Methane (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Like members of the Grand Committee, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for initiating the debate and her chairmanship of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. The committee’s report on methane emissions has shed light on one of the most pressing challenges we face in the pathway to net zero. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the production of the report, as well as those who participated in this well thought-out and thorough debate.

I go back to the beginning, the noble Baroness’s speech, when she referred to the outcome of the Select Committee report as being a message of hope. I agree. I should also go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and other noble Lords pointed out about the reduction in methane emissions, which must be counted. While there can never be complacency in this area, this has to be counted as a significant achievement by this country.

I also accept the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that we need to keep up the momentum. As noble Lords have said, the science on this is unequivocal: methane is responsible for almost one-third of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the noble Baroness explained, it remains in the atmosphere for only a fraction of time—approximately 12 years. Therefore, reducing those emissions is one of the fastest ways that we can avert one of our most acute climate change risks and keep the Paris Agreement in reach, which is a fundamental global challenge that we face.

The independent advice from the Climate Change Committee ahead of our next carbon budget sets a cross-economy pathway to reduce emissions, including measures that contribute to the reduction of methane emissions. We are considering the recently received Climate Change Committee’s report and we are bound to respond by summer 2026.

Let me make this clear. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether we are absolutely committed to net zero. The answer is yes; we have to be: the science about the impact of climate change is so convincing. We have to stay determined. One of the tragedies of current political discourse is that there have been so many attacks on net zero. The ludicrous idea that the measures being taken on net zero have led to damage to our economy is so nonsensical, because the one thing on which I am clear is that the big issue on energy prices has nothing to do with the policies that have been taken on net zero but everything to do with our vulnerability to the international fossil fuel market.

In February, the CBI produced a report on what I think was described as the green economy. A 10% increase in the green economy in 2023 compares to a very modest increase generally, and nearly 1 million people are employed in the green sector overall. One can make a very convincing argument that investing in net zero, which we have to do, is actually a way to kick-start growth in the economy. We have this mission statement and I have taken part in a number of cross-government discussions over the last few weeks: the Government are absolutely committed. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that we need a practical approach to making progress, but there cannot be a let-up in the drive to net zero.

This is the context in which we need to consider the recommendation of the committee to which noble Lords have referred and the question of an action plan. It is obvious that the response given in our written report is disappointing, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to overturn that in the light of your Lordships’ contributions. However, we basically believe that this is covered in our existing delivery plan for carbon budgets. The point I make is that carbon budgets are the very engine room of our pathway to net zero. We are absolutely committed to including key methane policies in the carbon budgets plan, covering the period up to 2030, which will contribute to the Global Methane Pledge.

Under the Climate Change Act, legally binding carbon budget targets require domestic reductions across all greenhouse gases, including methane, to keep us on track to meet net zero. As I have said, we are committed to a progress report in relation to the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets, and we have just received the advice from the Climate Change Committee in relation to the seventh carbon budget.

On the EU and UK trading emissions system, at this stage all I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we understand the importance of what he is saying. We are in discussions at the moment, but I am afraid that I cannot go any further at this point.

We had very interesting insights into agriculture. It is the largest source of UK methane emissions, and we were treated to expert interventions from my noble friend Lord Grantchester, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who all made important points. I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the impact of measures on food prices. This is clearly a tension that Governments have been facing for many years, which also relates to the issue of welfare standards, as well as comparisons between this country and others, and it feeds into discussions on trade. It is a very difficult and challenging issue.

It is right to place on record my gratitude to the National Farmers’ Union for its valuable contribution to the Select Committee. I certainly appreciate the efforts of farmers in this area and find no attraction whatever in a punitive approach. When I was a Minister in Defra—I had a joint ministerial job across Defra and DECC, as it was called in 2008—I took part in discussions with the NFU on reducing emissions in the agricultural sector. I think it is right to say that it gladly took part in those discussions, and that co-operation has continued.

We are committed to introducing a land use framework, which will make environmental land management schemes work for farmers. Defra is also looking at a number of other measures to reduce emissions from livestock, alongside the upcoming food strategy and farming road map. I am afraid that I cannot give a definite date to the noble Baroness, but we think that this will be a credible plan to reduce food and farming emissions by working closely with stakeholders.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made a number of comments about accurate reporting, and other noble Lords added to those discussions. There was reference to recommendation 7, in which the Select Committee asked the Government to move unilaterally to an auxiliary metric. It also asks us to play an active role in international discussions as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change considers the need to review those common metrics by no later than 2028.

There are two points to be made here. It is clearly important that we have international reporting and that there is consistency in that. I take the point that some noble Lords here are critical about some of the standards of that reporting. However, I say to noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Stansgate—that we will take an active role in UNFCCC discussions on common metrics. The agenda item will be continued in June 2027, and we will continue to be led by the best available science and international consensus. I have taken note of a number of comments made today by noble Lords.

On my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s comments on the dairy demonstrator project, I cannot go further than our response to recommendation 12. However, that project has now commenced, following the signing of the contract, and we will obviously watch its progress with a great deal of interest.

On the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, I take his point about the important role that anaerobic digestion has to play in meeting net-zero goals. We think that, with the right standards of controls in place, it presents opportunities for improved nutrition management, nutrient management and a nutrient circular economy. There are, as he knows, challenges in relation to the risk of improper management, which can lead to issues with environmental risk. However, we certainly think that it has a role to play, and I will take note of the noble Earl’s comments.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made a number of interesting comments too. I was especially interested in the points he made about regulators. Clearly, in a field where a number of regulators come into play, the key is to make sure that they work together and that there is no overlap or duplicated approaches. We have announced plans to conduct an internal review of regulations and regulators at Defra, which should help the noble Lord in that area.

I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on fossil fuels and the role of the North Sea, that clearly this has been a crucially important sector of our economy for many years. We still have many highly skilled people working there, but we lost 70,000 people in the last 10 years under the previous Government. It is called a super-mature basin, and it is declining. Oil and gas have a role to play in the future, but we are right to go for a balance between different technologies. The emphasis we are making on nuclear as a baseload and putting huge effort into renewables, while having gas as a strategic reserve, is the right way to go forward.

On venting and flaring, which noble Lords have raised before both in the Chamber and here, my understanding is that the regulator is already taking action to increase transparency and accountability. In March 2024, the North Sea Transition Authority published its emissions reduction plan, requiring industry to reduce flaring and venting.

I am not sure for how long I am allowed to speak here, but I will just turn to international leadership. Noble Lords have said that the UK is in a great position to exercise international leadership, and I agree with that prospect. It is on a par with the country being the first major colony to establish a net-zero target in law, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her leadership, which her party unfortunately seems to have forgotten in its fast retreat from net zero. I regret that, because the loss of consensus is a serious matter for the country and the future. We saw that at the local elections recently, during which net zero was attacked by some political parties.

It is important that we maintain our leadership. During the COP 26 presidency, as the noble Baroness said, we were one of the first countries to join the Global Methane Pledge. We are stepping up our efforts to deliver on the pledge through funding to support developing countries. We were one of the 30 signatories to the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste at COP 29. Now, of course, we are thinking about COP 30 in Brazil, which is only a few months away, and we are working very hard with the COP 30 presidency, as noble Lords have suggested.

From the Government’s point of view, this is a very interesting report. I know that noble Lords are disappointed with one or two of our responses, but the overall response accepts that this is a thoroughly prepared and researched report. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, the witnesses came from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is clear that the committee had to give a great deal of thought to the recommendations; we should acknowledge that. We accept the core thrust of the report. Although I have disappointed noble Lords again tonight in relation to the action plan, there will be no lack of action by the Government in responding and in making sure that we make progress on methane reductions, but we think that the carbon budget process is the right way to go forward.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for what has been a really fascinating and helpful discussion; I can assure noble Lords that it will inform policy development in future.

Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 10 March be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 May.

Motion agreed.

Energy Prices: Energy-intensive Industries

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has the highest industrial electricity prices in the OECD. We have discussed this many times in your Lordships’ House. Our prices are 45 times more expensive than in the USA and seven times more expensive than in China. Without cheap energy we are deindustrialising through the back door. Just last week, on 1 May, the Times reported that:

“Three in five British companies have said that ‘rising and unstable’ energy costs are undermining growth plans”.


So will the Minister please listen to the advice of industry, and reconsider this accelerated plan to decarbonise the grid at any cost to prevent more British jobs being lost in our flagship energy-intensive industries?

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath)]

My Lords, I of course recognise the challenge that high energy prices pose for UK businesses. I am very well aware that the Urgent Question in the Commons related to a ceramics company in the potteries, Moorcroft. Let me say at once that my thoughts are with all those workers affected, and I know that Ministers are working very hard with the company and the industry to talk through some of those issues.

I say to the noble Lord that the structure we have in relation to energy prices is the same as the one his Government left when they left office last July. We know that the main reason why we have high energy prices is our reliance on international gas and oil markets, which related back to the shock to the system from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We believe as a Government that the faster we move to decarbonise, the more we can provide energy security and cheaper energy, and that this is the best way to go forward. If anything came from the previous Question about the advice of the Climate Change Committee, it is that we cannot afford to let go or slow down in relation to climate change. We do not have that luxury; we need to press on.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, our industrial energy prices are too high and our transition to net zero must not come at the cost of specific industrial sectors. The Minister has noted that the original Question in the Commons was in relation to our pottery industry. It is clear that the energy supercharger is helping, but what more can be done to make sure that it is helping all our industries? It is also no secret that the Government are looking at energy market reform in our domestic sector, so can the Minister say what action is being taken to help with industry’s energy costs? What thoughts have the Government had about setting up a permanent independent body to advise the Government on the complex matters involved in the energy market reform policy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is of course right to refer to the energy supercharger: £470 million is being contributed towards helping companies which are major energy users. Obviously, we look at the scheme and at whether any changes should be made, but as regards energy market reforms, we are certainly looking at a number of issues in relation to the electricity market. We are looking at issues to do with zonal pricing and the rebalancing of the cost of electricity and gas. But these decisions are not easy and there will be gainers and losers, so we have to take this very carefully. The ultimate answer to the noble Earl’s question is that we need to decarbonise as quickly as possible. That will give price stability and certainty to industry.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am chairman of Make UK, which represents 27,000 manufacturing businesses in the UK, which I think by mutual acclaim amount to between 10% and 15% of GDP. Our members are extremely worried because they face a 50% premium—at the absolute minimum—on the price of the electricity they have to pay compared to their competitors in Europe and elsewhere. The question to the Government is that industry prices are unregulated compared to consumer prices, and they are therefore much more open to the vagaries of the market. The Government have the industrial strategy, which, I hope, will be published in the next few weeks. Can the Minister reassure us that high energy prices and the uncompetitive nature that they provide for most of our members trying to export products and therefore grow the economy will be assisted in the industrial strategy?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and thank him for the work he does on behalf of so many important industry companies. He will know that we are in discussion with organisations such as his own and many other business and industry interests. As he said, we hope to publish the industrial strategy within the next few weeks. I cannot give him any guarantees as to what will be in it, but I assure him that I understand the pressures on our industries, and we are considering those very carefully in government.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

But, my Lords, the fundamental flaw in the pricing system introduced at the time of privatisation is that the average price of electricity was determined by the marginal price of the last kilowatt, which is normally produced by gas and, as the Minister rightly said, is therefore driven by international gas prices. That is not a law of physics or engineering but a political decision. Should we not be examining that to rebalance the pricing system to the benefit of industry and indeed consumers?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the electricity market operates on the principle of marginal pricing, whereby the wholesale price of electricity is set by the last technology needed to meet overall demand. That is why gas tends to set the price for the market. We are of course looking at this as part of our REMA review that I have referred to. But the faster we decarbonise our energy and move towards clean power, the less gas will have the influence it does in the current system.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

What lessons has the Minister’s department learned from looking at our competitors, particularly in Europe, which seems to manage this aspect of its energy markets rather better? What lessons have we learned from across the channel?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to look at each country, and some subsidise business costs from the Exchequer. There is no easy way through here; one way or another, there are variations in what Governments do, but we have a very tough public financial situation bequeathed by the last Government, in the form of the black hole they left us, so our options are inevitably constrained. We are not complacent; that is why we have this review of our whole energy pricing structure, and we will look at these matters very carefully. I still maintain, and I think the noble Lord would agree, that the best way to energy security and stable prices is to go towards clean power as quickly as we can.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister was absolutely clear that these are not easy decisions, and I think we all understand that. But the high price of electricity affects not only industries but consumers, so they are decisions, however difficult, that have to be taken. We have been tremendously damaged by the system that we have at the moment, so can the Minister be a little more specific about when we will have the results of the REMA review and when we can change the current perverse system of pricing?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to answer the noble Baroness by saying “in due course”. Clearly, these matters are being discussed very fully in my department, and we want to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible, but I cannot give her a date.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, if the Minister is correct in his economic theory about gas and electricity prices—frankly, I am not sure that he is—why is the lower price of oil, which is now getting quite low, not bringing down the price of gas as well?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is because of marginal pricing, whereby gas is the most predominant, and it tends to set the price. As my noble friend said, this system has operated for many years, but we are looking at it very carefully.

Climate Change: Progress

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the publication on 30 April of the report by the Climate Change Committee Progress in adapting to climate change: 2025 report to Parliament, what plans they have to increase efforts to adapt the United Kingdom to the effects of climate change.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the nation’s resilience to climate change. We welcome the Climate Change Committee’s latest report and are carefully considering its recommendations. We will respond formally in October, as required by the Climate Change Act. In the meantime, we are working to strengthen our objectives on climate adaptation and to improve the framework that supports departments and communities in managing the impacts of a changing climate.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. The report from the Climate Change Committee points out that there has been no progress in adaptation to climate change since the previous report. During the eight years that I chaired the adaptation sub-committee, we said exactly the same thing. As Yogi Berra would have said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The report also says that the Government have no specific measurable targets or objectives for adapting to climate change. I will ask the Minister about just one area. The report estimates that by 2050, approximately one in four properties in this country could be at risk of flooding if there were no adaptation to climate change. My question is: is this an acceptable level of risk? If not, what level of risk do the Government think is acceptable?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, first, on the substantive point that the noble Lord makes about progress, he will know that we are not yet halfway through the national adaptation programme 3. Therefore, the response to the Climate Change Committee, which is due by October, will very much reflect the work in progress in terms of what we need to do to beef up the current plan and implementation and to look forward to the NAP4, which starts in 2028. We are not complacent; we take the committee’s report very seriously, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and her committee for the work they have done. On the noble Lord’s substantive point on the issue of objectives, I very much accept that that is one of the matters we will be considering over the next few months. Secondly, on flooding, of course the report of the committee and the prediction it has made about the 8 million properties that are at risk of flooding by 2050 is something that no Government could take complacently. He will know that we have already committed £2.65 billion to repair or build flood defences, and of course we will look further into this matter in light of the committee’s report.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Government rule out any new development on functional flood plains, particularly in zone B, which is the most at risk of flooding? If the Minister rules that out, he has a good chance of having more resilient houses in other places. Will the Government undertake not to build on functional flood plains?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we are going to rule this out completely. The noble Baroness will know that flood-plain building is possible in the UK at the moment. It is a heavily regulated process with significant planning requirements. We will obviously continue to look very carefully at these issues and whether the requirements are sufficient, but we do not think that a blanket ban is appropriate.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, how much influence can the British Government have on climate change, when many countries are still pumping out more and more gases that will damage the climate? How do the Government assess what we are doing and what other countries are doing?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise the argument, but if every country that emitted the same emissions as the UK does took action, we would have a critical impact on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, we negotiate within the COP process to encourage multilateral agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but I think that the real lesson of this report is that it sets out in detail the risk to this country and the world of the climate change that will come unless we act towards achieving net zero and reducing our greenhouse gases. This is a very stark reminder of why we should not detract from our pathway to net zero.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the hottest day, the second wettest winter and the second worst harvest on record have all been in the last three years. Given that this report did not find evidence for scoring a single outcome as “Good” in terms of adaptation delivery, and little evidence of change, can I seek the Minister’s reassurance that the Government have heard the very urgent calls for action without further delay, and that the Minister accepts that this must serve as a turning point in our approaches to adaptation delivery?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. The Committee on Climate Change said:

