Our warm homes plan will upgrade up to 5 million homes with technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, helping families to lower bills and improve their homes. Last week we allocated £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to help low-income households and social housing tenants. We will publish further plans following the spending review.
The warm homes plan delivers a welcome uplift in resources for domestic energy efficiency. Failures by Governments, energy companies and local authorities over a number of years have left my constituents paying huge energy costs, with poor connectivity, failure to install smart meters or smart meters not working when they are installed, and not-fit-for-purpose electric heating systems in the Braes villages. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do all they can to end fuel poverty, and will he meet me to discuss how to hold accountable those who are responsible for the ongoing issues in my constituency?
My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. It is about having a tough regulator in Ofgem, it is about smart meters that work, and it is about every decision the Government take seeking to tackle fuel poverty. That is why I was incredibly pleased that we announced the extension of the warm homes discount to an extra 2.7 million families, with an extra £150 next winter to help families. That is what this Labour Government are all about.
I welcome the energy efficiency measures that my right hon. Friend mentions, which will really make a difference to many families in the future, but what can the Government and energy providers do to help families struggling to pay their energy bills today?
My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise about these issues. She will know that the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), put in place with the energy companies £500 million this winter to help families struggling with their bills. We also want to see Ofgem proceed with the plan to relieve the debts that many families face, because the debt overhang from the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still blights many families in our country. If we move forward on all those fronts, we can tackle these issues.
I strongly support all efforts to increase energy efficiency and bring down bills. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of raising the minimum level of energy performance certificates to C for long-term rented accommodation but not doing so for short-term lets and owned properties? Will that not create an incentive in communities such as ours for people to go to Airbnb or second home ownership, rather than providing affordable homes for local people?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I believe I am right in saying—I was checking with the Minister for Energy Consumers—that as part of the consultation on energy efficiency, we are looking at the issue of short-term lets, which has been raised in the past. He is right to draw attention to what we are doing here, because this measure, which the last Government proposed and then backed away from—a pattern we are seeing quite a lot at the moment—will take up to 1 million families out of poverty. It is a basic principle: if someone is renting a home and they pay their rent on time, they have a right to live in decent, warm accommodation.
Our clean power mission will end our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, giving the British people the energy security they deserve and driving jobs and investment into our communities. We are already seeing the impact of the clean energy transition, with thousands of jobs being created across the country in CCUS—carbon capture, usage and storage—hydrogen and offshore wind, and more nationally significant solar power being approved in eight months than the previous Government managed in 14 years.
The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?
I am glad the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the London power tunnels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited them recently and they are a fantastic example of engineering and of what we can achieve if we set ambitious targets in this area. I gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the wider point, however, as we are going to have to build infrastructure across the country to get the benefits of the renewable energy that we are generating, and battery storage is important for that. Of course communities have a voice through the planning system and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual applications, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must remember that we cannot simply block every infrastructure project that needs to be built. We need to build for the economic growth of the country and for our energy security.
Once again the Minister has failed to answer the question about the cost estimate, but we do know that the Government’s dogma-driven 2030 target will drive up costs and that we will see pylons and substations imposed in Walpole in my constituency and across the country against the wishes of local people. That will damage our countryside and it relies on Chinese supply chains, which the Energy Secretary visited only over the weekend. When will the Government realise that their approach of ruling out underground options and attempting to buy off local communities on the cheap, rather than listening to them, will only drive opposition to their plans?
Once again, we hear from Conservative Members about all these grand plans that they wish they had done in the 14 years that they were in government. They could have moved forward on undergrounding if they were so keen on it, but of course they did not. The reality is that it is for individual companies, not us, to set forward the design of individual projects, and cost estimates for undergrounding are five or 10 times more expensive.
The bottom line on all of this is that the leader of the hon. Member’s party earlier today moved away from the commitments that she had made on net zero. Just a few years ago, she said that
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes”
can make it
“harder…to heat our homes”.
They recognised then the importance of this net zero transition; now they are running away from how we deliver on it.
UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas. Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?
