Energy Grid Resilience

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resilience of the UK’s energy grid in the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula over the past two days. My thoughts are with all those affected by the widespread disruption across that peninsula on Monday. I am glad to hear that power has now been fully restored across the region.

I want to reassure the House that Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, and that the incident in Iberia has not impacted Great Britain. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past two days, and it has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies or system stability from this incident.

My Department was informed on Monday 28 April by NESO that a power outage had occurred across the Iberian peninsula, affecting mainland Spain, Portugal, Andorra and areas of France. While all power was restored to the impacted areas yesterday, Tuesday 29 April, the disruption had cascading impacts on other sectors across the vast majority of Spain and Portugal. The cause of the outage is yet to be confirmed; it is likely to take some time for the Spanish network operator to carry out a thorough investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure. Various independent reviews have been commissioned by Spain, Portugal and the European Commission to understand the cause.

Although GB is not directly connected to Spain and Portugal’s grid, NESO is in close contact with European counterparts, and is offering support where needed. The Government are closely monitoring the situation and are in contact with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of any British nationals in the affected regions.

I turn to our grid’s resilience, and our preparedness in the context of recent events on the Iberian peninsula. An event similar in impact in Great Britain would be equivalent to a national power outage—a total loss of power across the whole of GB—which is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event. In its 75-year history, Great Britain’s national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale of what has happened in Spain over the past few days.

Our electricity system is highly resilient. The National Energy System Operator continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure there are sufficient inertia and reserves in the system to manage large losses and prevent large-scale power outages. NESO has also introduced innovative new approaches to managing system stability, as well as advanced safety systems to help to prevent such events from happening in GB. The system is built, designed and operated to cope with the loss of key circuits or systems without causing customer impacts. There are multiple redundant alternative routes through which power can flow should a fault occur, minimising the risk of a single fault cascading across the entire system to cause a total or partial electricity system shutdown.

However, as a responsible Government, we prepare for all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. I would like to reassure the House that the Government work closely with industry to continually improve and maintain the resilience of energy infrastructure, networks and assets to reduce vulnerabilities. This work includes having robust emergency plans, summarised in the national emergency plan for downstream gas and electricity, and regularly exercising emergency plans with the energy industry and Ofgem. That includes an exercise carried out by the previous Government; we have been taking forward the recommendations from that exercise. This work is ongoing across Government to ensure we are as resilient as possible as a nation in all eventualities.

We have also empowered the independent National Energy System Operator to carry out resilience functions across the electricity and gas systems, and will continue to work with industry and regulators to improve and maintain the resilience of old, new and future energy infrastructure. Switching fossil-fuelled generation for home-grown clean energy from renewables, nuclear and other clean technologies is the route to long-term energy security. I will speak more broadly about the UK’s energy resilience in a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday.

To conclude, Great Britain has a resilient energy network, and we will ensure that that continues to be the case. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse.

It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable.

The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload.

Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail.

The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure?

The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it?

Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

[Michael Shanks]

I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work that the previous Government did on building the renewable system, and on introducing inertia into the system, because that all started a number of years ago. We have a resilient grid in this country, and it is important to continue to have that. That means building new grid infrastructure, which he and a number of his colleagues quite often oppose. It is important to build that grid infrastructure and to invest in it. We will continue to work with NESO and others to understand the full causes of this outage. I will not be drawn into speculation on what may have caused it, because clearly the first priority of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments has been restoring power, but they will carry out investigations to find out the cause, and we will implement any lessons from that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

There are some inconvenient truths for those on the Opposition Benches who wish to blame low-carbon energy for what happened in Spain and Portugal. As the Minister has said, the cause of the outage is unknown at this stage. In 2003, when there was a blackout in Switzerland and Italy, and in 2006, when the same happened in Germany, affecting the whole of the continent, there were no renewables in the system. That goes to show that it is far too early to speculate.

Gas sets the price for our electricity 98% of the time in this country. Those who oppose the transition to low-carbon energy generation are opposing energy security for this country. They are opposing lower prices for our constituents and good, well-paid jobs. That is what this agenda is really about.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his question. Let me reiterate the point that he made and that I will, I suspect, make a number of times during this statement. I will not be drawn on unfounded claims and speculation about what the causes might be. It is rightly for the authorities in Spain and Portugal to carry out the investigations, exactly as it would be if any incident happened here, and for them to share that information. Of course we will be in close contact with them about that, but it is far too early to make any hasty conclusions, particularly when they are based on unfounded claims.

