Nuclear Fuel Manufacturing

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We have had a good debate this afternoon, with some good contributions from hon. Members, on the subject of Springfields nuclear fuels. I congratulate the hon. Member for—

[Mark Menzies]

Fylde

[Dr Whitehead]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing what is an important debate, not just for the future of the plant in his constituency, which we are talking about this afternoon, but for the wider question of our strategic future, when we look at the future of nuclear at all.

I do not want to be a party pooper, but this debate is about Springfields nuclear fuels. There is a lot I could say about all sorts of things, such as the role of hydrogen in the economy and whether, when the wind does not blow very well, other forms of thermal power may be needed. However, we need to concentrate our minds not on the future of our entire nuclear programme, but on Springfields nuclear fuels. What is unique about Springfields nuclear fuels is that it has single-handedly held up the entire UK nuclear programme for four or five decades now. It has provided pretty much all the fuel for the Magnox systems. It now provides the fuel for advanced gas-cooled reactors, and it should hopefully be able to provide the fuel for the new nuclear power stations coming on stream.

The role of fuel is usually unsung, but it is crucial to the whole process of nuclear power. There is a popular perception, which I am sure is not shared among hon. Members here, that using nuclear fuels means finding some uranium, enriching it a bit and sticking it in a pot to make the energy. That is very far from the truth. It is a highly skilled operation, requiring intensely developed engineering skills, which are involved in making the rods and the pellets, which must have the right specification and order for the particular form of nuclear reactor for which they are being made.

There is also a whole load of ancillary activities, some of which have been mentioned, such as the reprocessing of uranium to go back into the rods. That is another very highly skilled enterprise, far from the perception of this being a pretty simple journeyman activity that anyone can do. No, not anyone can do it. In the case of the UK, there is only one company that can do it—Springfields nuclear fuels. We need to see Springfields nuclear fuels not just as part of the nuclear landscape generally, but as a vital national strategically important component of whatever our nuclear programme was and whatever it will be.

It should be a cause of enormous alarm for hon. Members if there are suggestions that somehow this strategically important national asset will either be downgraded or lost in the not too distant future. There is a very real prospect of that because, as hon. Members have said, despite its crucial and honourable history backing up the nuclear industry in the way that it has, it is finding it difficult to get contracts for the continuation of its excellent production activities. I think there was some work recently for the Norwegian nuclear corporations, but there is a real gap in what is coming up—what we know will be an important requirement, particularly of Hinkley C and certainly of Sizewell C when they eventually come on stream. There is a substantial gap between that time and now. There is a real prospect, therefore, of that company—which is owned by Westinghouse, a private US company with no great feeling for UK national strategic interests—dying, not for lack of praise but for lack of an immediate future between new nuclear and modular nuclear reactors coming on and where we stand now.

[Alan Brown]

What kind of timescale does the hon. Gentleman envisage for small modular reactors or even Sizewell C coming on stream?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned that Hinkley C is coming on stream in 2026—maybe even later than that. I will come to the arrival of Sizewell C in a moment, which is probably at the heart of his questions, should we develop modular nuclear reactors that are even further off.

[Sir Mark Hendrick]

When does my hon. Friend think that carbon capture and storage will be done at any significant scale in this country?

[Dr Whitehead]

I try to set myself a self-denying ordinance of not straying too far into wider issues such as firm power, but I would say that carbon capture and storage is very well developed already, and is up and running. I have actually been to see a carbon capture and storage plant operating at full scale in Canada.

However, it is not a question of whether carbon capture and storage can actually do the work, and it is not that the technology has not been developed to make carbon capture and storage perform the entire chain of activities—sequestration, storage, transport, and so on. It can do all those well and at scale; that has already been proven. It is a question of how quickly we can develop carbon capture and storage and put it into operations, so that it works from the day they start, with carbon capture and storage on the back of them, rather than developing operations that are carbon capture and storage-ready, but where carbon capture and storage is not on the back of that process. That is really a question of planning and investment, more than anything else, but it needs to be done in the right place at the right time. That is the end of my diversion.

The issue for Springfields nuclear fuel, therefore, is that there is clearly a substantial valley of death before what Springfields can reasonably expect for its work for the future. If we leave it at that, it is inevitable that, even if it eventually survives that gap and comes through well in the end, that may well be at the cost of all the skills in that organisation and most of the workforce; and, at a time when Springfields’ services absolutely will be required in the national interest, its ability to spring back may well have expired in the meantime.

As a country, we cannot let that happen. I therefore congratulate the unions, Prospect and Unite, for campaigning strongly for that view of Springfields as a company. It is beholden on the Government to take that view as seriously as the workforce do—and, I think, all of us in this Chamber do—in their responses and reactions to this particular issue.