“There is … unequivocal evidence that climate change is making extreme weather in UK, such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and wildfire-conducive conditions, more likely and more extreme”,


and the points he raised are absolutely right. We take this report very seriously. We have been in office 10 months, and we are reflecting on the specific points that the committee has made, area by area. By law, we have to respond by October, and I assure the noble Earl we will take this seriously and give a serious response. As I said earlier, this will lead into the work that we need for the NAP4, starting in 2028.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the report points out that one area in which we have actually moved backwards is the resilience of our water system, not least the atrocious situation that we still have in terms of water leakage. Is this not an example of Ofwat and the water companies letting us all down yet again? What will the Government do about it?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out issues in relation to water, water leakages and the performance of water companies. He will know that the Government are engaged in considerable discussions about the future of the industry. I have noted that the Committee on Climate Change in its report says:

“Through the reforms to the public water sector, currently being considered by Defra and Ofwat, the next water regulatory settlement … should fund and encourage more ambitious options to get the sector back on track for its demand and leakage reduction targets”.


We will obviously look at that very carefully.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The impacts of climate change and the need for adaptation are often seen in terms of physical structures and infrastructure, but would the Minister agree with me that there are important effects on health and that it is very central that his department talks to the Department of Health about the effects of, for example, the heatwaves, to which reference has been made, and the effects of changes in our and other countries’ climates that mean that we may see diseases that we do not think of as being relevant to the UK here in the very near future?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware that the committee’s report refers to heat-related deaths rising in the UK as a result of what is happening to our climate. Since publication of the national adaptation plan 3 in July 2023, we have taken on board that point. The last Government published the fourth Health Effects of Climate Change (HECC) in the UK report in December 2023, detailing the risks. We have updated the NHS Green Plan Guidance in February 2025, setting out key actions each integrated care system and trust should undertake to strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, and we are very much on the case on this.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, surely in relation to climate change we must be pragmatic in this area and not dogmatic, so my question to the Minister is simply: why do he and his boss, the Secretary of State for Energy, refuse to listen to their closest advisers? Dr Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, says now that investment in oil and gas is required to support global energy security. Tony Blair says net zero is doomed to failure, and Gary Smith of the GMB says the transition to net zero has

“cut … emissions by decimating working class communities”.

Why does the Minister continue to focus on international gas markets when we have an abundance of domestic, cheap, accessible and clean gas under our feet, both onshore and offshore, that would allow us to be energy independent once again and reindustrialise our working-class heartlands? Surely now is the time for the Minister to go back to his boss and tell him to “Drill, Mili, drill”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may say so, that sounded like a very dogmatic question. The noble Lord would be forgiven for not thinking that, in government, his party passed legislation committing us to net zero in 2050. As for the points he makes in relation to jobs, he will know that, in February, the CBI published a report showing that the big growth in the economy in the last year or two has been in the net-zero green sector and that there are nearly 1 million people now employed in that sector—it is the fastest-growing part of our economy. On the Tony Blair Institute, I am a great admirer of Tony Blair, but I have disagreed with him on one or two issues. The report was a global assessment, and it recommended a particular emphasis on nuclear, carbon capture usage and storage and reform of the planning system; we are doing all of that.

Energy Grid Resilience

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement on the power outages across the Iberian peninsula. Our thoughts are of course with the 55 million people across Spain, Portugal, Andorra and parts of France who were affected.

The Statement rightly highlights the highly resilient nature of Great Britain’s energy. I welcome that we will continue to improve our resilience and ensure that our energy systems are robust and that we have the proper exercises in place. We note that a similar event in Great Britain—a total loss of power—is listed on the national risk register as high impact but very low likelihood. It is reassuring to hear that the Minister has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator and is working closely with industry to maintain the resilience of our energy infrastructure.

I also welcome the Government’s taking forward recommendations from previous exercises such as Mighty Oak. As the Minister has noted, the exact reasons behind the power failure remain uncertain. We note that independent examinations are going on and that the Spanish and Portuguese Governments and the European Commission are all examining the causes.

The truth is that there are probably several interlinked events that caused this power outage. Sadly, despite the fact that the causes are at the moment unknown, a “firestorm of disinformation” has already erupted, with some attempting immediately to blame the use of renewable energy. We echo the Spanish Prime Minister’s call for caution against misinformation and disinformation. Energy experts have been quite quick to dismiss renewables as the primary cause.

On disinformation, Carbon Brief notes that UK newspapers have already launched more incorrect editorials attacking our net-zero policies in the first four months of 2025 than they did during the whole of 2024. So I take this opportunity to ask the Minister, what actions are the Government taking to improve government communications and actively counter disinformation in this area?

What this incident does highlight, however, is the critical importance of investing in and upgrading our national grid. As we transition to clean energy, a closely synchronized dance has to happen between building grid capacity and developing clean power. The grid must be designed and invested in adequately, at the right time and with the right volumes, as renewable energy is added and demand for electricity grows. Significant investments are needed: some £77 billion over the next five years to increase electricity levels.

The UK is lagging behind, with grid infrastructure spending being only 25p for every pound spent on renewables. What measures are the Government taking to make sure that investment in our grid is keeping pace and meeting the investment we require?

I also want to ask the Minister about transformers. Following the fire at Heathrow, it has come to my attention that only one factory in the UK produces these bespoke bits of kit, and there are 12 to 24-month waiting times. These are crucial for upgrading our grid and making sure it continues to work, so can the Minister have a look at the transformer capacity issue?

We must learn any lessons, but a baseless rush to blame renewables as part of a culture war helps no one at all. Enabling the resilience and security of our energy grid is paramount. We must focus on the facts, invest strategically in our infrastructure and counter harmful disinformation to deliver a secure, affordable and clean energy future.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments, and I join them in expressing my sympathies for those affected. I am glad to hear that power has been fully restored across the region.

As noble Lords have suggested, the Spanish Government are undertaking a review. We do not yet know the outcome, and I suggest that it is best to await the review before we can look properly at any potential lesson or impact on our own system. Clearly, it is entirely understandable that noble Lords should raise the question of the resilience of our own grid. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact over the past week with the National Energy System Operator, which has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies from that incident.

The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, did not come as a surprise to me. We still believe that the best way to secure energy independence is through clean power. The Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed that responding to future gas price shocks could be twice as expensive as the direct public investment needed to reach net zero.

I hope I can provide some reassurance on the issue of inertia. NESO continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure that there are sufficient inertia reserves to manage large losses. System inertia is the kinetic energy stored in the spinning parts of the generator connected to the electricity system. If there is a sudden change in system frequency, these parts will carry on spinning and slow down that change. System inertia behaves a bit like shock absorbers in a car’s suspension, which dampen the effect of a sudden bump in the road and keep the car stable and moving forward.

