plastic pollution. Having a dedicated marine industry strategy will allow us to carefully manage the development of our biodiverse areas out at sea. That is why we need to have new targets for marine protected areas and to mandate the Government to monitor those sites fully.

Addressing the climate crisis is about embracing opportunity and empowering communities to make the most of their surroundings. It is time that the UK stepped up as a world leader in this area, so I hope the Minister will agree to listen to our proposals, which will benefit the marine renewables sector greatly.

14:53

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs, and I am sure that this is the first of many long sessions in the Chair in Westminster Hall.

Today’s debate on marine renewables has been fascinating, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. Before I go any further, I will echo his comments on EMEC, the incredibly important role it has played and Neil Kermode’s leadership over the past few years. It has delivered a world-leading technology and, indeed, makes for an inspirational visit, if anybody has the time or inclination to go north to the Orkney Islands.

It has, for the most part, been a thoroughly pleasant afternoon listening to an oral tour of some of our great coastal communities—and of Taunton and Melksham and Devizes. I have nothing against Taunton; it is just that it stood out for me. I have personal links with many of those communities, so it was a genuine pleasure to listen to the debate.

As so many people have said, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed in terms of marine energy. We are an island nation, and our history has been written by the seas. Given the potential of marine energy to help drive us towards our clean energy future, our future will be written by them too.

Energy from the sea is not a new concept in the United Kingdom, especially not to somebody who hails from Aberdeen. The UK continental shelf and the Norwegian continental shelf have been the lifeblood of the UK’s energy industry since the 1970s. Aberdeen, in the north-east of Scotland, has been the powerhouse of the European energy sector for decades. My sincere hope is that that remains so in the decades ahead.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has shown this afternoon, the east coast of Scotland, and particularly his constituency, is well designed for marine energy technologies, and particularly tidal. Marine energy generation in the UK covers many technologies, some of which—such as tidal and wave generation—are not yet deployed at scale and not quite at a commercial level. That also includes offshore wind, which has successfully scaled up in the United Kingdom over the past few years.

I did not want to get drawn into yet another list—I know how much the Minister enjoys my reeling off the previous Conservative Government’s successes when it comes to investment in renewable technologies—but I was prompted into it by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). I am very proud that we built the first to the fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, which are delivering power into the United Kingdom right now, that we halved our emissions and that we were the fastest cutter of emissions of any country in the G7. We are very proud of what we did, which is supporting thousands of new jobs across the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-east of England, in communities such as Grimsby and around the Humber.

The UK’s seas are home to the emerging technologies we have heard about this afternoon. Many of the technologies we will employ in the energy transition might not be fully fledged, but the previous Government were proud to announce a record £650 million of investment—for example, into the development of nuclear fusion technology, in which the UK is a world leader. We support the development of fusion and the development of technologies such as tidal, because, moving forward, we need to support all energy solutions.

As I said, the previous Government did a great deal to provide an economic framework for various technologies—especially marine energy projects—and to try to attract private sector investment through the contracts for difference scheme. In 2021, we announced that £30 million per year would be ringfenced for tidal stream projects. Allocation round 4 in 2022 made allocations to four tidal stream projects, which was a first. Allocation round 5 in 2023 is often castigated as a failed round, so obsessed are some people with wind at the expense of everything else, but it made allocations to 11 tidal projects, with capacity totalling over 50 MW. Allocation round 6, which was run under the previous Government and announced by the current Government, made allocations to six tidal stream projects, with a total capacity of 28 MW.

With the CfD mechanism, the previous Government created the conditions for new technologies such as tidal to thrive. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out at the beginning of the debate, the world’s most powerful tidal turbine was launched off the east coast of Scotland by Orbital Marine Power, an Orkney-based company. Constructed in Dundee, the 2 MW turbine capitalises on some of the strongest currents in the world. In 2024, thanks to the dogged and determined campaigning by Neil, the right hon. Gentleman and others, the then Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—now the editor of The Spectator—and I secured £3 million of new funding for EMEC, recognising the work that it does. That was in addition to having invested over £7 million between 2016 and 2022.