When looking at the nuclear sector deal that was signed in 2018, I was interested by this statement from the Government on securing fuel capabilities:

“We will work with the UK nuclear fuel industry to ensure continued, commercial operation of their facilities and secure the long-term future of these important UK strategic national assets to deliver future energy security as well as ensuring the UK nuclear fuel industry continues to deliver long-term UK economic benefit”.

That is what they committed themselves to in the nuclear sector deal. However, as far as I know, nothing has yet been done about that.

Therefore, my first question to Government is: does the Minister intend that that nuclear sector deal commitment will actually be carried out? Are the Government looking seriously at ways in which Springfields nuclear fuels can be properly supported during this period of its existence and assured of remaining in existence as we move to whatever the next stage of our UK nuclear programme is?

My second issue is also important. Are the Government serious about moving on the programme for the already existing nuclear facilities and bringing in arrangements to give greater certainty on the development of Sizewell C? I refer to what hon. Members have also mentioned this afternoon: the regulated asset base arrangement or similar. If the Government do not like that arrangement, an alternative could give certainty to the development of Sizewell C in the next period. As I am sure the Minister knows, there is a row going on between Departments about whether the regulated asset base should be introduced for Sizewell C. That needs resolving. Something needs to come out shortly to get that programme under way. That is also relevant to the future of Springfields nuclear fuels in the way I have described it this afternoon.

I have two direct questions for the Minister, both relating to the future of Springfields nuclear fuels, which we want to see secured. We want to make sure that the Government play a full role in securing that future, so that we can say that that national asset is in good shape and in good hands. In passing, there is a question mark about the future ownership of Springfields nuclear fuels. As a national asset, perhaps it should be a Government agency, so that we can secure its activities for the future in a way that befits its importance to the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could allow a minute at the end for the mover of the motion to comment, that would be helpful.

Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, although I fear that there will not be much chairmanship of today’s proceedings required. I say that because the instrument is pretty much wholly non-contentious. It makes a number of sensible revisions to how the capacity market works, particularly in respect of those aggrieved would-be capacity market entrants who have been excluded from participating in capacity markets, often not for terribly sensible reasons—it will ease that problem considerably.

The instrument does not make any major changes to the operation of the capacity market. It essentially does a number of things that will undoubtedly make the operation of a capacity market a little more straightforward.

We need to draw a distinction between this SI, which makes, shall we say, some lubrication easements for the capacity market, and the principle of the capacity market itself. That is where we start to get into areas of controversy: the Minister mentioned just how important and central the capacity market is to the Government in their management of the energy market as a whole. I would say that, on the contrary, the capacity market at the moment is mainly an arrangement to provide free money for a number of providers who probably would provide anyway. They get money for being around to guarantee that they will provide. I might also note that that is not actually to provide any energy for anybody—it is to guarantee that they will be there, should the need arise for capacity to be provided.

We have seen in the capacity market, which is now about seven years old, a number of instances in which some quite perverse outcomes have occurred in the market provision. For example, one is the inclusion of nuclear power in the capacity market auction process when, as most people will know, it is actually very difficult to switch a nuclear power station off so that it does not provide. A nuclear power station bidding into the capacity market arrangements, and saying that it will provide, is the most egregious example of free money for doing what it would have done anyway.

The original purpose of the capacity market was largely to ensure that the price under capacity restraints would not go to such a high slot outside the major hour-by-hour provisions. Investors might fear that the Government would intervene if energy prices got high enough to have an effect on capacity, when there were tight capacity margins. That has not materialised. There are no tight margins these days, generally speaking. Indeed, as the market progresses with further provision of capacity and interconnection, that will be even less of an issue. The low price of capacity market auctions indicates, among many other things, that capacity margins—

[The Chair]

Order. We have plenty of time, and while I do not wish to test my skills in the Chair too much, and the hon. Gentleman is making some very interesting points, I remind him that the debate should be limited to discussion of the instrument in question.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mr Stringer. I intend to bring my remarks to a close shortly. Subject to your guidance, I think that my remarks are generally in line with the statutory instrument, because these are considerations for the better running of a capacity market that has problems ahead. The wider and the narrower issues are related for that reason.

The Minister has heard me speak about the capacity market before. It is due for a second five-year review shortly. The last review, in 2019, when it had been operating for five years, was, I thought, a pretty complacent document. It did not address a number of the issues that I have started to explore this evening. Although the changes that we are talking about today are pretty non-contentious and straightforward, and have the support of the Opposition, I hope that the Minister will accept that there remain wider controversies about the capacity market, and that she will take them as seriously as possible, particularly in that second review. I hope that she will consider whether the market is the best mechanism for ensuring a reliable capacity supply in future; she will know that various alternatives, such as a strategic reserve, were mooted when the capacity market originally came in. I hope she will look at that very seriously when the wider issue comes up for debate at a not-too-distant time. Meanwhile, I look forward to a number of other non-contentious debates as we secure marginally better working of the present system, pending arrangements for a future system that is fit for purpose.