In the context of renewable energies, NESO has introduced new technologies such as flywheels to increase inertia and establish new commercial mechanisms to procure these on the GP system as more non-synchronous generation is built and makes up a large proportion of the energy mix. It has also introduced innovative new approaches to manage system stability and the system is designed, built and operated in a way that can cope with the loss of key circuits or systems, minimising the risk of significant customer impact.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, a similar event impacting Great Britain would be a national power outage, with a total loss of power across the whole of Great Britain. This is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event, as the noble Earl said. The Great British national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale seen in Spain over the past few days. None the less, I accept that, as a responsible Government, we must prepare for all eventualities.

On the issue of transformers, I take the noble Earl’s point. Clearly, they are an essential part of the supply chain for our energy sector. We are due to receive an interim report from the review by NESO of what happened at Heathrow—indeed, I think it is due today. We will obviously study that carefully and, if it has implications in relation to transformers, we will consider them very carefully.

The noble Earl also mentioned Exercise Mighty Oak. This was clearly a valuable exercise undertaken by the last Government and we are committed to continuing the work to implement the actions that came from it.

As far as the grid is concerned, I very much take the noble Earl’s point. We know that it needs extending. In the first instance, we are reforming the prioritisation of connections to bring forward projects that are absolutely thought to be able to come forward immediately, rather than applications that will not go anywhere. We also recognise that connection reforms are a critical enabler for our clean power 2030 ambition, and we expect that this will bring forward about £200 billion of investment in network and project build by 2030.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that an essential tool in balancing UK electricity network capacity is the availability of a significant additional number of pumped storage hydro schemes? Will he urge GB Energy to accelerate the pumped storage projects currently under consideration and reconfigure grid capacity to facilitate this?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. I certainly accept that pumped storage energy has a role to play. I shall make sure that Great British Energy is apprised of the views he has taken. He knows that we wish them to operate independently within the strategic framework, which we have debated extensively, but it is a very apposite point, which I will pass on to the chair.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as was recognised in the other place, reports suggest that Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak yielded useful insights and made a valuable contribution to our preparedness in the event of a disruption to the UK’s power supply. However, as proven by the previous Government’s failure to act on the findings of Operation Alice, resulting in a lack of planning for track and trace, border security and lockdowns consequent on the arrival of a pandemic, such diagnostic exercises are only as useful as subsequent actions taken to recommend identified shortfalls in resilience. With this precedent in mind, is my noble friend able to reassure your Lordships’ House that the findings of Programme Yarrow and Exercise Mighty Oak are under constant review and, importantly, that we continue to account for advances in capabilities among those strategic adversaries who might seek to target our critical energy infrastructure?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Mighty Oak was a successful programme to test plans for full electricity restoration in the event of a national power outage. It was very successful and generated a number of learning points, and we now have a strong governance framework for oversight of the implementation of those recommendations. That work will also feed into the resilience review that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in July 2024.

I assure my noble friend that there is absolutely no complacency whatever, and nor is there any in relation to the energy security system and cybersecurity threats he referred to. It is certainly a key priority for the Government. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority and the National Cyber Security Centre and we are certainly not complacent on this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I do not wish to denigrate the contribution of renewables but, with the increasing electrification of heating and transport, can the Minister explain how the grid can remain resilient without more reliable baseload power, such as that provided by nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the baseload that nuclear provides is very important indeed. She knows that we are rapidly approaching the final investment decision on Sizewell C, and the conclusion of the current work of Great British Nuclear in relation to small modular reactors. We are very keen to see the contribution of nuclear recognised. I agree with her that it provides an essential baseload to the system.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the contributors to clean power, which the Government are quite rightly promoting, is solar panels on the roofs of new houses. I commend what the Government are trying to do, but has my noble friend not seen all the opposition from the housebuilders, who say it is too expensive, it will not work, it will make them fat and everything else? Will he keep going with this programme? It is local and very good and will give extra alternatives to all the other types of power that have been discussed this afternoon.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are discussing these matters at the moment. I, of course, very much understand the contribution that solar on rooftops can make. We are taking this forward and I am sure we will make announcements as soon as possible.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

Is the Minister able to tell us what proportion of our annual electricity comes from undersea cables, whether from abroad—France, Norway or eventually, possibly, Morocco—or from our own offshore wind farms? Because we know what President Putin has his eye on.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have the exact figures, but I will certainly find them and send them to the noble Lord. Clearly, protecting the offshore infrastructure is a very important issue for the Government. We are working with subsea and offshore operators, including the Joint Maritime Security Centre, to enhance our domestic maritime awareness. I very much take the point and will find the information and send it to him.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have a key meeting coming up with the European Union and, as part of the trade and co-operation agreement, there is, next year, a revision of the energy relationship. With regard to the resilience of our national electricity and energy systems, what do the Government expect to get out of the meeting next month, particularly on interconnectors and a more efficient form of trading between us and our European partners?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly expect me to go into the details of what we expect out of such discussions. He will know that we are embarked on resetting the relationship between ourselves and the EU. There is to be a summit between the UK and the EU on 19 May and, of course, we have been in discussions with the EU about a number of energy issues. Clearly, what we want is a co-operative relationship that recognises that there is an interrelationship between ourselves and the mainland of Europe. I cannot go into any more detail than that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. My noble friend the Minister is quite right to highlight the fact that our grid is recognised as one of the more resilient around the world. However, noble Lords have already indicated the number of threats and the changing way in which the grid is operating, with more suppliers and so on coming on stream. Can my noble friend reassure the House that enough consideration has been given not so much to all the things that we are doing to prevent an outage, but all the things that we should be doing to make sure that the public and industry are prepared for those, I hope, rare or even non-existent occasions when the power does go off and for more than just a very short period?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much take my noble friend’s point; I will certainly take it on board and discuss it with colleagues. In relation to energy security, I have already said that we must maintain a resilient and secure electricity system. It is a key priority for us. We work closely with the National Protective Security Authority. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the contribution that he has made to these discussions. We are providing extensive advice and support to industry on what measures it should take to protect itself, but I take the point about communication with the public and it is something that I will reflect upon.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

I want to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He is right, and the Minister is right, that in the past we did indeed have resilience. In this sort of case, resilience means bringing in a large amount of extra supply at very short notice, such as could be performed at Dinorwig, the pump storage station, which I was told could bring in several gigawatts at two minutes’ notice and, furthermore, that even if it was never used, the entire system would allow other plants to run at a higher margin, with a higher inertia factor, and, therefore, provide even more resilience and effectiveness for the whole system. In this age, as we move into reliance on renewables on a massive scale, are we providing extra support of that kind—rapid resource mobilisation—which will give us the modern and reliable system that we are going to need to compete in the modern world?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

Yes, my Lords, we are. It is a very relevant point. Clearly, we are looking for a balanced energy mix for the future. We see nuclear as being an essential baseload. We will have renewables, but we are looking at hydro storage, as the noble Lord reflected in his own question. The whole point is that we will have a balanced system, but one that is heavily decarbonised. That is exactly the aim of what we seek to do.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement says that the GB system is “highly resilient” but, in reality, has that not eroded over recent years, as was demonstrated recently at Heathrow, when we have known for some years about capacity problems in west London? The Minister will also be aware of the bottlenecks on the high-voltage national grid, not helped by the current long lead times—around four years—for high-voltage cable and transformers. Even without the rising threat of sabotage, has the network provider not been far too complacent about the threats to the resilience of our electricity network? Finally, he mentioned in a reply about small modular reactors that the industry has been waiting for too long for a decision while our competitors are moving rapidly ahead. Is it not now time for action to get on with building this industry of the future?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in relation to SMRs, I agree with my noble friend that we need to get on with it. I hope and expect that we will have some decisions very soon. I hope that that will set the foundation for future investment in the SMR programme.