The Select Committee Chair makes an important point. Along with the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), I am looking at all options, because it is important that we bring down bills and that we are building an energy system that protects us from the volatile fossil fuel markets in the future. There are trade-offs to be made when rebalancing that we need to be aware of, in particular whether a diminishing number of gas customers can pay bills if we were to transfer levies, but we are looking at all options and are, of course, looking at how we review with Ofgem the wider question of standing charges to make sure we bring down bills. My hon. Friend is right to say of the journey that we are on—and that the Conservative party used to be on, and on which there used to be consensus—that our transition to net zero is important for energy security and for the climate, but also for protecting bills in the long term.
The Minister is clearly aware of the foolhardy decision by the Opposition to abandon the political consensus on net zero, but has he made an assessment of the cost to the consumer of pursuing that disastrous path, which would lock us into our dependence on polluting fossil fuels, volatile oil and gas prices, and the whims of foreign dictators?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that where once there was consensus in this country on how we tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, how we deliver the economic and industrial advantage, that consensus seems to have been splintered by the Conservative party. It was only two years ago that the leader of that party made an important point, which I agree with strongly, when she said
“if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.”
The Conservative party now wishes us to be on the backfoot, but we are determined that we will drive forward because that is the best policy for consumers, economic growth and energy security.
The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?
I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly. The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that. We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.
That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?
Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago. We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.
This Labour Government have ended the historic injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. At the end of November last year, the first uprated payments for the pension scheme landed for over 100,000 miners and their families. That is an average increase of 32% on their monthly payments, or an average additional £28 a week.
I thank the Minister for her answer and for her hard work to increase payments to mineworkers and their families across the country. After digging for coal for many years, 1,600 miners and their families have received an uplift of nearly £30 a week in my constituency of Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. However, progress is still needed on the staff superannuation scheme. The trustees of that scheme confirmed to me that the average age of pension members is 76, so with time marching on, will the Minister outline the next steps to help members of the staff scheme?
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks; he is right to talk about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. The initial focus of our work was on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which was in our manifesto. We had to work at pace on that commitment, and we are working with the Government Actuary’s Department on how the surplus-sharing arrangement will work going forward. That big piece of work is under way, but my hon. Friend is right to point to the tens of thousands of people who are in the BCSSS. I too have met the trustees, and we are working as fast as we can through the issues associated with that scheme. The two schemes are different—they operate in different ways—but the Government are the guarantor for both of them, and I will reconvene trustees to continue discussions with them and take this matter forward.
At the last general election, I made a promise to ex-miners in my constituency that a Labour Government would deliver justice on the MPS investment reserve fund and return it to its members. I am delighted that at the end of last year, this Government delivered, providing a boost of more than 32% to their pensions. However, in my constituency there are more than 600 BCSSS members, who are still really concerned about this issue, so I would welcome the Minister’s answer on that. Can she reassure them and me that the trustees will continue to update the members of that scheme? At the moment, there is a degree of uncertainty on what progress can be made over the coming months.
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents who are in the BCSSS. I am very receptive to the calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of last year to begin discussions. We have received a positive response from him, and we are now taking the next steps to move this process forward.
We are only partway there on the pension injustice for miners. The British Coal staff superannuation scheme has around 40,000 members who formerly worked in mining industries, including a number of my constituents. They include many women who were among the lowest paid in the coal industry—my own mum worked in the pit canteen. Can I assure my constituents enrolled in the BCSSS that transferring the £2.3 billion investment reserves to its members is a priority for this Government?
My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are about 40,000 people in this scheme. About 5,000 of them are women, unlike the mineworkers’ pension scheme, of which the vast majority of members are men. The two schemes are different and operate in a different way, because in 2015 the BCSSS had run two deficits and was at risk, so there had to be an intervention from Government. The two schemes operate differently and have to be looked at differently. The Government Actuary’s Department team is working its way through the mineworkers’ pension process, and we are now working with officials on this issue. I am meeting officials later today to talk about it more to see what we need to do. I stress that this is very complex—we are talking about billions of pounds-worth of assets—but we are absolutely receptive to calls from the trustees, and I will meet with them again soon.