Fuel Poverty

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the opportunity to talk about the whole question of fuel poverty. It is very helpful that an annual debate is required in Government time so that we can get to the bottom of the issues. We certainly need to, because as the Minister mentions, 3.2 million households in England, or 13.4%, are still in fuel poverty. I might add that that is under the new metric that the Government have introduced over the past year, along with their document “Sustainable warmth: protecting vulnerable households in England” and the updated fuel poverty strategy. Unlike in a number of other areas, the Government do appear to have a strategy on fuel poverty now, which is a good step forward. It is based on some changes in methodology and hence in the slant of a number of commitments on fuel poverty that the Government have made for the future.

Of course, as the Minister has mentioned, we should not in any way underplay the significance of what has happened over the past year. The pandemic has probably driven a substantial number of additional households into fuel poverty because people have been staying at home, using more energy and paying a lot more in energy bills. That effect is likely to continue for quite a long while, so there are several factors to consider in thinking about where we are now with fuel poverty and where we want to go.

One of the key changes that has been set out this year is a change in the definition of fuel poverty—what it consists of and how it is measured. I was a little surprised when I first heard that Lord Lilley, the former right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, had come up with a definition of fuel poverty, but that is not actually the low-income, low energy efficiency definition set out in the strategy. What is important about the new definition is that it explicitly includes a metric involving property banding in England. Property bands have not been specified in a definition before, although they have been in the Government’s ambitions for 2030; the Minister mentioned the target to get the properties of as many people in fuel poverty up to band C as possible.



Although that may not seem like an enormous difference, I think it is a really fundamental change inasmuch as it explicitly recognises for the first time that a very substantial element of fuel poverty is not just income, although that is very important, and is not just energy prices, although they too are very important, but is actually the energy efficiency of the properties people are living in and how bad that may be. Indeed, we know that there is a very considerable correlation between income, for example, and the kind of properties that people who have a low income—well below the median rate—are living in.

That correlation is very clear for the bands of properties people are living in. Indeed, we can see from the calculations of what a household bill is likely to consist of that that is a tremendous problem for people who have a low income. For example, an average band C property will have an estimated energy bill of about £600 a year. Go to band D and that figure is £900, but band E is £1,400, which is double or more the band C level. Worse than that, go down to band F and band G, and it gets to treble or more the band C bill. Those people who are in fuel poverty, with a lower income and less able to pay bills, are by and large facing much larger bills in the first place because of the nature of the property they are living in. The strategy essentially puts a much greater emphasis than hitherto on getting those properties into a fit state for people to live in so that their bills are such that fuel poverty is essentially written out by the energy efficiency of the properties the people are living in.

The recognition of that particular metric does, however, lead to very substantial and grave policy implications and commitments for the future, because what the Government are essentially saying is that they are going to get to average band C by 2030 to drive fuel poverty out in the way I have described. The judgment we have to make now is: are the Government in a position right now to actually fulfil that particular ambition in order to carry out the fuel poverty strategy they have set their mind on over the next period? My suggestion right now is that they are clearly not.

The Minister has, in a slightly Panglossian way, set out a number of commitments that will lead to the strategy being achieved by 2030, but they are mostly short-term strategies and mostly strategies that are poorly funded. In one instance, a strategy was mentioned in the poverty strategy itself:

“Invest in energy efficiency of households through the £2 billion Green Homes Grant, including up to £10,000 per low income household to install energy efficient and low-carbon heating measures in their homes”,

but it actually disappeared just a month after it was set down in the fuel poverty strategy as one of the key drivers as far as the energy efficiency of homes are concerned. This is the green homes grant system that, as the Minister has acknowledged, got into terrible difficulties. It was, frankly, a pathetic attempt at investing £2 billion in energy efficiency in homes and needs to be recovered and revised very rapidly.

In that context, it is a shame that this debate comes just before the Government’s heat and buildings strategy is to be published. I understand that it is to be published shortly, but we are still on the wrong side of it. What I am looking for in that strategy is a coherent plan—not just a few bits and pieces here and there—for building an efficiency strategy right through the next decade, so that when we get to 2030, band C is the median for all properties. That will require a large amount of investment, and thinking of new ways to undertake changes in energy efficiency through bodily uprating the energy efficiency of properties throughout the whole country. It will also mean concentrating on those sectors—particularly the private rented sector—where we know that band D, E and F properties are concentrated, and having a coherent strategy to tackle the very low energy efficiency of such properties across the country.