As far as west London is concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out the challenges there, and the fact that we basically inherited a system where there had not been sufficient investment in the grid and local distribution network. In relation to Heathrow, let us await the interim and final reports of the review that we have established to see what lessons can be learned. As I said earlier to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the fact is that we expect there to be a major investment in our whole grid system between now and 2030. It will be essential to meet our clean power targets. I think that will give industry the confidence to invest in the areas where we wish it to do so.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about solar panels on the roofs of new houses, will the Minister also look at prioritising solar panels on the roofs of shops, supermarkets and warehouses? Quite often one goes on to an industrial estate and sees a lot of flat roofs but no solar panels and surely that is a much better option than locating solar arrays on top- class agricultural land?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord’s substantive point, and these matters are being discussed in government at the moment. On the use of farmland, he knows that if we were to achieve the whole of our solar ambition, we would not use more than 1% of agricultural land. We will continue to see solar projects on agricultural land, but I want to see much greater development on industrial premises and in domestic houses.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat my declaration of interests. Spending the morning with my newly born grandson has left me in the mood to emphasise the positive, so I can say that I did actually agree with one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Offord, said, and that was that we need to be transparent with the public. There will be difficult decisions to be made and balances to be struck when we build the new infrastructure necessary for the grid. What progress is being made in the public engagement strategy the Government have undertaken about achieving net zero? As we heard earlier today, there are many misapprehensions and mistruths being peddled about the situation in regard to renewables.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on being a grandmother—

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

Again.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

—again. I think that is absolutely right. So much misinformation about energy policy appears in social media and in the media generally. We are doing our best; sometimes Governments are not listened to as much as we would wish. There is no question that, for instance, some of the criticism in relation to energy prices is put at the door of net zero when actually it is because of the uncertainty and volatility of international gas markets. There is a lot that we need to do collectively to get over the reality of why climate change presents such a threat, why, unless we can tackle these issues, we will probably continue to have high energy prices, and why we need to adapt and mitigate as fast as we can. I do not have any easy answers, but it is a matter we are giving great consideration to at the moment.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, resilience is something which is always in the process of being made. It requires embracing emerging technologies. Thorium-based nuclear energy is much safer and cheaper than uranium- or plutonium-based nuclear energy. China and India are leading the race, and I have never seen “thorium” in any UK policy document to do with long-term energy supply. Can the Minister say what investment the UK Government have made or intend to make in thorium-based technology?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

No, my Lords, I am not aware of any investment, but I will double-check. I am very happy to discuss this with my noble friend. We should also mention nuclear fusion as having great potential. The previous Government invested, and this Government are investing, considerable amounts of money in it. The UK has a huge potential lead in this exciting area and there are real signs we may see some positive outcomes in the next few years. I am certainly prepared to engage with my noble friend on this.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I return to a question that was at least implicit in the question from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on the national grid and possible cyberattacks. We are all aware that there has been a massive cyberattack on Marks & Spencer and one on Co-op Group. No organisation, however large, is immune from the possibility of attack and obviously the national grid is particularly vulnerable. Is there anything the Minister can do to reassure the public and give them confidence that every possible step has been taken to avoid this?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, as I think I have already said, the security of our energy system is clearly critical. I take the point the noble and right reverend Lord raised about cybersecurity. Noble Lords will have seen the devastating impact that this has had on retailers in the last few weeks. We work with the National Cyber Security Centre. We are very exercised about this. I can assure the noble and right reverend Lord that we are not at all complacent.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My noble friend the Minister has already referred to the fact that the system operator is introducing innovative new approaches. Might that involve the application of AI to managing the grid? Looking further ahead, and in the light of the report from your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee on long-duration energy storage, could the Minister indicate whether or when the Government might take the type of strategic interest in long-duration energy storage that we will need?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about AI; that was one of the main points raised in the Tony Blair Institute report, which was raised earlier. We are giving long-duration energy storage a great deal of attention.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, according to National Grid: Live, we are currently relying on interconnectors from Europe for 25% of our energy. Apart from the cost of importing that energy, how much assurance do we have that that electricity comes, and will come, from decarbonised generating capacity?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, interconnectors are very important for our energy security. As we move towards a low-carbon world, we will wish for that supply to be as low-carbon as possible. This will reflect on progress made in other countries, but it is also in relation to the alignment of carbon trading systems. I hope we will be able to make progress on that in the next few months.

Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 10 March 2025, is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical in achieving the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure that our country needs to underpin our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity and in which potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIP—regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, where decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy-generating projects are deemed nationally significant. The NSIP regime provides the largest, most important projects of strategic importance with a single unified approach to seeking development consent, where applications are determined by Ministers balancing local impacts against the wider national benefits. Following submission, an extensive examination period will commence whereby interested parties, including local authorities, people of office and the general public, can make written or oral representations to the examination. This ensures that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.

Until recently, a de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England severely limited deployment. Changes introduced in 2015 saw stringent tests introduced into planning policy alongside the removal of onshore wind generation from the NSIP regime in 2016. These changes set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects sinking by more than 90%, with only 40 megawatts of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.

In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past decade and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 megawatts in England will be consented under the NSIP regime. The 100-megawatt threshold reflects the advances in turbine technology over the past decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects to seek planning consent where they are of a scale and complexity that can carefully balance local impacts against national benefits and meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and incentivise bringing forward projects.

Solar has been subject to a 50-megawatt NSIP threshold since it was originally set in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50-megawatt threshold is now causing market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations now have a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. We think this is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact, and it has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system and artificially capping their capacity at just below the 50-megawatt threshold, leading to the potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. Therefore, this instrument raises the NSIP threshold from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts for solar to ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via planning authorities, which should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.

The Government are also mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are preparing to enter the planning system and may have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a specific regime. Changing the NSIP at short notice could result in projects entering a different regime than expected, with the potential to increase costs to developers or cause delays.

Therefore, the instrument also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. These provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one legislative regime will not be required to move to a different regime as a result of the order.

Through consultation, the Government sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime at an appropriate threshold and revising the existing threshold for solar. We received a range of responses; most respondents agreed with the proposed approach of reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, with a majority in favour of a 100-megawatt threshold. While we initially consulted on a 150-megawatt threshold for solar, based on further assessment and analysis of consultation responses, we concluded a 100-megawatt threshold would be more appropriate and better reflect modern technology.

In conclusion, we see this instrument as being another important step in delivering clean power, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports an effective planning system that will ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate regime and will avoid distortionary effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support future energy security and resilience alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents and the wishes of the department in this document. Personally, I am very disappointed that we are where we are. I am a veteran of pylon applications; I was fortunate enough to be elected to the Vale of York in 1997, where there was already a long line of pylons going through the heart of the Vale of York to be joined by another, even bigger, line of pylons within a matter of months of my election. We were promised that the original line of pylons would be removed because it was thought that both would not be needed and they are, of course, unsightly.

I prefer the situation we had under the outgoing Conservative Government.There was virtually a moratorium on onshore windfarms for a number of reasons. The Minister is potentially going to see a great deal of discontent from residents and communities along the route of the overhead pylons will inevitably follow, particularly onshore windfarms. To take the example of offshore windfarms, there are three stages to the application process. When there is an application for an offshore windfarm, everyone thinks, “Oh great, that won’t affect me out there at sea”. Then the second stage of the application is for a massive substation to bring the electricity on land. The third, and completely separate, stage of the application is that suddenly—hey presto—we are going to have overhead pylons to feed the electricity into the national grid. How many applications does the Minister think will fall under this new decision-making regime where onshore windfarms will be decided by the Secretary of State? How many lines of pylons does he envisage will follow on from the applications? Will his department come forward and dictate that these overhead wires should be converted to underground wires?