We are driving forward at speed to deliver clean power by 2030. Last week, the Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will enable the biggest expansion of the grid for generations, sweeping away the connection delays and the queue that held us back for too long under the last Government and reforming the planning system to speed up delivery. We have also laid out for the first time legislation to provide households near new or upgraded pylons £250 a year off their energy bills for 10 years, as part of our commitment to delivering meaningful benefits for communities hosting clean energy infrastructure.
Does the Secretary of State agree that community energy has a vital role to play in the transition to cleaner and greener power? Will he accept an invitation to come to my constituency in north London to visit Community Energy Barnet, which is working on one of the largest community energy projects in the country?
I always like visiting north London, and I would very much like to accept an invitation from my hon. Friend. He makes a really serious and important point about community energy. If we look at Germany and Denmark, we see that they have done much better on community energy than us. Great British Energy has an important role to play in this, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks.
Does the Secretary of State share my concern about reports of persistent misconduct by Drax, regarding cutting down old-growth forest and burning it at its power station? To be clear, this is a company that chops down pristine forest, ships it halfway across the world to burn it in the United Kingdom and claims that it is sustainable. Will he look again at the large amounts of subsidies that have been approved by this Government for that company?
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.
The Conservative party abandoned the economy, the NHS, the justice system and immigration, and now it is joining its Reform collaborators and other climate change deniers in the dunce’s corner. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike this Government, who recognise the triple benefit of the 2030 goal—energy security, a transition to renewables, and job creation—the Conservative party has no solutions for 21st century Britain?
My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.
The plans for a green generator at the Peterhead power station in my constituency are shovel-ready, but they depend on approval for the Acorn project at St Fergus. On 12 November last year, the Minister for Industry stated in response to a question from me that more information would be available on the track 2 projects “in the coming months.” Given that four months have passed, can the Secretary of State provide an updated timescale and outline what the next steps will be?
I support the Acorn project; it is really important. For reasons that the hon. Member will understand, the right time to make decisions will be at the spending review in June.
We know that people are worried about their energy bills, and that too many are struggling to afford them. We agreed £500 million of industry support, alongside our warm home discount, to ensure that £1 billion of support was available for households struggling with their energy bills this winter. We will continue to take action to support consumers in the short term, as we sprint towards clean power in order to bear down on energy bills for good.
In my constituency, a local hospitality business’s energy provider, E.ON, has behaved appallingly by back-billing and incorrectly billing, leaving that business nearly bankrupt. While I welcome the new expanded remit of the Energy Ombudsman, we need to ensure that it has the capacity and powers that it needs to protect businesses. Would the Minister meet me to discuss this case, and what are the Government doing to ensure that our local businesses are not driven to bankruptcy by the outrageous behaviour of energy suppliers?
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this case. However, there are clear rules in place to protect consumers from unfair back-billing, and energy companies must comply with those rules. I have met Energy UK, the industry body, and Ofgem to reinforce our expectation that if rules are not complied with, Ofgem will take enforcement action. The broader point is that we have to ensure that the energy market is working for consumers and is fair. We are reviewing Ofgem to ensure that it has the mandate, the duties and the powers—including the Energy Ombudsman—that it needs to be an effective and strong consumer champion.
For the record, I and my constituents are proud of the southern North sea development—the largest wind farm in the world, begun under the last Government. However, we are not happy about this Government’s rush to force our consumers to pay higher bills; to see, as a result of vast subsidies, farmers in a very important agricultural area of Norfolk farming solar panels, rather than the food that we need to ensure affordability and our security; and to abandon agricultural leadership on net zero. Can the Minister reassure my consumers that £250 is adequate compensation for higher bills and the defoliation of a large part of Norfolk? That is what has happened in the rush towards ill-thought-out net zero targets, set in London, without any consideration of local people.
The past few years have shown us why we must break our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. Under the hon. Gentleman’s Government’s watch, energy prices spiralled, and consumers across the country paid the price. That is a reality that Opposition Members were happy with, but it is not a reality that we think is tenable, so we will sprint to clean power, because that is the route by which we achieve energy security for the country, and financial security for families. We are on the right side of history, and on the side of consumers. Opposition Members are deluded.