I hope that in the heat and buildings strategy the Government have not given way to the pressure I know there has been in respect of ensuring that landlords in the private rented sector have a greater responsibility for bringing their properties up to a decent level of energy efficiency. Many of those who are in fuel poverty live in the private rented sector, sometimes in appalling conditions yet faced with enormous bills that they simply cannot afford, as part of their income, normally to discharge.

There is now a great onus on the Government to come forward with an energy efficiency strategy that meets the commitments made in the fuel poverty strategy from February onwards and to give a convincing account of how that strategy is to be met. Of course, I think all Members would agree that that is not the whole issue as far as fuel poverty is concerned; the question of income and what one does about that as far as benefits and assistance are concerned remains very important. That is also important in terms of the effect of the new strategy on people who are objectively in fuel poverty but happen to live in properties that are band C or above.

Several hundred thousand people have been knocked off, as it were, the fuel poverty concern radar by the LILEE—low income low energy efficiency—definition that came in this year. Those people’s circumstances have not objectively changed—they are in exactly the same position as they were—but the new definition has moved them out of a particular category. I hope that that particular section of the population will not be forgotten as a result of the new strategy. They would clearly need to be approached in different ways in terms of vulnerability measures, some of which the Minister outlined. We should not think that because we have changed the definition, we have somehow solved fuel poverty for that group of people.

We need to continue with a three-pronged approach to our fuel poverty targets: yes, we need energy efficiency; yes, we need to consider incomes and to make sure that people have the income to pay the bills in the first place; and, of course, we need to consider energy prices themselves. We have not yet had through the results of the energy price cap considerations for this year—I think that they, too, will come out shortly—but I hope that when they come out they will be relatively good news for those people who face increasing bills, year on year, as they struggle to try to meet their warmth and home energy commitments on low incomes and in the badly insulated homes that we all hope will be, by 2030, very much a thing of the past.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This is a time-limited debate, but we will try not to put a time limit on individual contributions, so I ask for restraint, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

We have had an excellent debate that is absolutely up to the mark as regards the requirements of the fuel poverty legislation. The debate has underlined the human cost of fuel poverty. Contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) emphasised that to tremendous effect, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). We always need to remember that at the heart of the fuel poverty debate is the human misery and suffering brought about by it. We need to strive with all our might to remove it as a stain on our country in the 21st century; we could do so much better.

We also heard from the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who was at the heart of it when fuel poverty issues were first debated many years ago. Indeed, I have been alongside him debating those issues for quite a while myself. He must be grievously disappointed by the glacial progress being made on the elimination of fuel poverty in our country.

The Minister has heard a universal contribution from all Members here this afternoon that the Government must do better. I look forward to the new policies that are coming forward, which I hope will give a clear indication of just how the Government are going to do better, because they are a long way away from closing the gap between ambition and action and putting that into operation. I am sure we will debate the matter on frequent occasions in the future, but I look forward to those strategies. I hope they will be up to the mark in doing what we now know we need to do on fuel poverty in all its aspects. Perhaps from this afternoon’s debate we can bring out a renewed vigour to get on with it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Solloway]

Local communities have had the opportunity to raise concerns during the examination undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State will consider all relevant matters—I will ensure that I pass on the hon. Gentleman’s message—when he takes a decision, but as it is a live planning application I cannot comment further.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that we are talking about a company that, as its sole activity, is proposing to build an interconnector with France, that has attempted to get itself exempted from all the rules governing interconnectors, and that is now extraordinarily seeking Government backing to trash parts of Portsmouth to land its cable? Throughout all of this, it has never traded and is completely reliant for its existence on loans from unnamed overseas companies. But it has been active as a company in one other area: giving huge donations to the Conservative party and a number of its MPs to the tune of £1.1 million, either from the company itself or through the good offices of its part-owner. Now, perhaps in return, it wants the Government to support its rackety scheme through the Secretary of State’s personally approving its planning application. This whole thing stinks. I ask Ministers to call a halt to this seedy enterprise and certainly not endorse its wild and inappropriate planning proposals.

Enabling Community Energy

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I was not going to say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David, because everyone has said that already, so please take it as read—well, I have actually said it now, so it is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. [Laughter.]

We have had a powerful debate this afternoon, put forward by a number of hon. Members who clearly know what they are talking about and who have a substantial dedication to the idea that we should be able to get a substantial part of our energy by local means—by local people, in local areas, providing for their own energy needs and taking part in those arrangements. I am not particularly precious about who is to organise those local arrangements, be they co-operatives, collections of individuals, community enterprises, local authorities acting in partnership with those with those bodies or, indeed, a variety of bodies coming together and developing that local energy for local purposes.