The broader point that my hon. Friend makes is right: constituents right across the country continue to pay too much for their electricity. That is because of the role of gas in setting the price in our system. The more renewables that we build, the more that we push gas off as the marginal price setter, the more that we bring those bills down, and also the more that we make sure that they are not subject to the volatility of the fossil fuel markets as they are at the moment. My hon. Friend is right: this is the right journey for us to be on; it is right for the British economy; and it is right for energy security. The Opposition parties should support that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these power outages, which are a stark reminder of how key our energy security is to our national security. That is why it is vital that the Government learn from this latest incident by acting now to boost our home-grown energy by supporting community-owned projects and increasing supply chain capacity.

Our constituents will be concerned to know about preparations in this country. What conversations has the Minister had across Government to ensure that the UK has robust plans in place in the event of similar situations occurring here? In particular, can he outline what contingency plans are in place to protect our transport network, our hospitals and urgent healthcare settings and our emergency communication capacity? The latter currently relies heavily on the mobile network for our emergency alert system, as well as being the primary way that most people stay up to date.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me repeat the point that I made to the shadow Minister. It is absolutely right to point out the widespread cascading impacts of power failure and just the sheer amount of our lives that is now driven by electricity. The hon. Lady also made the same point as the shadow Minister, which I did not respond to at the time, around preparations across Government. I am Minister in the Department responsible for energy resilience and security. The Secretary of State takes a very serious interest in this area. Right across Government, we have a number of meetings that are chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for resilience, which includes looking at specific impacts. Most recently, we discussed some of the communications impacts of power cuts caused by storms, to make sure that people can still communicate, particularly via the mobile phone network. These are important points that we are taking forward.

Clearly, the energy system in this country is resilient, but the job of Government is to prepare for all eventualities, however low the chances. We take very seriously not just the preparations in place, but making sure that Government are ready to try out some of these processes and to learn from experiences such as this. There will be things that we can learn from the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, and we stand ready to do that.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

SAE Renewables is establishing a new battery storage facility, repurposing an old coal-fired power station in Newport, which, when complete, will have the capacity to be one of the biggest in the UK. As we scale up our renewable energy prediction, battery storage facilities such as this are vital. Will the Minister come and see this for himself and say a bit more about what he is doing with battery energy storage companies to support their work?

[Michael Shanks]

Storage will be crucial in the clean-power system that we are building. Batteries will play a critical role in making sure that we can store the clean, cheap energy that we are generating for times when we need it most. We have also announced the first long-duration energy storage in 40 years, building the assets that will allow us to store eight hours of power for when it is needed most. Therefore, storage is key in a system such as this. And finally, I am always happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Harriet Cross—and congratulations on your remarkable London marathon time.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think we can all stop that now.

Centrica operates the Rough gas storage site, which provides about half of the UK’s current gas storage capacity. Centrica stands ready to invest £2 billion of its own capital to redevelop Rough into the largest long-duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen, which would improve resilience and protect customers from price spikes. To unlock this £2 billion, the company needs assurances and clarity from the Government, not least over regulatory support and a workable cap and floor mechanism. Will the Minister set out what progress has been made in discussions with Centrica to develop this cap and floor mechanism? Given that the Government can make decisions quickly when they choose to, as we saw with British Steel, why has a decision on this mechanism been allowed to drag on for months?

[Michael Shanks]

I congratulated the hon. Lady yesterday on her remarkable marathon; I think she ran it two hours faster than I did, which leaves considerable room for improvement on my part, but congratulations to her again. She is right to raise this point, and I have answered questions on it before. I have met Centrica on several occasions to discuss various things, including that proposal, but it is a commercial matter for Centrica to bring the proposal to us. The Rough storage facility, which we last talked about in this House a few months ago, was mothballed for a number of years under the previous Government. We are looking in the round at the role it could play in energy security and at the value-for-money arguments. We want to ensure that value for money for the public is protected alongside the security of energy.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My issue with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is that she has knocked me off my place as the second-fastest woman MP marathon runner—but I will be back.