In Blackpool, we have more than 250 charities that are doing incredible work supporting people with their mental health, in getting back to work, and also with the cost of living, but too many people tell me, week in, week out, that they cannot afford to pay the bills. What conversations has the Minister had with energy companies about supporting these charities? Will she agree to meet me to discuss this important issue?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: charities and third-sector organisations play a vital role in getting support to households, which we know are struggling with bills. Part of the reason we thought it was so important to agree £500 million of industry support was to make sure that we got additional support to households. We are also consulting on extending our warm home discount to 2.7 million more households, so that more than 6 million people get help. We will work with the energy sector to make sure that we use the vital network of charities to get that support to the households that need it.
The price of gas is some 20% lower than it was at the beginning of this year, and the Secretary of State promised that bills would come down. Can the Government say when bills will come down for consumers, given that they are going up by 6% on 1 April?
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to check his facts. The price cap went up, which was disappointing for families, because of the spike in wholesale prices. That is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. [Interruption.] I will say it incredibly slowly for him, so he can understand: it is because of our reliance on global fossil fuel markets. We must break that reliance. We have to wean ourselves off this rollercoaster of price spikes and price falls, which is harming consumers across the country. The sprint to clean power will achieve that. It is a shame that he cannot see that.
Consumers are concerned about the rising energy price cap. What will the Secretary of State do to strengthen existing energy schemes and initiate new schemes? Will it include delivering the £300 reduction in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election?
We know that households are struggling with bills and are worried about them. That is why we are doing everything we can to bear down on bills. We are doing that not just because it is a manifesto commitment, but because it matters to households across the country. While we sprint to clean power—we are clear that that is the route to bearing down on bills—we will support households. Whether it is the £500 million agreement we made with energy suppliers, the extension of the warm home discount to more than 6 million households, or the debt support we are providing to consumers with energy debt, we are taking short-term action. Let me be clear that the way we get ourselves out of this bind is by delivering clean power for consumers across the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for her continued interest in this issue. Despite significant challenges, COP29 agreed a new climate finance goal and finalised guidance on international carbon markets. We would have liked more progress in certain areas, such as on mitigation outcomes. We look forward to playing an important role in the run-up to COP30 in Belém, to ensure that more progress is made.
Tackling climate change should matter to all of us because it affects all of us. At COP29, the UK led the way on setting strong climate targets. How is the Minister ensuring that measures are in place to track progress against our COP commitments? How is she working with businesses, local authorities and industry to deliver on those targets and drive investment?
My hon. Friend is right: we earn the credibility that enables us to show international leadership by delivering at home. In due course we will publish a cross-economy plan for meeting our climate targets, which will outline the policies that are needed to meet our 2035 nationally determined contribution, and we are engaging with a range of stakeholders on delivery through, for instance, the Net Zero Council, which has a very busy work programme, and the local net zero delivery group.
What assessment has the Minister made of the COP29 commitment to tripling finance for developing countries from the previous goal of $100 billion to $300 billion a year by 2035, and what is the United Kingdom’s contribution to that sum?
It is always a pleasure to answer questions from the hon. Member. We remain committed to international climate finance, and to the new climate finance goal agreed at COP29. The level of the UK’s contribution will be considered in the spending review, when we will also consider how we can maximise investment from the private sector.
The £21.7 billion of funding to which we committed in October will kick-start the carbon capture, usage and storage industry, supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands through the east coast and HyNet clusters. We continue to engage with important future projects, such as Acorn in Scotland and Viking in the Humber, and we will make further announcements following the spending review.
As my right hon. Friend will recognise, Merseyside is a clean energy pioneer, a hub of carbon capture and hydrogen technology. The climate emergency is the challenge of our generation, and that challenge will be met only through the collective endeavour of communities across our country, including mine in Wirral West. How are the Government helping our communities to deliver good, local energy projects?