The benefits of that are pretty self-evident. Not only is there a completely different stream for developing the renewable and low-carbon energy that we need, but that method of providing for our energy future does wonders for the ownership of that low-carbon energy, in terms of the close relationship that it provides between people consuming energy and providing for their energy at the same time. The notion of community energy really does fulfil one of the central things that the Climate Change Committee has been talking about recently, which is the need for behavioural changes as far as low-carbon living is concerned. Surely, an arrangement whereby people are producing, owning and consuming their own low-carbon energy is, or should be, a prime example of that behavioural change in action as far as our climate change targets are concerned.

However, as hon. Members have said this afternoon, that clear vision has tremendous barriers set in front of it. As has been set out this afternoon, those are manifold, and I could add substantially to that list. In essence, we can say that the barriers are threefold. First, in terms of getting any sort of enterprise going locally, there are tremendous issues with funding and the cost of entering the market. Hon. Members this afternoon have mentioned estimates of about £1 million for getting a local licensed arrangement under way, so it is completely out of the reach of the vast majority of people who want to set up such an enterprise at local level.

Secondly, we have the view taken by Ofgem, and I am afraid the Government, on the nature of electricity, which is that electricity consists of electrons that should travel from John O’Groats to Land’s End and back again, and be taxed and charged as if that is what they had done, when in fact local energy completely overturns that model. Electrons in the case of electricity, or the heat that is produced, is produced locally and consumed just down the road, and the whole loop is closed as far as that local energy is concerned. Yet the arrangements that we have in this country, strengthened by Ofgem’s targeted reviews and various other activities recently, mean that we should be charged as though it were entirely a national endeavour. Indeed, the licensing for local energy makes the same assumption. The Minister might mention moves to put geographically situated licences in place, but in general the licence is assumed to be on a national basis. We saw with some local energy retail companies that the licences they had to operate were as if they were operating on an entirely national basis.

Then we have the central issue that it is not possible in this country simply to produce electricity and sell it to a next-door neighbour, the person down the road or collectively for the local good. We cannot do that at the moment, and this is where the Local Electricity Bill, mentioned by various hon. Members, comes to the fore. I had concerns about the Bill’s previous iteration—about the problem that might arise within the arrangements in it for unleashing high-carbon energy into a local environment, rather than the low-carbon energy that we need to produce. So I would not like to see any local energy Bill enable local diesel reciprocating engines to come forward as a local energy supply when what we want is to decarbonise our electricity supply. I am delighted to see that the promoters of the Bill have now put a carbon intensity clause into it, which resolves that problem.

We now have in front of us a Bill that really could cut through the problem of how local energy can be produced, generated, transmitted and consumed locally. It is a Bill that every hon. Member with an interest in this area ought to fully support. Having said that, it really should not be promoted by a group of people hoping to get some traction in Parliament. It has not got support from any of the top 20 people in the private Members’ Bill ballot, and is therefore not likely to make progress in Parliament this year. It should be promoted by the Government, who ought to be putting it forward as their plan for community and local energy.

In that context, I continue to be dismayed that there exists no Government community energy strategy. I will not suggest a guessing game for how many mentions of community and local energy were in the recently published energy White Paper, but if anybody were to guess “one”, they would be roughly right. There is no community energy strategy, and it does not look like there will be one in the near future, but we have had them before. Historically, this country has had community energy strategies, such as the one in 2014, which projected that by 2020—meaning now—with the removal of the barriers to community and local energy that I have mentioned, and by putting in place other arrangements to support it, we could have had about 3 GW of energy being supplied by local projects. As hon. Members have mentioned, only around a tenth of that is supplied by brave and dedicated local community energy projects, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), which have defied the odds and pushed forward their projects in hydro, wind and the various other things that are happening locally.

We can no longer be in the position of hoping that some dedicated community activists try to defeat the odds on community and local energy. It needs to be mainstream in Government, with full support and the breaking down of barriers at Government level on the basis of a strategy to really get that community and local energy going for the good of all of us and our communities, as well as for our local energy resources and our low-carbon future overall. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to start taking that on board and to give local energy the support, promotion and backing that it really needs for the future.

Green Energy in the North-west

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We are indeed in strange times: those of us who have been in the House for quite a long time have a Pavlovian reaction every time the bell goes off—we jump up and run down the corridor. To resist doing that, and to resist saying anything in the meantime, is a new skill that we need to get used to.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on having secured this afternoon’s debate. It is a really important debate that sheds light on two things in particular, and he is to be commended for the excellent way he presented the case for renewable energy in the north-west.