While thousands of airline passengers were impacted by Monday’s outage across Spain and Portugal, only 500 flights were grounded out of a possible 6,000, the rest managing to fly. That is because there were no airport closures. Is there a lesson here for UK airports?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the most recent situation at Heathrow. The Secretary of State commissioned a report after that incident to find out what the causes were, and that report is due. Airports in this country are private businesses, but given that they are clearly critical national infrastructure, the Government have a role in ensuring that they function. If there are any lessons we can learn, it will be invaluable for us to learn them, but I do not want to be drawn on the conclusions of a report that the Government have not yet seen.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Just before the Spanish blackouts we had two unexpected outages—one in Lincolnshire and one at the other end of the Viking Link. The NESO was not going to tell us about it, but thanks to a whistleblower we now know. It seems to me that with the ever-increasing reliance on renewables, many are concerned about fluctuations from the voltage and about that becoming a serious risk. While the Minister is confident about the situation, will he confirm to the House that the NESO will tell us and be completely transparent about all future unexpected outages?

[Michael Shanks]

While Great Britain’s energy network is incredibly resilient and robust, there are outages for a whole range of reasons. The system continues to function, as it did entirely, without any concern at all, in the instance he raises. While it is not a regular occurrence, outages do happen in any system, particularly in the energy system across the whole of the UK. I will take away the point about whether there can be more transparency, but I suspect that the answer will be that this is the day-to-day operational running of the electricity system, and it is not something to be alarmed about at all.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the measured way in which he has approached the situation. As he and other Members have said, these kinds of blackouts happen, whether systems are dominated by fossil fuels or renewables. I particularly welcome the Minister’s rejection of the approach of some Opposition Members, including the honourable Inspector Clouseau, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has already jumped to blaming renewables. Is it not the case that some on the Opposition Benches want to weaponise this situation because of their ideological obsession against clean energy, which will leave my constituents colder and poorer while they enjoy the warm embrace of Vladimir Putin?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend always makes his point in his particular style—perhaps a more political style than I will use from this Dispatch Box, but Inspector Clouseau is a new one that I will certainly add to my list.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The broader point here is that we do not know the causes of the outages, and any sensible Member of this House will, I am sure, await the full response of any investigation that will be carried out by the relevant authorities in this case, rather than just jumping to speculation. As my hon. Friend says, the rush to conclusions betrays the truth of the matter, which is that many hon. Members in this place have an ideological, extreme and damaging opposition to clean energy. That includes Members in the party of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other parties, including the Conservatives, who defended this for such a long time and now seem to be working together against it. They want to leave us colder, poorer and in the pocket of Putin. We will not accept that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister please explain what exactly the Government disagree with in the considered written foreword by Sir Tony Blair to his think-tank report?

[Michael Shanks]

I have to apologise to the former Prime Minister, but I have been a little busy over the last few days and have not read all of his report.

[Andrew Bowie]

Not even the foreword!

[Michael Shanks]

Indeed. I apologise and will prioritise it for my weekend reading. What I did see is that the Tony Blair Institute outlined very clearly its support for clean power as an important transition for this country. The shadow Minister earlier said that this was all about wind and solar, but that has never been the position for this transition. Nuclear will play a critical role, as will carbon capture, usage and storage as well as hydrogen. All of that was outlined in Tony Blair’s report.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement, particularly his comments on the importance of batteries. He is right that energy security is national security. Technology owned by, run by and based in foreign states is being added to the grid. This technology is smart and, very worryingly, can be operated by third parties. Can the Minister set out what we are doing to protect the grid from the influence of those who wish to do harm to our people and our way of life in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down the United Kingdom?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The issue of cyber-security across our critical national infrastructure becomes more and more important day by day. As our energy system becomes more complex and as smart systems become part of how we all interact with our daily lives, there are increased risks. That is why the Government take cyber-security very seriously and are looking across Government at how we can have processes in place that are as robust as possible.

We do not for a second think that any of the actions we have taken will always be enough. We are constantly looking at how cyber-security develops and changes and how we can do more. But our energy system is resilient. Ofgem has a role to play in making sure that suppliers and individual electricity companies, as well as Government, take this issue very seriously, and it is an issue that I will continue to spend time focusing on.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that Peterhead gas station is Scotland’s only high-power, high-inertia facility and that it has an independent black-start facility. Key to the future of that site is the Acorn project, another thing he will be very familiar with. Can he confirm his Government’s intention to fully fund and license that project as a track 2 project as part of the comprehensive spending review in June?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made a point yesterday about black start, and it is one that the Secretary of State will take away, particularly around black-start capabilities across the whole UK. On the Acorn point, we have said on a number of occasions that it is a really important project. My Department and the Government support the project, but it is a question for the spending review, which will come in June.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Energy resilience comes from a secure supply of clean and cheap energy. The major cause of the financial crises that the world has experienced over the last 40 years is the insecurity of supply of the fossil fuel markets, with Ukraine being just the latest case. As for cheap, the last Government in answer to a parliamentary question admitted that the levelised cost of gas was £114 per megawatt-hour, whereas offshore wind was £44 per megawatt-hour. As for clean, the House may be aware that wind and solar are not known as great emitters of greenhouse gases. So renewables are clean, cheap and secure. Renewables and resilience go together.