My hon. Friend is entirely right about this. We have learned over the last decade and more that this is the biggest jobs opportunity of the 21st century. Nowhere is that more true than in the investments we are making in carbon capture, usage and storage, and I am confident that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. A couple of weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry produced an important report that showed that last year, the net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole. The House should let that sink in, because it tells us that if we turn our back on the net zero economy, we turn our back on business, jobs and investment.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is huge potential for carbon capture and storage to play a key role in our green energy ambitions for Scotland? As we look towards the spending review, does he agree that the Acorn project presents an excellent and efficient opportunity to invest in CCUS, and to reduce the carbon impact of industries across Scotland, because it will repurpose existing pipelines?
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic advocate for the Acorn project, of which we are hugely supportive. Track 1 projects were agreed in last year’s Budget—a fiscal event, a fiscal moment—and the Government are considering those projects ahead of the next phase of the spending review, which will come in June; but I do not think that anyone doubts the potential value of the Acorn project, not just to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom.
No one who cares about the future of our children and our grandchildren will gainsay the importance of carbon capture, but does the Secretary of State not understand that he is undermining that good work—notwithstanding his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—by continuing to subsidise the Drax power station, which is cutting down forests in Canada, turning the wood into pellets, and shipping it thousands of miles across the Atlantic to burn here? That makes nonsense of what he is trying to achieve.
I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. The situation that we inherited from the last Government meant that we had to consider matters such as security of supply and how we could secure the best deal for bill payers. That is what we did, and that is why we made the statement that we made on Drax. On longer term, however, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We need to move away from unabated biomass and consider all the possibilities to enable us to move towards net zero, and that is what this Government are doing.
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the six students from Bourne community college who came to Westminster yesterday to present their report on the future of hydrogen storage as a net zero approach to aviation? Does he agree that students engaging with science, technology, engineering and mathematics are excited about the potential of clean power and carbon capture, and that proper funding for STEM in our schools will provide us with the next generation of scientists and engineers who can help us to achieve these goals?
I join the hon. Lady in warmly congratulating the six students from her constituency whom she mentioned. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that when we meet young people who are engaged in the potential of clean energy technology to transform our country and our world, it is an incredibly important reminder, both about its potential for jobs, and about our duties to future generations.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that by 2050, we need to be removing 10 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year if we are to stand a chance of keeping below the 1.5° target. It is clear that carbon removal, and not just carbon capture and storage, will play a critical role in our avoiding a climate disaster. In the face of the Conservative party once again embracing climate denialism, what steps will the Government take to support the research, development and deployment of carbon removal technologies to ensure that British companies become leaders in this emerging sector?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him that the Minister for Industry held a roundtable with a whole range of industry voices on this precise topic last week. He is right about this issue. There is scepticism about CCS in some parts of academia and elsewhere. All the evidence that I have seen from the Climate Change Committee, the IPCC and others, including the International Energy Agency, is that CCS technology has a crucial role to play on something like 20% of emissions. He is also right to say that carbon removal is the next stage of that journey, and it is something that my Department is heavily engaged in.
Nuclear power is at the heart of our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is not just providing energy security, but driving billions of pounds in investment and creating thousands of highly skilled jobs. Great British Nuclear is on track to make final decisions on its small modular reactor competition this spring, while a final investment decision on Sizewell C will be made in the spending review.
Whether one agrees with the Government’s net zero targets or not, they will not be able to achieve them without nuclear energy playing a significant role, which is why I was delighted that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State chose to launch their nuclear strategy in my constituency—I can only assume that my invite was lost in the post. A key part of the nuclear fuel strategy is the nuclear fuel industry in this country. From the aggressive actions of Russia and other countries that have pushed western commercial providers out and dominated elements of the nuclear fuel enrichment and manufacturing market, we see that it is ever more important for our national security that we develop whole-of-lifecycle nuclear fuel production. When will the Government announce the concrete steps that they will take, as part of the strategy, to improve the whole-of-lifecycle manufacturing of nuclear power?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Minister for nuclear in the other place have visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and seen the good work that is happening there, and just shy of £20 million from Government grants has gone into that work to help develop nuclear fuels, which will be part of the future. The big nuclear developments at Sizewell and Hinkley, SMRs and advanced modular reactors all need to be in the mix, and he is absolutely right to make that point.