The question posed by many is, why bother with marine energy when we have so many other technologies we are investing in right now? We have offshore, onshore, nuclear technologies that are coming on stream, solar power and everything else. Well, it is because we must. We need to invest in all the technologies available to us in order to drive us forward into our clean energy future, to make us more energy independent and energy secure.

Sadly, there was no mention of tidal in the “Clean Power 2030” document published by the Government. There is a perception—it might not be the reality—that tidal technology has fallen through the gap. In the rush to decarbonise the energy system, the Secretary of State seems to be putting all the eggs into two baskets. It would be good if the Minister could set out that that was not the case and that the Government were as committed to tidal and wave power as they should be. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind and solar will not keep the lights on in the United Kingdom.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman is criticising the lack of action on tidal, so can he explain why his Government cancelled the Swansea tidal lagoon?

[Andrew Bowie]

The previous Government looked at the Swansea tidal lagoon in great detail and depth, but the decision was taken before my time in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero not to proceed with it. I am informed that it was due to a combination of the cost and the reluctance of those involved to make the case that the technology would be successful. However, if it can be presented as a viable project—if the costs can be brought down and the technology can be proved to work—of course the current Government could look at it again. We should be investing in things that work and that return a benefit to the taxpayer.

Last week, the UK learned the word “Dunkelflaute”—I have probably pronounced it terribly—which expresses what happens when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. The recent cold snap illustrated just how insecure a system reliant on intermittent renewables such as solar and wind will be, so we need to invest in new baseload generation, including gas, nuclear and tidal.

Those technologies sadly got little mention in the Secretary of State’s “Clean Power 2030” action plan. There were few words about nuclear and nothing about tidal—seemingly, no plan for future generation. It is clear that a wide mix of energies will be required to ensure our energy independence and security. Offshore wind and solar are obviously essential parts of the mix, but so too will be—or at least should be—oil and gas; nuclear, large and small, with microreactors; and new and emerging technologies such as wave and tidal. The developments happening across all those technologies in this country are great.

We should support Great British and Northern Irish scientists, innovators, engineers and technicians who have the opportunity to build on the successes of the past decade, which saw Great Britain and Northern Ireland lead the world in investing in new energy generation. To echo the sentiment of other right hon. and hon. Members, we need more direction and clarity from the Government about where we are heading on this journey to more tidal and wave investment. We fully support the calls for a road map and a taskforce to drive that forward and support the industry.

I say to the Government: please do not just put all our eggs in two baskets, but invest in and support other technologies. We need all those energy sources in future. Many of the technologies will be developed and deployed around the coast, in some of the more deprived communities in this country, so the jobs and investment that they will contribute will be massively beneficial not just for our energy security but for the wider economy. If we invest now—if we spend the time and money and expend the energy—Great Britain and Northern Ireland can yet again be the beating heart of this new global industrial revolution.

15:03

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

I am tempted to say that, although this debate has been great, it has gone on for so long that Ms Jardine has turned into Mr Betts, so I did not get the chance to congratulate her on her new job.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister not to comment on the benefits of that.

[Michael Shanks]

I won’t. Hopefully, it was not the upcoming speeches from me and the shadow Minister that drove her from Chamber. In any event, it is a delight to be here.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) not just for securing this debate and the customary way that he introduced it, but for the engagement we have had since I came into this post on this issue and many others. He is a great champion not just of marine renewables, but of Orkney and Shetland. In fact, in the last debate we had in this Chamber, he declared that God came from Orkney and Shetland. I am glad that we did not get into the theological nature of the debate this afternoon.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. I pay tribute to the various policy teams and organisations that have clearly done a very effective job of getting a consistent set of lines out to Members of Parliament; they have certainly earned their salary this week. Those are important points, and I will address each of them.

As hon. Members have said, the sector has enormous potential relating not just to energy outcomes, but to the many positive opportunities in skills, supply chains and innovation. The UK can export that innovation to the rest of the world. I will say at the very beginning that the Government are hugely supportive of marine energy, and we want to do what we can to support it.

I will start by giving some context on the Government’s position. As Members will be aware—many have raised it today—we published the “Clean Power 2030” action plan just before Christmas. That was an important step in providing some considerable detail on how the Government will deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030, which is hugely ambitious but achievable. It picks up on some of the strands that Members have raised this afternoon, including how we will deliver more effective grid connections and connections reform, as well as look at the planning system and consenting. It is about all the various things that Members have raised that hold back so much of the delivery of such projects across the country.