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of these issues for a long time, and it will not surprise him or the House to hear that I entirely agree with him; clean, cheap and secure is absolutely right. We know that because when we invited many countries around the world to the energy security summit last week, it was clear that it is not just the UK that is on the transition. The rest of the world is also moving at pace to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the renewables that deliver the secure energy system and remove the volatility that all our constituents continue to pay the price for. It is the only way forward, and the Government are determined to continue with it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Minister is fully aware of my total opposition to the construction of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes in east Kent. National Grid’s sea link project is very vulnerable to physical attack and cyber-attack, and it is largely based on the provision of power from weather-related sources. Is it not time that we revisited all this and looked seriously at speeding up the process of acquiring small nuclear reactors?

[Michael Shanks]

I am happy to agree with the right hon. Member on his final point. Small modular reactors will play a really important part and are an exciting proposition that the UK can be at the forefront of. The technology competition will conclude shortly.

On the broader point, we get to the heart of the contradiction. The Conservative party wants to talk about resilience of the network but does not want to build any new network infrastructure. I am afraid that the two go hand in hand. If we want to have power and a resilient network, we cannot stay in the same place we were 60 years ago. We actually have to build some stuff.

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving the statement and congratulate him on the Floor of the House for completing the London marathon on Sunday. Does he share not just my utter disappointment but my concern that Conservative Members have wasted no time at all using the unfortunate events affecting our friends in Spain and Portugal to further their dated opposition to clean power, which risks panic and misinformation at a time when we need patience and clear heads?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for drawing attention to my appalling time in the marathon. [Interruption.] That is kind of the shadow Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend made an important point. The serious response to an unprecedented incident like this is to take stock of what happened, to introduce some facts into the debate—some people do not like to see facts in these debates—to allow a proper investigation to find out what caused it and, yes, to learn lessons from it. There will be lessons to learn, but I will not rush headlong into an ideological argument that damages our energy security by suggesting that somehow we should go back to the past and then everything will be fine. The clean energy transition is right for climate, right for jobs in the supply chains, right for bringing down bills and right for this country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister has outlined and his reassurances about resilience, particularly to a cyber-attack. However, there is also the danger that if we hand over the on/off switch for vital energy supplies to a foreign country, they can be switched off without our control. What mitigations are the Government considering for projects like the vast wind farm in the North sea for which the Chinese company Mingyang wants to provide the hardware?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on an individual commercial arrangement that a project may or may not have. As I have outlined, in any investment case the Government will carry out a number of checks, one of which will always be a national security check, so these questions will be looked at. I reject the suggestion that there would somehow be an on/off switch—that is not the position that the Government would take—but we look at all these investment decisions individually, and that is not for me to do on the Floor of the House.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The role of businesses regarding the grid is important. GE Vernova in my constituency makes rotating stabilisers, from which my hon. Friend the Minister and I probably could have benefited on Sunday while we were running the London marathon. The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) clearly did not need them; I congratulate them on their superb, very fast times—much quicker than my hon. Friend and I.

Rotating stabilisers are enormous electrical motors that are being deployed around the UK, as part of National Grid’s pathfinder programme, to strengthen vulnerable areas of the grid. GE Vernova tells me that one is operating in Scotland now and has proven that it can prevent more serious grid disturbance, and the company has other projects to deliver the stabilisers across the UK. The Government are investing more than ever in grid upgrades and infrastructure, which is good for the country and good for the economy, and it affects places like Rugby, where we build vital parts, with a knock-on effect on the local supply chain, on skills development and so on. This is a really good thing that should be celebrated.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. He raises what we are doing to deploy technologies in the clean power system to make it more resilient, and rotating stabilisers in particular. Those technologies were introduced in some cases by the previous Government, so there was recognition of their importance and we will continue to build on that.

My hon. Friend also raised the wider point that the transition to building a clean power system is about not just the generation we get out, but the good, well-paid jobs in the supply chains that deliver it and investing in industry right across the country, including in his constituency. We have committed to driving that forward. That is why the Prime Minister announced £300 million of supply chain investment at the energy security conference last week, and why we will continue to fight for this transition while the Conservative party turns against it.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I did not run the London marathon and I never will, but I am hugely admiring of all colleagues who did, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and her incredible time.