Many of my constituents were pleased to see the extension of Heysham 1 and 2 late last year, and they would like long-term jobs for the future in the nuclear industry created in the north-west. Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to this Labour Government that we are ending the last Government’s legacy of no new nuclear being built?
I completely agree. The Conservative party built no new nuclear in 14 years. Small modular reactors will bring energy efficiency and economic growth to many parts of this country. We are working at pace and will make sure that we have the answer on SMRs shortly. We will have the answer on Sizewell in the spending review, and of course nuclear will play a big role in the future.
Small modular reactors, as the Minister says, will play an important part in delivering clean, cheap and secure energy across this country. However, current rules require that any reactor must apply for regulatory justification, as if nuclear power was an entirely new practice instead of an existing one. That delays reactors getting online and lowering energy bills for people across the country, including in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, by up to two years. Will the Secretary of State consider working with his Cabinet colleagues to simplify the system and recognise that nuclear energy technology is an existing practice, thereby accelerating the deployment of small modular reactors?
I will happily investigate further the issue that my hon. Friend has raised. There are two pieces of work going on in this space: the draft nuclear planning policy statement and the nuclear regulatory taskforce. We want to make things as easy as we can, and I am very happy to talk to him further.
Small modular nuclear reactors are clearly the way forward for decarbonising the grid but are held up by constant delays. When does the Minister expect to be able to announce the first one to be brought into operation, and when does she expect it to actually start work?
I am hoping that it will take less than the 14 years in which the previous Government failed to deliver anything. We will see the announcements on the first SMR in the spring. Our door is open to anyone who wants to suggest building new nuclear in this country.
On 6 February, the Prime Minister announced that he would “take on the blockers” and build new small modular reactors, but do those blockers include his own Government? With essential work being delayed and paused at Sellafield, possible job losses at the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and still no certainty for Sizewell C due to a general fear in the industry that the spending review will stymie the ambitions of Great British Nuclear, are the biggest blockers to new nuclear in the UK not in Labour’s Treasury?
I am not sure how many times the hon. Member promised he would get to the final investment decision on Sizewell under the last Government—I think he and his colleagues promised that at least five times in the House—and of course it did not happen. I gently repeat that the previous Government managed no new nuclear in 14 years, and he himself admitted that the Government had moved too slowly in getting nuclear projects off the ground. We are working at pace, and we will deliver the result of the competition in the spring. Sizewell C is also moving at pace, and we will have final answers in the spending review.
We are going to run on a bit because we are behind. We have hardly got through any questions.
For this Government, good pay and conditions for workers and the role of trade unions must be at the heart of the renewable energy sector, because that is the only route to a fair transition. Since we came to office, EDF Renewables has announced recognition agreements with four major trade unions. We applaud it for its decision, and we want others to follow suit. Through the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, we are also working with industry and trade unions to support fair pay, terms and conditions in the sector.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The Employment Rights Bill is an historic step forward for workers, but these rights must go hand in hand with good jobs. What action is he taking to strengthen the UK’s manufacturing capacity and supply chains to ensure that communities such as mine in Knowsley benefit from the transition to net zero?
My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituency, and on this issue of manufacturing jobs. If we look at what this Government are doing—from GB Energy to the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus—we see that this Government are determined to ensure that we manufacture in Britain. We care about where things are made, and we will make those good manufacturing jobs happen.
Meeting our clean power mission will require a significant increase in the deployment of both ground-mounted and rooftop solar projects. As well as consenting record amounts of ground-mounted solar, we want to see a much greater deployment of rooftop solar power. We will soon publish the solar road map—work that started under the previous Government—to bring together our next steps in this area.
The Government say that only 1% of agricultural land will be taken up by solar farms, but in the pipeline around Gainsborough 10,000 acres have already been put aside for solar farms, with another 4,000 announced a couple of weeks ago—up to 15% of my constituency, which is the most arable and most fertile in the country. I make one quite reasonable request of the Secretary of State: will he consider applications in the round rather than individually, and look at their cumulative effect on food production and the local environment?