Alternatively, does he accept—he knows that this is a theme I have pursued quite religiously with him over the past few months—that, if an onshore wind farm is built in, say, the north of England, or in Yorkshire more specifically, the electricity generated will serve the local community? It is colder in North Yorkshire than in many parts of the rest of the country, and we have a distinct lack of electric vehicle charging points. If an onshore wind farm will be built, I see absolutely no reason why the electricity generated cannot serve the population living locally.

I regret the statutory instrument in the department’s name that the Government feel is appropriate or necessary. Solar farms of the size that the Minister is talking about—those of 100 megawatts—will take the decision out of local communities. Again, I would be interested to know how many he envisages there will be. His department, DESNZ, will not lead to many des reses. We will not have many desirable residences along the routes of these overhead pylons. In the case of the solar farms, how will the electricity generated—presumably in the gift of the Government—enter the national grid to feed into the hungry south, leaving the rest of us in heat poverty in the north?

With those few remarks, I regret that the statutory instrument was brought before us. If we learn one thing from the massive outage in Spain, Portugal and parts of France last week, it is that we are becoming completely too reliant on very unreliable sources of energy—sunshine and wind—because the sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress.

On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime.

We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons.

On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market.

By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand.

The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration.

On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers.

On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment.

On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.

Great British Energy Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2A: Because it would alter financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

2B: Clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) measures for ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.”

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is good to welcome the Great British Energy Bill back to your Lordships’ Chamber. I again thank all Members of this House for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill.

We are here to discuss specifically the issue of forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chain—something that I have been adamant, throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, that the company will tackle. As I have stated in previous debate, we expect Great British Energy not only to abide by but to be a first-in-class example of adherence to the UK’s existing legislation and guidance. That is demonstrated by the commitments made by my colleague, the Minister for Energy, in the other place.

Great British Energy will appoint a senior individual dedicated to providing oversight to ensure ethical supply chains. I am delighted to confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, one of Great British Energy’s non-executive directors, will take up that role. Her role as chair of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee positions her extraordinarily well to lead on the issue, ensuring robust practices across Great British Energy in tackling forced labour.

In addition, my officials are working to ensure that the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which will be published within six months of Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that Great British Energy proactively works to deliver on these commitments.

I think the House will also be pleased to hear that the cross-departmental ministerial meeting with my department, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will convene for the first time in May to accelerate work across government to tackle forced labour in supply chains across the whole economy. To underscore the Government’s commitment, a letter will be sent to all FTSE 100 companies following the aforementioned meeting to communicate our expectations regarding responsible business practices, including on modern slavery.

I turn to the amendments. Amendment 2B, tabled in my name, relates to Clause 3 and makes clear that addressing forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chains is within the scope of the objects of the company. I recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament on this issue—I pay tribute in particular to the outstanding work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this area—particularly on how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its own supply chains.

That is why the amendment has been tabled. It makes clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect of any responsible company. The amendment will strengthen our existing framework and demonstrate the commitment of both Great British Energy and the Government to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour.

To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, GBE will respond to and take action on any identified issues or concerns that arise relating to forced labour, including any raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment is in addition to the expectation that Great British Energy is to be a sector leader in tackling forced labour, as will be outlined in the statement of strategic priorities. These measures will ensure that Great British Energy can and will prioritise doing everything in its power to remove instances of forced labour from its supply chains.

I turn to Amendment 2C, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in a moment. I thank him for taking the time and effort to develop and table his amendment and for the continued engagement I have been able to have with him over the weeks since this Bill left your Lordships’ House. The Government wholeheartedly agree on the importance of tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains and are committed to tackling the issue.

I recognise the drafting skill of the noble Lord in bringing the original amendment, the wording of which is remarkably familiar to me. I think the amendments are very much in the same frame, but the reason we have come forward with our own wording is that officials looking at the language of his amendment have identified one or two issues. First, the language suggesting

“the eradication of goods and services”

is unsuitable as it may be interpreted as the physical destruction of goods or services. We think the focus should be on ensuring that Great British Energy takes all reasonable measures to develop energy supply chains free from forced labour.

I can assure the House that following positive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we accept that Great British Energy’s role in tackling forced labour in its supply chains could be made explicit in the Bill’s objectives, and that is exactly why I have tabled my own amendment.

In conclusion, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part on this issue. Again, I particularly acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We have listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe the amendment I have brought accords with the principle of the debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House, and I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s decision to listen to the constructive challenge from this House and improve the Bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I give my thanks and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Without his careful consideration and persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such a positive change to this legislation.

The amendment to the Bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has stood against forced labour and exploitation for many years. If this Government are serious about their transition to clean energy, which they refer to as being just, we must ensure that Great British Energy, as a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards.

There is clear precedent for this approach. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains. Yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in sourcing solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in a supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. This is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risks for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, this amendment strengthens the integrity of our energy policy. It aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations, and it sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations.

To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the many other noble Lords who supported him in securing this powerful victory. This positive change to the Bill serves as a testament to the integral role of this House in scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I totally agree with the point that we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the House and in the other place.

I will reconfirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said: he has met the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, who has stated that, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GB Energy is an exemplar of ethical and moral supply chain practices. That must be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he pondered whether we were putting GBE at a disadvantage. I understand the point that he is making, but I prefer to see this in a positive light: that GBE will be an exemplar and, I believe, will influence the market to the good. I am therefore confident that we will not have the potential problem that he has rightly identified.

Wales: Nuclear Power Generation

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jones of Penybont]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to develop nuclear power generation in Wales.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise the significant contribution that Wales has made to British nuclear power and value the experience and skills within the industry in Wales. We are committed to new nuclear, and I welcome interest in new projects in Wales. We have just consulted on a new nuclear planning framework, EN-7, which sets the criteria for development at previously designated sites, as well as empowering developers to identify new locations.

[Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)]

My Lords, some weeks ago in this House, there were questions about the reluctance of the Scottish Government to approve new nuclear power stations. Now, I am not here to defend the Scottish Government—thankfully—but I can say that, despite the full support of the Welsh Government, the last UK Conservative Government failed to deliver the new reactor at Wylfa B. Given that, will the Minister give an assurance that a more positive approach will be taken to any new applications at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd to avoid the empty rhetoric of the past?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership in Wales, particularly for the support from the Welsh Government for new nuclear. As far as Wylfa is concerned, I know that it is considered by many to be one of the best potential sites in the UK for new nuclear development. We will set out our plans in due course but, as a Government, we are strongly committed to nuclear energy as an essential baseload to our future mix.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about developing nuclear power with urgency in Wales, will they please take a twin-track approach, with priority being given to those sites which already have nuclear accreditation, such as Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, which the noble Lord mentioned, being developed as quickly as possible for climate and energy purposes, and for any other new site, which may need brand new planning safety approval, to be seen as a possible future site geared to economic growth objectives?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s point. EN-7, on which we are consulting, gives us a much more flexible policy on siting, but those sites identified in the current planning statement, EN-6, clearly have very favourable attributes, and this is where I think Wylfa has to be considered. His overall welcome support for new nuclear is to be acknowledged and welcomed.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, some of us have been talking to the main SMR producers this very morning. Their general message is that wait, delay and obstruction are their findings in dealing with the British Government, unfortunately. They are waiting for site sales to be settled, for the GDA and DCO processes to be accelerated, and, obviously, for the government lead that they all need. They say that they could produce earlier, by years, than anything that could come from Sizewell C or other, larger developments. They point to the facts that they could do it without government money and that the order books are rapidly filling up in all other countries. There really is a sense of urgency if our nation is to reach our desirable goals on reliable, affordable energy. Please can the Minister get on with the job?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the last statement by the noble Lord, but I do not agree with what he said. The Government are very focused on development of new nuclear. He knows that, in relation to small modular reactors, we have a process by Great British Nuclear, which is going through a detailed series of negotiations, with final decisions to be made over the next few weeks. We were bequeathed that process by the Government that the noble Lord supported. His party did not open a single nuclear power station. I can tell him that, as far as SMRs are concerned, I have been to many fora discussing this with companies. They are clearly awaiting the outcome of the GBN process, and we will make progress following that.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. The Minister needs absolutely no reminder from me of how important Wylfa is to the people and economy of north Wales, but, since the Government’s own calculations say that the delay is costing £90 million a year in lost revenues and lost opportunities in the supply chain and others, can he tell me what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays at Wylfa?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have said that we will set out our future ambition for plans in due course. We have focused very much on getting Sizewell C over the line, and we hope a final investment decision will be made over the next few weeks. We have the SMR programme, we are very keen to see the development of AMRs as well, and we will set out our ambitions in due course. But there is no question about our commitment to taking this forward; we took the decision in 2007 to go back to nuclear. What is so disappointing is that the last Government had 14—it is all very well for noble Lords to shake their heads, complaining about what I am saying. They do not want to hear the facts. They had 14 years to sort this out, and they did not.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the outage in Spain and Portugal over the last 48 hours, are not devolved and diffuse sources of clean energy absolutely crucial to our security? What measures will the Government take on the back of what is happening in Spain and Portugal to ensure that we can disconnect from the grid if need be in order to maintain sources across the country?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