First, we must recognise what an important part of the country the north-west is, in terms of both its renewable resources and their utilisation for the benefit of the country as a whole. Some of those resources have been mentioned in the time permitted to us this afternoon. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), spoke about the tremendous tidal resource in the north-west. Not many people know that the tidal range in the Mersey estuary is the second highest in the UK, closely followed by the Morecambe Bay tidal range. Parts of the north-west should be in the driving seat when it comes to utilising tidal energy for the future benefit of the UK. Of course, we already have substantial penetration of offshore wind in the Irish sea and a number of installations close to the north-west coastline, but anyone who has seen the offshore wind projects timeline charts put out by RenewableUK will know that, despite the tremendous offshore wind resource in the north-west, development of offshore wind has essentially stalled in that area. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) mentioned that some new leases are under way, particularly for floating wind, but performance at the moment is, frankly, very poor when it comes to developing this tremendous asset that the north-west has.

We have also heard from hon. Members not just about the north-west’s physical assets, but its human assets, including the assets of ingenuity and thought that have gone into the HyNet project. I unequivocally commend that scheme to this House for its proactive imagination, its importance, and its ability to bring jobs and skill chains to the north-west, which will benefit the north-west and the country as a whole. It combines carbon capture and storage and hydrogen and brings forward industrial processes, and the developers of that project are to be applauded—[Interruption.]

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I am conscious that I cannot alter the finishing time, which is still 5.50. I am really sorry about this, Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

I will shout my way through it, Mr McCabe. I am trying to draw our attention this afternoon to the north-west’s rich renewable resources that the north-west has, and how imperative it is that those resources be exploited for the benefit of the whole country as soon as possible. Hon. Members have underlined why that is so important.

The second important point to discuss is what the Government are doing about exploiting the resources and supporting the people, local councils and industries of the north-west in getting those schemes under way. The marks are pretty low here. I mentioned the lack of development of offshore wind, and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wirral West said Government support for tidal power was lukewarm. That was extremely kind of her, because as far as I am concerned, Government support has been stone cold. That needs to be urgently reversed, in order to bring the resources for secure, stable, low carbon energy forward in the way we know is possible, in Morecambe, the Mersey and other sites in the north-west, to the benefit of the whole country.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Order. I think you will have to wind up there, Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

I was about to, Mr McCabe.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

Now would be good.

[Dr Whitehead]

It is important to put the two parts of the debate together—what the potential is, and what the Government are doing about it. Those two things need to be in close harness. If the result of this debate is better Government support for renewables in the north-west, that would be a very good achievement indeed.

Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The business before us concerns a number of miscellaneous amendments—as set out in the title of the statutory instrument—relating to the operation of CfDs. I do not think that either the Minister or the Committee will benefit from a recitation of what CfDs are, how they work, their benefits and so on. Suffice it to say, the Opposition are very supportive of their continuation as a method of securing capacity, and giving certainty to developers that the projects they are embarking on will have a secure future. CfDs have proved a good way of developing offshore wind generation in particular in the past, and hopefully they will continue to do so.

The amendments represent a minor tinkering with the process to achieve, as stated in the SI, a “better outcome” of the CfD process as it matures. The miscellaneous amendments offer good and bad news—there are good amendments and bad ones. The Minister has offered a general overview of their purpose. They are quite detailed, and I do not think the Committee will want to go into all the detail of all the amendments, but I want to highlight two or three that may have some question marks attached to them, and one in particular which I just think is a mistake and needs some earnest thought from the Minister about how she wants to proceed with it.

My first question relates to the idea that floating wind will be in a separate pot for future CfDs negotiations. I think that is a thoroughly good idea, which will enhance its ability to come to market more effectively and speedily. The CfDs rounds coming up will have a new condition attached to them, namely “hard and soft boundaries”. Quite simply, that means that where a round has a capacity limit attached to it in general, it appears that the amendments will enable that boundary to be furred over slightly as applications come in. My understanding is that if an apparently worthy scheme comes in and is right on the margins of the suggested capacity limit in a particular round of CfD auctions, it may be possible to rub that application in rather than rub it out, provided that the general capacity boundary is adhered to. According to the mechanism set out in the SI, a round is declared to have soft or hard boundary, and therefore might allow for different treatment to be given to particular schemes. I do not particularly dissent from that way of doing things, but I think the Minister should look a little carefully at the possibility that a particular scheme on a particular occasion might get in to the round, whereas another scheme on another occasion might not get in because of the apparent relative hardness or softness of the boundary, and for which no criteria are given in the amendments. That could give rise to possible legal action by a project that has not got in when it could have got in on a more furry boundary. I might be a good idea if the Minister checked that that proposal is reasonably proof against that scenario. In a competitive auction, the ability to get inside the capacity arrangement could be quite important for a project’s future, and therefore there would be quite a lot riding on it. The operation of the round needs to be as watertight as possible.