The Minister referenced the point I made yesterday about the grid in Scotland and previously expressed concerns about the amount of time it would take to reboot that grid if there was an outage. As we have seen in Spain and Portugal, there is significant disruption if the grid is off for hours, but if it were off for days, that would be very significant and much harder to manage. Will he confirm again that the Department will look specifically at that issue?

[Michael Shanks]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman: never say never. I am sure he has it in him.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In the news we saw the impact on day-to-day life of what happened in Spain and Portugal, and he is absolutely right that if that was to go on for longer than a few days, there would be quite significant impacts. We look closely at the cascading effects and at what parts of the system we reboot faster than others to deliver priority services, such as in the NHS. We will continue to do that. The point he raised yesterday and again today about how quickly different parts of the UK and Scotland would be rebooted is an important one that I will take away.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

With all these marathon runners in the House today, I wonder whether we might be able to generate some kinetic energy rather than the usual hot air. [Interruption.] I apologise; I did not expect a pylon for that—sorry, another energy joke. My genuine congratulations to all those who did run.

The major concern of residents in my constituency is the ageing grid infrastructure. What work has the Minister done to ensure that we have the infrastructure we need to ensure that constituencies like mine have the power to shine?

[Michael Shanks]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you need to make a ruling on drawing marathon-related puns in the House to an end, but the subject is a really important one. Of course, that is why we are in this sprint towards building more network infrastructure—[Interruption.] Thank you.

There are two really important things to recognise with our network. First, it cannot stay in the state that it is in forever; it needs upgrading. Secondly, the demand that we fully expect to see—potentially a doubling by 2050, and maybe even more than that—means that we will have to build more grid to bring the power to where it is necessary to deliver economic growth. It is right that we move forward with that, but everyone will need to recognise that, to deliver that system—whether we are delivering clean power or not—the network is necessary, and stuff does have to get built somewhere. The Government are committed to building it and the Conservative party is committed to opposing it.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Will the Minister expand a little on a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young)? The PSTN, or public switched telephone network, switch-off means that by the end of 2027 all landlines will require an electricity supply. This means that the mobile network becomes ever more vital for people who require their mobile phones for medical care or even to make a 999 call in the event of an emergency. What assessment has been made of the resilience of the mobile network in the event of power outages? What more needs to be done to make sure we are ready for that kind of situation?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. I was here after Storm Éowyn, when we discussed that a number of people who no longer had a copper wire line were not able to contact emergency services. It was a really important point.

There is resilience built into the mobile phone network to ensure that masts should be able to operate in circumstances when even the power to them is cut off. It is a question for Ofcom to look at and I have spoken to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that that is happening. There is more that we can do. We are engaging with the Energy Networks Association, which works with distribution network operators, to make sure that all the resilience plans join up and that the practical impact that the hon. Lady rightly raises is taken into account. I will write to her with updates.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has already highlighted, synthetic inertia technologies are used to simulate the benefits that traditional turbine technologies provided to an electricity grid now increasingly supplied by renewables. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficiently invested in those technologies to provide resilience across the grid? Is there an argument that surge protection devices, which wiring regulations mandate for nearly all new domestic and commercial installations, should be installed in all homes and businesses?

[Michael Shanks]

I will take that interesting point on surge protection away and speak to my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

On the wider point around inertia, as the system changes, there is a constant balancing job for the National Energy System Operator to make sure that we design a system that is resilient. We are deploying technologies to ensure that the system is resilient and there is sufficient inertia by procuring the alternative technologies that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) referenced, but we will keep it under constant review.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I assure the House that, not wishing to inflict a by-election on the citizens of East Antrim, I will not be running any marathons—not now or at any other time in future?

The Minister has rightly said that the cause of the outage in Spain is yet to be identified, but the fact is that it is linked to 53% of electricity on that day being generated from renewable sources. That should be a sobering warning to all in this House who have been championing the decarbonisation of electricity and the net zero policy.

I am glad that there is inertia built into the system, but the Minister has already accepted that that increases the cost of electricity every week because we have to build a new network to deal with the spikes in electricity; build battery storage, which increases the cost of electricity; and keep gas generators idling over expensively, the cost of which is added to consumer bills, in order to bring them on grid when the wind drops.

I know that the Minister has to defend the policy of his boss that we will get cheaper electricity, even though there is no evidence of that, but will he accept that building inertia into the system will add considerably to consumers’ bills?