We have to be very careful in drawing any conclusions about what happened in Iberia in relation to our own situation—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I do not think we know the causes of what happened yet, so it is a bit early for noble Lords to start speculating on what direct relationship it has with this country. But I agree with what my noble friend says, that we want diverse electricity sources. That is what clean power is going to give us. We are going to have a number of renewable energy sources, we have nuclear as our baseload, we have gas, hopefully with carbon capture, with the ability to switch it on and off, and we will have clean, homegrown power. That is the way to energy security.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Net Zero, Energy and Climate Change met in March and issued a communiqué. The four Governments of the UK were represented there, the UK Government being represented by the Minister for Energy. In the section entitled “What was discussed”, four items are named, but nuclear energy is not one of them. However, it says that they talked about what would be mentioned at future meetings. This seems an ideal opportunity to discuss something which is at the core of net zero. Is the Minister able to comment on that and give an undertaking that, at future meetings of this important interministerial group, this will be on the agenda?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a very good point indeed. Of course, one has to face up to the fact that the Scottish Government are not in favour of new nuclear development, despite the rich heritage there, and despite how much of Scotland’s electricity at the moment comes from nuclear development. But certainly, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that, in these kinds of discussions, the role of nuclear is very important, not just for what it provides but for the growth it can bring to our economy, very highly skilled jobs and a lot of infrastructure investment as well. So the case for nuclear is very strong indeed.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Welsh Government are clear that the development of Wylfa has the potential to be the single largest investment project in Wales. I welcome the response the Minister has given, saying that work will be done on this in due course, but could he be clearer on what “in due course” means? Can I push him further? Will serious consideration be given to using these sites for either long-duration energy storage or for data centres if the Government decide that they are not fit for future nuclear?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very wary of getting into detailed speculation about the future of Wylfa. Clearly, it has great potential. I am not prepared to define “in due course”, but I can say to the noble Earl that we recognise the urgency of the situation in giving certainty to the market about our level of nuclear ambition going forward over the next 10, 20 or 30 years. On the issue of AI data centres and the links to AMRs, we very much recognise the potential there; we are discussing that with developers, and we are also looking at our regulatory system to ensure that it is fit for purpose in relation to that kind of development.

Transport Decarbonisation Plan

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pidgeon]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to revise the transport decarbonisation plan.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to decarbonising transport in support of our national mission to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower. We will encourage the rollout of electric vehicles and work to reduce emissions from shipping and aviation. The Government will produce a plan later in the year for reducing emissions from all sectors, including transport, in line with our legislated carbon budgets.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Freight is a key area. Will the Government encourage low-carbon investment and give business certainty by urgently bringing forward a clear regulatory road map to decarbonise heavy goods vehicles?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, we are looking at the regulatory system around heavy goods vehicles; the noble Baroness will know that HGV decarbonisation remains a challenge, with issues in relation to higher upfront costs and limited charging and refuelling infrastructure. We have a number of initiatives to tackle this, and some improvements are being made. I also very much take her point about the incentivisation of a shift away from HGVs. She will be aware that the Department for Transport operates two freight revenue grant schemes to encourage modal shift from road to rail and water.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that green hydrogen power has an important part to play in transport decarbonisation. Can he set out, perhaps by writing to me, what support his department and the Department for Transport can give to innovative companies such as Clean Power Hydrogen in Doncaster in developing transport innovation to assist in achieving net zero?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is assiduous in her promotion of Doncaster as a place where much innovation takes place in the decarbonisation area. I am very happy to pass that on to my noble friend Lord Hendy. I should say that we think that hydrogen does have a potential role to play in decarbonising heavier applications, such as aviation, shipping and some buses and heavy goods vehicles. I take my noble friend’s point and am very happy to arrange the opportunity for this to be discussed further in government.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the key next step in decarbonising the aviation sector will be the broader development of sustainable aviation fuel. To ensure that we have a SAF industry in this country, the Government are rightly building on the work done by the last Government in taking forward plans for a revenue support mechanism. That will, of course, require legislation, and a SAF Bill was in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister give us an idea of when that Bill will come before Parliament?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, no, I cannot give a specific answer, but the noble Lord makes a very important point. He will know that international aviation comes within the calculations in relation to carbon budget 6, so we need to take decisive action in this area. We have the SAF mandate, which he has referred to. For 2025, the overall trajectory is set at 2% of total fossil fuel jet supplied; this will increase annually to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. We are building on what has gone before and taking it very seriously.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to invest further in the national cycle network? Cycling was heavily promoted during the Covid period but seems to have gone backwards since then. It is an important part of decarbonisation. How can we move it forward?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is such a pleasant surprise to hear some Member of your Lordships’ House speak positively about cycling, in place of the usual diatribe that we hear from noble Lords on that subject. I am a little biased in this area, as noble Lords will understand. I know that the Government are talking to UK cycling bodies, and we have ambitious plans on active travel. On 12 February, we announced details of almost £300 million of funding over 2024-25 and 2025-26 for local authorities to provide high-quality and easy, accessible active travel schemes in England, but I very much take and support the point that he raises.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, what conversations has the Minister had with the management of Nissan UK, which has said this week that government energy policies are making motor manufacturing unsustainable and that the most efficient Nissan factory in the world is now under threat of closure?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not personally had a conversation with that company, but clearly the Government collectively are in earnest discussions with important motor manufacturers. On the question of energy prices, I say to the noble Lord that I very much regret his party’s retreat from net zero. The last thing that we need to do is fixate on fossil fuel. The international market in fossil fuel prices is vulnerable after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has caused the problem of high prices. We need to move as quickly as possible to clean power, because that is the way for stable pricing and the assurance that companies need.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the ways of reducing the emissions from heavy goods vehicles is to use fewer of them and send the goods by rail. What is my noble friend’s Government doing about electrifying some of the rail network, which would enable much more freight to go by electrically hauled locomotives as rail freight and reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles still using diesel?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. As my noble friend Lord Hendy has referred to the House over the last few months, updated plans are being developed by Network Rail for where and when electrification is required to deliver a fully decarbonised railway system over the next 25 years. I should also say that the Government are supporting the development and deployment of battery technology through innovative trials, because this has application in relation to railways as well.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I have been told the Department for Transport will not classify hydrogen-powered internal combustion engines, which are the only way of dealing with the heavy transport—large lorries, earth-moving equipment and stuff like that—as being net zero. Europe and America apparently take the opposite approach, as you can easily filter out the NOx, which is the problem. Should not the Department for Transport look at this again, so that we can join the future modern world in terms of heavy earth-moving equipment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to refer the noble Earl’s comments to the department. I repeat that, while in the main battery electric remains the dominant zero-emission technology for cars and vans, we think that hydrogen has a role in relation to heavy goods vehicles. I am certainly happy to refer his point to the department.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, in his original Answer, the noble Lord referred to rolling out electric vehicles. Will he look at the situation in rural areas, where there is a dearth of electric charging points, with a view to mandating them going forward to ensure that there is a bigger take-up of EV vehicles with access to these charging points in rural areas?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in relation to charge points, the reckoning at 1 April 2025 is that there are over 76,500 public charge points in the UK. There has been considerable progress in the last few months and years. The recent National Audit Office report on the state of the charge point rollout found that we are on track to deliver the 300,000 charge points that we anticipate we will need by 2030. In relation to rurality, there was strong growth in rural areas in 2024, where charge point numbers increased by 45%. I know that the noble Baroness thinks that we need to go further, and I take the point. We are making considerable progress now.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that not only do we need as much clean public transport as possible—for example, buses—but that they need to go to the right places at the right time and with the right frequency? I was recently in a bus station in Perth, where I noted that there was an electric bus going every 15 minutes from there to Glasgow and back, 24 hours a day. In relation to the new towns, which were the subject of the previous Question, is it not just as important that the residents of those new towns have access to clean public transport as to places of employment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, absolutely, the noble Baroness makes an important point. In 2024, more than 50% of new buses registered were zero- emission. Progress is being made. She will know that the Government, in the bus legislation that is going through, are very focused on improving bus services generally, but embracing low-carbon buses is important in that.