Clean power by 2030 is not some ideological project, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and others in the Conservative party might like to suggest. It is a critical pathway for how we deliver energy security in the long term; all our constituents have been facing a considerable cost of living crisis as a result of us not having home-grown energy security. The clean power mission is about ensuring that we not only have that energy security but tackle the climate crisis and deliver economic growth. I make no apologies for the fact that we are a Government moving at pace, because it is important that we grasp the opportunities for the implementation of both marine technologies and the many other innovative technologies that Britain can be a world leader in delivering. It is also our best opportunity to deliver cheaper energy for people across the country.

I want to pick up specifically on the point made by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the shadow Minister on the clean power action plan. It is right to say that marine renewables are not in the top lines of the pathways to clean power by 2030, because we do not think that that technology is quite at the point where it will be deployed at scale to help us to achieve that mission. That does not mean that we do not hope that projects will come onstream before 2030.

Although we are sprinting to deliver clean power by 2030, that will not be the end of the journey. By 2050, we estimate that the electricity demand in this country will have doubled, so this journey will require us to harness all possible technologies to continue to expand our energy supply over the coming decades. That is where I think marine renewables will start to play more of an important role, as they get past the commercialisation challenges and their price comes down, and as we have some more confidence in the technology.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I do not know whether the Minister will touch on the Crown Estate, so I am taking the opportunity now. On the point about electricity demand doubling, there is such potential in areas such as Wales and Cornwall, if it so wishes. The concept that the Crown Estate should be so centralised in the United Kingdom works badly in the interests of not only Wales but areas such as Cornwall. What does the Minister tell his Welsh Labour colleagues about why that issue cannot be devolved, when it would make such a difference to our local economies?

[Michael Shanks]

I will touch on the Crown Estate later in my speech. On that specific point, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that devolving the Crown Estate is the answer, and I take issue with the suggestion that the Crown Estate’s considerations in Wales somehow come from Whitehall. I have met a number of representatives of the Crown Estate, and they are in engaged with the Welsh Government and with communities in Wales. If we can do more on that, I am very happy to reach out to the Crown Estate, although I am not directly responsible for it and it is not accountable to me. Of course, it has published a number of strategies recently and there is more coming on the long-term vision for the Celtic sea and other parts of the Crown Estate in Wales. It is about partnership work, which includes not just bringing together the Crown Estate but how we look at the planning system and consenting, as well as the strategic spatial energy plan more broadly to plan for the long term. I will come back to some of those points later.

Although marine renewables are not at the centre of that clean power action plan to 2030, they will hugely benefit from the actions that we will deliver through it, not least on grid connections. Grid connections are all about future-proofing the grid in this country so that it can meet the demand of the future, and prioritising a grid queue that has got out of control with over 700 GW waiting to connect, which is simply not deliverable.

I would like to turn to the issue of funding, but first I wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who does not look a day over 21—but that is the last time I will pander to the Lib Dems. He raised a point about Great British Energy, as did a number of other hon. Members, many of whom I cannot help but notice did not vote for it, but now want it to be headquartered in their constituencies and deliver significant amounts of funding. Great British Energy will play a role in this space. It is our first publicly owned energy champion, and it will deliver and deploy clean power across the country and help with some of the innovation and development work.

Marine renewables are exactly the kind of technology that Great British Energy might invest in at an early stage and have a significant impact on, rather than technologies that are at a more confident stage. Hon. Members may not have had the opportunity to reach out to Great British Energy—the Bill is still going through the House of Lords, so it does not technically exist yet—but the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, has had a number of meetings across the UK, has engaged on questions about a whole range of technologies and is keen to continue to do so. It will be for Great British Energy, as an independent company, to make its own investment decisions based on a whole range of factors, including the return on investment potential, but I see marine renewable technology as a potential benefit for it.

We think that tidal stream energy will play a significant role, particularly beyond 2030. As many Members raised, tidal stream will bring balancing benefits to a future electricity system that will have renewables at its heart. The balancing role that tidal can play—as a baseload, in the traditional way of thinking about the electricity system—would be important. Currently over half of the world’s tidal stream deployment is situated in UK waters. However, this Government want to go further and faster, as the technology has huge potential.