[Michael Shanks]

I am afraid that I do not accept anything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He said in his first breath that it was right to wait for the outcomes of an investigation and then prejudged that investigation with his own conclusions. I want to wait for some evidence from the authorities on that.

The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the cost. People often forget that gas in our electricity system does not just appear out of thin air; it comes with a cost. It comes with the cost of building new gas power stations in the first place, which we would have to do if we did not move gas off the system. It also comes with the volatility of being an internationally traded commodity—all our constituents are still paying the price of the energy crisis of a number of years ago. We will have to build infrastructure. If we were not building clean power infrastructure, the grid would still be critical because we have to get electricity to people’s houses. It is important to say that there are no zero-cost options here. We are investing now in a clean power system that delivers considerably cheaper power in the long term.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I commend what the Minister said at the outset on the need to insure against high-impact, low-probability events. In a non-dogmatic spirit, may I appeal to him to reconsider the way in which the Government are dealing with the question of the two shale gas wells, which they have decided, under normal circumstances, they do not wish to see exploited? Surely those wells should not be sealed so permanently that if we were in a wartime conflict situation they could not be reactivated?

[Michael Shanks]

I am not aware of the specific circumstances mentioned at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to look into that particular case. The broader point is that we do not see licensing for new oil and gas and fracking as part of our future, and there is a presumption against fracking in other parts of the UK as well. We have a resilient energy system that does not require that. I will, however, take away the point he raises and write to him.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister has left himself exposed to the climate deniers in this Chamber because he has come of his own volition to make a statement in the absence of any understanding of what has actually happened in Spain and Portugal, thereby denying Parliament an ability to discuss any kind of strategic comparative assessment between the resilience of the GB grid and that of the Iberian grid. If he had delayed until he had the answer, we might be having a more valuable discussion.

The Minister has been forced to say that his Department is ready for all eventualities; well, tell that to the tens of thousands of radio teleswitch service customers who will be left high and dry by his Department. He says that he has every confidence in the National Energy System Operator. I did not have a lot of confidence in it on 7 January when, but for the reinstatement of the Viking interconnector, we would have had a very difficult situation on the GB link. I know that that is distribution and not transmission. There is also the matter of trying to instil confidence in GB among electricity consumers after an episode on 21 March at Heathrow, which saw global consequences for a relatively localised disaster in the UK energy market. How does the Minister have confidence after those two events?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman brings his customary sunny demeanour to his questions and I am grateful for that on this of all days.

First, I am giving this statement because a number of hon. Members across the House asked questions of the Government on this issue, and it is right that the Government respond to such questions. In fact, I would be criticised if the Government did not offer a statement when questions are being asked. This statement is therefore in response to hon. Members across the House and from different parties.

On the capacity questions in January, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The repetition of those quite wrong statistics on social media and in this House reduces confidence, and they are not based on truth. To be clear to the House, the standard operating reserves held by NESO at all times is for the largest power generator in the system, which, according to NESO, was 1.4 GW on Wednesday 8 January and not 580 MW, which is the figure in the public domain. The overall headroom on that day was never lower than 3.7 GW. It is simply not true to repeat the idea that we had 580 MW of capacity left in the system; it was never lower than 3.7 GW.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Recent events in Spain and Portugal highlight the wide range of challenges facing power grids, and we have heard many in previous questions. Those incidents show the complexity of effective reporting and the ability to respond rapidly, and the skills required span multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DSIT, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Met Office, which is based in my constituency. This raises an important question: who is responsible for co-ordinating reporting for similar incidents in the UK? More importantly, does the Minister’s Department have the right skillsets to respond?

[Michael Shanks]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman, because that is a really important question and one that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been wrestling with? Under all Governments there are individual Departments that take a responsibility and there are Departments that lead on parts of this, and the covid inquiry has raised a number of questions about how some of these resilience questions are answered, so it is a really important point.

My Department has a number of civil servants with expertise in how the energy system works. I pay tribute to the team, who are often there out of hours when storms and other incidents occur. They do a remarkable job. The question about reporting, however, is important. Partly what the Government seek to do with our mission approach and with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s work is to bring together the whole of Government so that everyone who has a responsibility is at the table, feeding in their views. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

There are over 100 battery energy storage system—BESS—facilities operating in the UK, and another one is planned for Hawkchurch in East Devon. Residents there are very worried about fire risk. South Korea is a global leader in BESS, yet the safety issues are plain. There were 38 fire incidents linked to BESS in South Korea up to 2022. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the safety of BESS technology and exploring energy storage solutions that are less subject to fire risk?