Grangemouth Oil Refinery

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Project Willow in securing the Grangemouth oil refinery and the jobs of the skilled workers currently employed there.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, Petroineos’s decision to cease refining at Grangemouth is deeply disappointing. The Government have stood with workers from the outset. Alongside the Scottish Government, we announced a £100 million Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal package to support the local community. We launched Project Willow to find an industrial future for the site, identifying nine low-carbon business models that could create 800 jobs by 2040.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply and for the commitment to the future of Grangemouth. The Project Willow report was paid for by the UK and Scottish Governments but was prepared

“solely on the instructions of Petroineos”,

the current owner of the site. Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire majority owner of Ineos, is adept at getting Governments to pay for his projects while his company, and he personally, keeps the profits. The nine projects suggested in Willow offer a blizzard of possibilities when what is needed is a clear project that can be implemented as soon as possible. Will the Minister consider fast-tracking sustainable aerospace fuel, along the lines of the proposals from Unite the Union?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and of course I am very much aware of Unite’s proposal to transition Grangemouth into a sustainable aviation fuel plant. We are very grateful for the input from Unite and will continue to engage with the union. I have to say, though, that I think the Project Willow approach is the best way forward. It evaluated over 300 technologies and identified nine potential technologies. We have £200 million available from the National Wealth Fund to invest. The focus at the moment is twofold. One is to give support to the workers who are going to lose their jobs. The second is to encourage private investors to look at these proposals. We have the National Wealth Fund, with £200 million to invest, to act as an incentive and we are working very hard in relation to that.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. What will be the process by which the preferred option or options will be chosen out of the nine front-runners identified by Project Willow? To what extent will the Circular Economy Taskforce be involved in the decision-making?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, Project Willow set out nine potential developments. The most near-term developments include hydrothermal plastic recycling, dissolution plastics recycling and ABE bio-refining. On the question about the task force, I will certainly discuss with my colleagues the ability of the task force to input into this. Clearly, in terms of decision-making, the key thing now is to find investors for those projects. Clearly, the National Wealth Fund, with the £200 million that it is going to make available, will play an important role in that.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of Grangemouth is indeed a tragedy for the UK, and even more so for Scotland and for the 400 highly skilled jobs that are being lost. Of course, we know that this is what is referred to as the transition as we go from hydrocarbons to renewables, but, if you talk to the folk in Grangemouth, the problem, they say, is that this just transition is not very just. Indeed, if you talk to the folks in Aberdeen, they say that the just transition is not very just, as we now have data that shows that the transition of jobs from the North Sea oil and gas fields to renewable wind farms is running at 58%, and that jobs that were previously paid at £55k are now paid at £35k. So I ask the noble Lord to consider the patronising language of this just transition. Will he please go back to the department, drop the concept of a just transition and perhaps introduce a new concept called an affordable transition?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is being unfair. Of course we want to see workers who are being displaced by changes in the industrial sector being helped and supported as much as possible, with additional training to enable them to accept good jobs in other sectors. At Grangemouth, a support facility is being made available, with training need analysts for each worker, and I gather that 300 such employees have already requested to take advantage of that. There are open evenings, career fairs and direct engagement with local employers.

As for the North Sea, I just make the point to the noble Lord that, although he has an obsession with gas, the fact is, as he knows, that the UK continental shelf is a declining basin. In the last 10 years, 70,000 people lost their jobs under the stewardship of the Government he served. I did not see much effort there by that Government to establish programmes to provide good jobs. We are at the early stages. We are working very hard. The green energy sector, including nuclear, has huge opportunities and we need to do everything we can to ensure that skilled workers being displaced in some areas of the energy sector are given every opportunity to take up new roles.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Given what the Minister has just said, is it not important that the sorts of skills, advice, training and support that he has described for Grangemouth are available much more widely if the transition is to take place effectively—and justly—in other areas? What plans are there to bring in the skills passporting programme that we have argued for for many years, as well as the specific training that will be needed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the point, although I think it is right that we have some specific measures in relation to Grangemouth. I also think it is right to refer to a 2023 report by the CBI, which showed that there was a 9% increase in the green economy that year compared with 1% overall, and 950,000 people are now working in what could be described as a net-zero green economy. These are often very good, very well-paid jobs. We have a number of regional skills hubs. In the nuclear sector, we have a separate nuclear task force taking work forward in relation to this. The challenge we face is that, over the next few years, we need thousands more people to come into the low-carbon energy sector. We are doing everything we can, working with industry and with further education, to ensure that that happens.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, there are reports that, because of a loophole in the key energy scheme, Petroineos will get a windfall payment of £6 million. Rather than going to the multimillionaire Jim Ratcliffe, surely this money should be used for the retraining of the workers who are going to lose their jobs.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously we should look very carefully at any loophole that may have been identified. I should make it clear that Petroineos has said that it has invested $1.2 billion since 2011 to maintain Grangemouth’s operation, recording losses in excess of $775 million during that period. Unfortunately, that is clear evidence that Grangemouth is not a viable commercial proposition.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, the closure of Grangemouth will make us more dependent on imports, as will the Government’s policy of not giving licences to extract shale gas or new licences for oil in the North Sea. The Government think that we can cope with being less dependent in normal times—I do not agree—but surely the Government must accept that there may come a time, in an emergency, when we will need to exploit our own resources. So why are the Government, on Saturday, cementing in the only successful shale wells on land in Lancashire, meaning that we will not be able to take advantage of them in future? Is that not an act of vindictive vandalism?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

So why then did the party opposite, when in government, not allow fracking to take place? It is pure hypocrisy to attack us for a decision that we have made firmly that we will not allow fracking to take place. I take the point about energy security and reliance on imports, but I say to the noble Lord that the UK Government are required to hold stocks of oil as a member of the International Energy Agency. At the end of January 2025, we had the equivalent of 130 days of net imports, substantially higher than the required 90 days set by the IEA. There is no complacency here at all: we of course keep that under very close review and energy security is always going to be our number one priority.