The Opposition do not have any problem with the biomass conversion proposal, under which CfD inclusion is ended for biomass plants that are converted from existing coal-fired power stations. This country has examples that have been successfully carried out under previous CfD arrangements, one being Drax in the east midlands. Drax is an interesting example in as much as the statement in the explanatory notes relates to the idea that although the Government are, as it were, withdrawing favours from biomass conversion as it stands, they acknowledge that the role of biomass with carbon capture and storage is a high priority for the Committee on Climate Change and is considered by it and many others as a substantial contributor to future net negative emissions. Should bioenergy with carbon capture and storage proposals be made, the Government may want to review their decision on biomass conversions. It is not an academic issue precisely because not only has Drax involved itself in biomass conversion from an existing coal- powered plant, but it is implementing a CCS programme for the biomass conversion that has taken place. Circumstances could arise in which a developer came forward with a proposal for not only biomass conversion of an existing coal-fired power station but CCS attached to it. It would therefore fall into the BECCS area in terms of future biomass arrangements. It would well behove the Government to consider that possibility early rather than later, because that is likely to be quite a considerable portion of biomass activity in the future. It would be of concern were the Government not ready to support that in the best way possible.

The mistake, I think, is to deny floating wind the ability to phase its arrangements under a CfD in the same way as offshore wind does currently. I cannot see what advantage there is to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or to anyone, of saying with specific reference to floating wind that no phasing will be allowed from applications for CfDs, whatever pot they happened to be in. The argument in the SI suggests that floating wind is a small scale operation and that the arrangements for its deployment can be successfully carried out on a one-phased basis. It is suggested that the problems of scale encountered by offshore wind—the time taken to erect large offshore wind platforms and so on—will not be replicated by onshore wind. However, the SI also makes it clear that the Government are prepared to look at the current arrangement again should the circumstances of offshore floating wind change—if it turns out that offshore wind is deploying at much wider scale than is currently the case. The problem is that it is inevitable that offshore floating wind will deploy at scale and simply looking at what has happened so far means looking at demonstration and proving models. It is right that those models should be created to establish the viability of offshore floating wind, but they bear no relation to what will happen in the commercial roll-out phase. As the Minister knows, in the Celtic sea and elsewhere, there are already proposals for much larger scale offshore floating wind installations than has previously been the case.

The 2019 Carbon Trust offshore floating wind joint industry project phase 2 summary report made the precise point about the necessity of scaleability for offshore floating wind and offered a clear indication that there were no perceived obstacles to the size of turbines being adapted from their present fixed arrangement to a floating one. There is nothing stopping developers from bringing forward offshore floating wind at scale, and indeed it is the declared intention of a number of them. The suggested course of action in the SI will actually impede the roll-out of offshore floating wind, which, as the Minister will be aware, is subject to a target in the 10-point plan. It does not seem a smart idea to impede the progress of something for which the Government have set a target in the first place.

The Minister said that there were two consultations on the proposed amendments, one in the spring and one in the autumn, and that the responses were broadly very supportive of the changes proposed. That is substantially true, but not entirely so. The overwhelming response to the consultation on the phasing arrangements for offshore floating wind was opposed to that plan, for precisely the reasons that I cited. That was acknowledged in the report on the consultation, but in response the Government said that despite that overwhelming opposition, they would go ahead with their arrangements any way. That does slightly worry me about the purpose of the consultation in the first place.

I think that the Minister is moving towards a mistake, and I hope that she would want to review the arrangement at an early stage to see whether she is completely satisfied that it is as robust as suggested by the SI. If she is not satisfied, I hope that she can undertake a reasonably smart about-turn, and I for one will laud that and not criticise it, because we all want to see offshore floating wind succeed and its operation to be undertaken efficiently and effectively as possible.

The Opposition will not oppose the SI, and I hope that my comments are regarded as friendly advice as to how we should proceed with it. I hope that the Minister will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended, and go away and think about how we best move forward, in particular on offshore floating wind.

Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I should inform the Committee before we go any further that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, we think ecodesign is a good thing. Where would we be without those labels on the sides of the televisions that we order on the internet, only to realise when they arrive that they are not as energy-efficient as we thought they were? They do tell us what we have to do the next time.

The whole ecodesign and energy-labelling arrangements have been a great success and, as the Minister mentioned, have contributed positively to carbon saving and the use of more efficient products over the period. However, as she will also know, we have 150 pages of various iterations of ecodesign across a range of products, services and arrangements and a whole series of metrics relating to ecodesign that go much further than just the labelling on particular products.