[Michael Shanks]

I would first say that fire is a risk in a whole range of scenarios, and I do not think we should jump to the view that because there have been some incidents in one particular piece of infrastructure it is somehow inherent in the infrastructure. It is important to say that batteries will play a critical role in our future energy system, but we obviously take issues of safety very seriously and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise them. The Health and Safety Executive has a role in this and the planning system also has a role in considering some of the fire risks, but we will keep this under review, particularly as the number of battery schemes increases.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, electrons do not flow, and that happens drearily predictably in northern Europe, particularly in the cold, dark winter months. As the Minister plans to increase the resilience of the UK grid, will he look at a place where the wind does reliably blow and the sun does shine—namely, south-west Morocco—and support the UK-Morocco power project, which could potentially deliver 8% of the UK’s grid needs reliably and resiliently?

[Michael Shanks]

I anticipated the right hon. Gentleman’s question after his first few words. I think the Secretary of State gave him an answer yesterday. This is a private proposal that has come to Government for consideration. It has not been driven forward by Government. We are considering it at the moment and, as I think the Secretary of State said yesterday, we are happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman on the details of where we are at with it. We will make a decision in due course.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice.

To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 9

Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications

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

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 9, page 14, line 6, after “distribution system” insert

“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.

This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which the power under clause 9(1) may be exercised may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 37 to 40.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

New clause 19—Increasing grid capacity—

The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a plan to—

(a) reduce the cost of, and time taken to make, connections to the transmission or distribution system;

(b) permit local energy grids.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the time and financial cost of connections to the electricity grid and to allow local energy grids.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. We thought a change in the tone of the Committee for a few clauses would be helpful, before we return to the other Minister.

Amendment 36 clarifies that a modification made under clause 9 may include changes to the order of the queue for connections, which works towards the broader aim of improving the management of connections to the transmission and distribution systems. The purpose of all this work is to reorder the connections queue. That is essential to deal with the extreme level of oversubscription in the queue, and enable a move from the “first come, first served” proposition that we have at the moment to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach. The amendment is essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses, which is to provide the means to implement connections reform should the current Ofgem and industry-led process face delays or be unable to realise its benefits in full.

Amendment 37 clarifies that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to modify a licence or agreement may be exercised only for the purpose of improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, which places an additional safeguard on the use of that power. Amendment 38 clarifies that the Secretary of State or Ofgem may modify an agreement under the powers in clause 9 even where the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement, which provides consistency with the existing wording in clause 12. It is also essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses. Finally, amendments 39 and 40, which are purely consequential on amendment 38, move the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” within clause 9.

I turn to clause 9 more broadly. As many Members will know, the current first come, first served electricity grid connections regime is causing considerable and unacceptable delays. It is blocking clean power projects from connecting to the grid, and blocking demand projects that are critical to our economic growth as a country. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem are reforming the electricity grid connections process to a strategically aligned first ready, first connected system. The reformed process will require projects to meet readiness, technological and locational criteria to progress.

The reform requires complex amendments to codes and licences. Clause 9 therefore enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support the existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary. It is intended to be used should the existing processes enacting connections reforms face significant delays, including alignment with strategic energy plans. The Government or Ofgem will then be able to expedite a set of changes outside the standard process to ensure that our clean power mission is delivered at pace. The clause is focused on improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, and follows precedent in being time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. Similar powers have been taken in the past, including in section 84 of the Energy Act 2008, but they were also time-limited and are therefore no longer in force.

Clause 10 details the scope of the power in clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents or agreements. The clause first defines the power to modify in clause 9, which includes the ability to amend, add to or remove provisions, and to add or release parties from agreements. It will enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support Ofgem and NESO’s existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary.

The clause further details how the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exercise the power, which includes allowing for general or specific modifications, incidental changes and provisions that do not necessarily relate to the activities authorised by the licence. It ensures that modifications to standard licence conditions are reflected in future licences, and specifies the conditions under which licences can be revoked. Finally, it allows agreements to include conditions that must be met before the taking of specific steps, or provision about the procedure for varying the agreement. Similar scope and procedure have been outlined previously in legislation, including in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.