Aside from having one of the world’s best tidal resources, the UK also hosts world-leading marine energy hubs. Many hon. Members spoke about the EMEC. I have been pleased to speak to the EMEC over the last few months; the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), visited recently and I hope to get to Orkney to do the same at some point.

When we came into power, the Government took the contracts for difference option that had been started by the previous Government and increased the budget to try to get as many projects as we could over the line. That led to a 50% increase in the ringfence for tidal stream to £15 million in the last allocation round. That demonstrated our commitment to the technology and ensured that 28 MW of tidal stream was secured in allocation round 6, including 9 MW for projects based in Orkney.

[Mr Carmichael]

The creation of the ringfence in AR4 had an absolutely transformative impact, so my sense is that meeting the industry’s request for a much bigger ringfence in AR7 could do similar. I am not expecting the Minister to tell us today whether that is the direction of travel that the Government are intending to take—although he is welcome to—but could he at least tell us when we might get an answer on that?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. One of the things we announced before Christmas in the clean power action plan was the broad outline of where we see allocation round 7 progressing this year, alongside the clean industry bonus. We will be saying more about that in the weeks ahead when we launch the initial information on what it will look like, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is not surprised that I cannot announce anything today about what ringfences might be in place.

It is a tricky balance. The aim of the CfD and the reason that it is effective at what we want it to do is that it has to balance the deployment targets that we want to see with the critical role of delivering value for money for those who will end up paying for it—the consumers and all our constituents. Ringfences have an important role to play, but there is a danger that a ringfence could lead to us paying significantly more for a particular technology than we might want to.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being very generous. Actually, the setting of the ringfence is a process that could be significantly improved by the taskforce being set up, as that would allow the Government to understand what is going on in the industry, which improved understanding could inform decisions such as the setting of the ringfence.

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman is determined to move me more quickly through my speech; I promise that I will come on to the taskforce. He is right that the more visibility we have of projects that might bid, the more aware we can be of what the sizes of ringfences and budgets for each pot in the CfD might look like. A range of factors makes that complex, such as whether projects are at final investment decision stage, or whether planning and consent are in place to allow them to bid into the auctions. There are many factors, but the visibility point is well made. On ringfencing, I hear what hon. Members have said and what has been passed to our Department over the past few months, but we will seek to balance the needs to deliver deployment and to ensure value for money when making these decisions.

A number of hon. Members raised the issues of licensing and consenting, which are at the heart of our aims for reform of the planning system. We want to continue to have a robust planning system in which communities have a voice, but we also want to move much faster in making decisions, so that projects are not held up for years on end.

[Andrew Bowie]

The Minister is being very generous, and I apologise for taking his time, given that I have just spoken. He talks about reforming the planning system so that projects can be built faster. Obviously, a lot of the projects we are speaking about are in Scotland. Can he update us on discussions with the Scottish Government about reform of the planning and consenting provisions in the Electricity Act 1989, which are seen by some—not by all—as an additional burden for companies seeking to develop such projects north of the border?

[Michael Shanks]

I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s raising that point, because that is an important piece of work that we have been moving forward. With the Scottish Government, we launched a consultation, which ran for four weeks, on how the consenting process could be reformed, so that we can change the 1989 Act in a number of key areas. I think the consultation closed a couple of weeks ago; the responses are now being analysed, and we will bring forward legislation in due course.

That is a good example of partnership working with the Scottish Government on attempts to deal with some long-running issues. Across the UK, the key point is that the aim is not somehow to reduce the burden of planning where there are still opportunities for affected communities to contribute; it is about saying that it does not serve communities, developers or the Government well when decisions are held up for years on end. That is part of how we will speed these things up.