I want to ask the Minister briefly about the process whereby the regulations have come into place and her intention for that process in future. Of course, she will know that the regulations are not new, but an update of previous regulations that applied across the EU. They are therefore a wholesale translation of ecodesign regulations that referred originally to EU sources and now relate to UK arrangements. They are, with the exception of about two or three words, exactly aligned with the regulations that apply in the EU. However, hon. Members will note that they do not apply in Northern Ireland, which is applying the regulations—which are the same regulations—under EU, not UK arrangements. That potentially works well because they are exactly aligned, but only, as far as UK arrangements are concerned, if the alignment continues.

My first question to the Minister is therefore whether it is her intention for the regulations to continue to align closely with EU regulations. The explanatory notes suggest that there will be a review of the regulations in 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027—different products will be reviewed on different dates. Are those review dates aligned with the EU’s review dates or are they UK-only? I think the Minister understands that if we review our regulations on a date that is not the same as the EU’s review date, there is the possibility of non-alignment at particular stages. That could cause difficulties through having different regulations in two different parts of the UK. Not only that, but non-alignment could affect manufacturers’ costs and arrangements relating to the transit of products between the UK and EU member states. I would therefore welcome a statement from the Minister that she intends to continue with the alignment for the products we are considering, and that review dates will continue to be aligned with dates for any changes that may be made in the EU for those products.

I raise a slight concern that although we are introducing ecodesign regulations on welding equipment and commercial refrigeration for the first time, they relate to Commission regulations, which were passed some time ago. However, we do not have any guidance on what standards should be used

“until designated standards are available.”

There are no existing regulations in the UK or a transitional method of measurement, yet we are expecting suppliers, as stated in the explanatory memorandum,

“to use the best available standards”.

When will the guidance notes on what standards should be used be available, and does the Minister expect any problems related to the rather jury-rigged system we will have under the regulations for the time being?

I suppose the final question is, why are the regulations not there? We have had plenty of time to get them in, but we still have not done so. I would guess that that will be at least a slight inconvenience to industry, and I hope that the Minister can clarify the situation to provide a little regulatory certainty for the industries affected by these two new areas of ecodesign regulation.

Draft Pollution Prevention and Control (Fees) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 General Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for a lengthy and lucid exposition of the statutory instrument, which in essence can be summarised as “OPRED would like to put its prices up. Should we agree or not?” I have no objection to the principle of a regulator recovering its costs from the industry it is regulating. It is perfectly reasonable therefore that the costs are set forward for OPRED and are then translated into the charges that it puts across to the industry.

I note, however, that this is an annual process, and that it was last carried out in April last year, although I am not aware from the notes what the increase was. I think that it might be wise for future reference to develop between OPRED and industry some sort of agreed indexing for price rises, to give greater certainty to industry about what is coming its way in terms of charges in future years. The notion of validating those increases entirely from looking at the cost base of OPRED itself is not necessarily a smooth process, and perhaps something that indexes cost increases against other price indexes would be a more appropriate way of developing future price rises. Perhaps there should be a longer term periodic adjustment against cost base to make sure that OPRED is not out of pocket in the long term.

Those are very minor, hopefully helpful, suggestions, and the Opposition have no objection to the principle or the practice of what is being done in the SI, other than to note that the increases are slightly above the rate of inflation and perhaps that should be looked at. And that is the most I can think of to say about the regulations. I have nothing to offer the Minister in terms of detailed analysis of the work of OPRED, or things that might require her to write to me. On that basis, I think we can all agree that it is a good measure; it keeps OPRED in business; keeps the industry properly regulated, and should be proceeded with on that basis.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to reply, or does she want to stand by her opening statement?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as a net zero business champion for COP26; he is doing an extraordinary amount of work, and has been tireless in his efforts to support the country’s business community to showcase its extraordinary leadership in tackling climate change and heading to net zero.

Tidal generation does indeed have a potentially important role in the long-term decarbonisation of the UK. Projects will need to demonstrate value for money to compete with other renewables over the long term. The Secretary of State and I are very keen to hear from those who want to progress such projects.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

In terms of increasing the production of renewable energy, does the Minister feel rather embarrassed about the deep neglect that there has been of the development of deep geothermal energy in the UK over recent years? Is she aware of a report published on 19 May suggesting a new future for deep geothermal energy, and particularly a mechanism for supporting deep geothermal through a successor to the renewable heat incentive? Does she intend to respond positively to that report and its proposals, and will she acknowledge that deep geothermal is indeed one of the cleanest and most efficient renewable energy sources that we can have in the UK?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I have not had a chance to look at the report, but I absolutely commit to doing so. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been doing a lot of work with local communities where there are geothermal projects, and we will continue to look at them and see how we can help to support them. It will be, as ever, one of those ongoing areas of policy; in the long term, we want to use all the renewable resources available to us as a country to ensure that we maximise their use, while, as I said earlier, ensuring that they also provide value for money for the taxpayer.