Under even the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about their being holistically planned, the strategic spatial energy planning that we have taken forward is important in having a coherent view of the entire energy system. That is work that we should have done many, many years ago. We are now moving at pace to do it, but individual planning applications are—
I think we have rehearsed the arguments about the absolute failure of the previous Government over the past 14 years. The Conservatives have just gone further back today. On GB Energy, I was delighted to be in Aberdeen yesterday to join the board of GB Energy for its first board meeting. The Bill will soon, we hope, complete its passage through Parliament. It can then get on with delivering for the British people.
Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.
The Bacton energy hub in my constituency is undergoing a green transition, which I support because I believe in protecting our natural environment and boosting our economy through net zero—two things the Conservatives seem to have abandoned. Green hydrogen at Bacton needs wind power to be brought in from the coast. Will the Secretary of State help to make that happen, and will he visit Bacton with me to see the potential for himself?
This, among many others, is a very, very important potential project and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for it. Green hydrogen is absolutely part of our energy mix in the future.
Clean energy is one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy and will provide a core part of that strategy. If anybody wants to build new nuclear in this country, our door is always open.
Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?
I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.
The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?
It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.
In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?
As we discussed earlier, the CCC raised an important issue that we need to look at. The key question on this so-called rebalancing is that it must be looked at in the context of understanding the principled case, while also ensuring that if we go down that or another route, we do so in a way that is fair. That is the work that my Department is engaged on.
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents. As I said, I am very receptive to calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chancellor, who sent back a positive response, and we are now taking the next steps in this process. I will be reconvening trustees to meet and talk about it again.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are very aware of the issues with park homes, and industry support is provided to residents. As we think about expanding the warm home discount and the support we provide for households that cannot afford their energy, we will, of course, have park homes in our mind.
Yes, that sounds really good. Community energy is a crucial part of our energy future.
The right hon. Gentleman and I do not necessarily agree on everything, but on this we do agree. The transformation of the West Burton site from a fossil fuel-fired power station to a fusion power plant is an incredibly exciting project, and we should all be battling for it.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He underlines the importance not just of delivering on energy projects but the wider economic benefits from building infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that the Conservatives now oppose. He is right that in order to deliver these projects, we need to see investment in rural communities by the Scottish Government. We will continue to press them on those issues.
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Rolling out electric car infrastructure is incredibly important. If he writes to my Department, we will ensure that he gets the best possible reply.
Will Ministers consider exercising the community electricity right within the Infrastructure Act 2015 to require commercial renewable energy developers to offer communities the opportunity to part-own schemes developed in their area?
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. As an energy nerd, I am really interested in this 2015 power, which, despite my nerdery, I did not actually know about. We are actively looking at this really important power, which was put in place by the previous Government.
In response to a written question to me last week, the Minister confirmed that no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented to that will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land. In my constituency, the East Park Energy solar farm is close to 75%, but the overarching national policy statement for energy states at paragraph 5.11.34:
“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification.”
Can the Minister confirm whether nearly 1,500 acres of best and most versatile land is too much good-quality agricultural land to sacrifice?
The hon. Gentleman will know that any nationally significant project goes through a proper planning process, and it would not be right for me to comment on that. None the less, I am sure that the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues that he has raised.
There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?
Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.
Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is the central plank of the Humber 2030 vision. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to meet the Humber Energy Board, and if he does not will he join me in doing so?
I talk every day to my hon. Friend about her constituency and I am very happy to meet whoever she wants me to, because we think this is an incredibly important matter. The opportunities for her area and the Humber are great if we can harness the talents of the people in her constituency.
Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the ongoing work to deliver new nuclear investment in Hartlepool. Billions of pounds are on the table, which will mean jobs and skills for generations to come. Will he meet me to discuss how we can get this deal over the line?
New nuclear is an essential part of our future energy plans. My Ministers and I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those plans.
I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?
I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.
Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO2 market to bring investment and jobs to our region?
My hon. Friend puts it so well. This is the economic opportunity of our time. Our investment in carbon capture and storage shows what is possible. Today’s desperate request for attention from the Opposition is anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-investment and the wrong choice for Britain.