Other hon. Members mentioned the supply chain, which is incredibly important. That is why we as a Government have said that we are not agnostic about industrial policy in this country; we want manufacturing to come to these shores. It is encouraging to see that there is already significantly more UK content in tidal stream projects than in some other technologies that we have in this country. That is a real positive. I hope that we can continue that and learn from it for offshore wind and other technologies that we want to expand.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and many others asked about setting up a taskforce. I am very open minded about that, and when I met the Marine Energy Council just before Christmas to discuss this and a number of other matters, I said that. I cannot quite remember how many taskforces I am currently chairing—we do like a taskforce, and they are important —and I am extremely grateful for the expertise of those who give up their time to come into Government, to help us to shape action plans and route maps and to understand what the challenges are. I am open to the suggestion, but if we set up something like that it must have a clear purpose, and at end of it we want a set of actions that Government and others can drive forward. That is what my officials are working on, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman more about it.

On the technology point, the Government’s position is that overall the wave energy industry is at research and design phase. That is a key step on the journey to potentially achieving commercial viability, but we do not think it is quite there yet. We are aware that it has huge potential, given the nature of this country, and significant strides are being made to take it forward. My officials are regularly in touch with those in the sector and are being kept up to date on the latest developments. We hope that all these technologies will become extremely successful and the Government are happy to do whatever we can to support that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he had not had time to write a speech but then, as always, he made a very eloquent contribution. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Devon made the same point about partnership, which is critical to all of this. The coast around this country offers enormous potential in our energy future, in floating offshore wind, in which we are already a world leader in so many ways—I hope we will continue to be so—and marine renewables, in the economic programme that we have already, and particularly in fishing. The point was strongly made that this is not about competing priorities, although it might seem like that; it is about how we can bring industries together to ensure that they co-exist. We can get real strength from that.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to everyone who has spoken in the debate. If he is not able to reply to this question right away, I am happy for him to come back to me in writing. I know he is keen to engage with all the regional Administrations, and I wish to make a plea for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know it was difficult because the Assembly was not meeting, but the Assembly is back and playing the game again. Has he had the opportunity to talk to the Department for the Economy, to see how we can move forward collectively and in partnership?

[Michael Shanks]

That is an incredibly important point. I told the hon. Gentleman the last time we spoke on this topic that I am going to Northern Ireland soon for the next inter-ministerial working group for Energy Ministers from around the UK; I think that is in March. I hope that while I am there I have the chance to meet different organisations, because I am keen to understand how the energy system in Northern Ireland works, given the separate grid. I do not have responsibility for energy policy in Northern Ireland but I want us to work together and learn from each other.

To conclude my remarks, I am, first of all, grateful—I thought that this debate might finish at 3 o’clock and I was going to have to sum it all up in 30 seconds, but I have a little more time. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their contributions. I have come away from every energy policy debate in this place enthused by the real cross-party consensus on so much of this. There is much on which we do not agree, but on a lot of this we do. We need to hold on to that consensus because achieving the future economic and energy benefits of marine renewables will require them to outlive any particular Government. That consensus has been a strength over the past few decades and I hope it can continue. I have always said that I do not have any monopoly on wisdom on these questions and I am keen to hear and learn from projects in constituencies across the country.

It is clear that there is huge excitement in the sector. I hope that we can harness that and drive forward the development of these technologies in the future, and remove the barriers there at the moment. Those barriers will be removed even if they are not specifically barriers to marine projects, although I think marine projects will be affected by many things, such as planning and grid reform, to unlock the immense potential that we have across this country. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I hope to return to his constituency soon to see many of these projects and learn more about them. Together we can drive far more marine renewables in the UK, delivering value for money for households and harnessing the abundance of clean energy in this country.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Betts. I place on record that although, since the general election, I do not work in renewables, I still own shares in a company that does.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

That is not, strictly speaking, a point of order for the Chair, but it is relevant to the debate, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it and putting it on the record.

15:24

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank everybody who has attended. For the benefit of the Backbench Business Committee, who may run the rule over these things, we have had no fewer than 17 Members in the Chamber in the course of this debate, covering the length and breadth of the country. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said there was unity in the message; it was almost as if we had been briefed in these matters. This allows me to place on record my appreciation—shared by all who are engaged in this issue, I am sure—of the work of the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, and in particular, the companies that get the devices in the water. Their commitment and dedication to decarbonisation and the development of this most important sector is nothing short of inspirational. I extend my gratitude to them and everyone who has contributed today.

We are not using the full amount of time that we have been allocated, so I am off to sign up the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a Duolingo course in Italian. We may benefit from that in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.

15:25

Sitting adjourned.