Clause 11 details the procedure around the provision in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents. It aligns with the precedent established in section 8 of the 2022 Act, which detailed the procedure to modify a generation licence of a relevant licensee nuclear company. The clause obligates the Secretary of State or Ofgem—I am not sure how many more times I will say that in this speech—to consult a list of specified persons, such as the holder of any relevant licences, NESO and any other appropriate individuals, before making modifications. Details of those modifications must be made public as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure transparency with wider stakeholders. However, the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exclude from the publication any information that could harm commercial interests.

I will respond on new clause 19 after it has been spoken to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

What I have to say about these clauses will not be arduous, partly because I am not a shadow Energy Minister—as many Members will be pleased to note, including me—and my focus will be on the planning amendments. This is, however, a very important part of the Bill.

The Minister said he keeps mentioning “Ofgem and the Secretary of State”, but if he would like us to helpfully have a word with the Prime Minister to recommend that he becomes the Secretary of State, we are more than happy to do so. The Opposition believe that even he, as the Under-Secretary, could not do as much damage to our energy system networks and future growth as the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). [Interruption.] It is a policy disagreement.

This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.

The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.

The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.

The Government have also watered down the proposed community benefits of new energy infrastructure, which they lauded before the press a couple of weeks ago, to just £750 per person.

[Michael Shanks]

Just!

[Paul Holmes]

From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “Just”, under his breath. It was not me who went to the BBC and leaked a report saying that the Government were going to give more money than they are now proposing; that has been reduced by his amendment, so, yes—“just”.

Furthermore, the Government have abandoned a number of reforms, including a review of the presumption in favour of overhead lines, stronger protection for prime agricultural land against large solar developments, and enhanced safety measures for battery storage facilities. Expanding and improving the electricity system is necessary, but it must be done in a way that balances affordability, reliability and community concerns. We are concerned that the clauses in the Bill remove this transparency and add costs, but will not deliver the streamlined or more rapid benefits to the system that the Minister outlined.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I rise to speak to new clause 19. First, the Liberal Democrat members of this Committee support a lot of what the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. Creating electricity grids of the future is a critical route to decarbonising and has the potential to reduce consumer bills.

It is much to the UK’s credit that we are making good progress in efforts to decarbonise our electricity generation. Wind and solar in particular account for a growing share of our power generation. However, the transition from one-way transmission of electricity from a small number of very large power stations to a more distributed and multi-directional movement of power creates some challenges. We are going to need major upgrades of our electricity grid to accommodate the growing number of solar installations, as an example, more of which my hon. Friends and I would like to see on new and existing buildings. Making further progress will help our national energy security and reduce consumer bills at a time when energy inflation and the cost of living are still significant problems.

There are examples where cost and/or process have acted as barriers to the ability to feed surplus solar energy into the grid, or to the commissioning of new clean and renewable electricity production. Local energy grids have the potential to benefit communities and use the energy much closer to its source of generation. Therefore our proposed new clause would go further than the Government in the current Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to, within three months of the passing of this Bill, lay before Parliament a plan for how the Government will facilitate the creation of local energy grids and deal with the cost and time of grid connections. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on the Government Benches will embrace this amendment as a way to help continue our country’s journey towards becoming a clean, renewable energy superpower.

[Michael Shanks]

I will first respond to a few points in the debate generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East—across the Clyde from my constituency—made the absolutely right point that sums up what this connections reform process is all about: the absence of reforming the queue is driving away investment. Reform is critical for investment in our generation capacity and for how we connect demand projects that will be so important for unlocking economic growth. With more than 750 gigawatts currently in the queue to connect in the UK, the truth is there is no scope for that to happen without some radical reform of the queue. The Conservative party, when in government, recognised that that was a challenge and had already set about some reforms to make that happen.

We think we need to go even further. The shadow Minister, in a ray of honesty, said he was glad he was not the shadow Energy Minister. Based on the script on net zero, I think we are all fortunate that he is not the shadow Energy Minister, frankly, but it is the same script we are hearing from everyone at the moment.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said:

“I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.]—

only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.

[Michael Shanks]

There is always a quote, as they say, and my hon. Friend is always there with the quotes at his fingertips, which is helpful. The truth is that the only way we are going to bring down bills and deliver energy security is the sprint to clean power. This is a crucial element of that, and of how we unlock investment—predominantly private investment—over the next few years as we build that clean power system. Even if we were not doing that, the grid is essential. It is an essential part of how we deliver electricity to homes, businesses and industry and it is critical that we upgrade it anyway.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.

[Michael Shanks]

We are straying far from new clause 19, which I am keen to return to, but the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. Gas traded on the international market is exactly why all our constituents pay more on their energy bills. The answer is to get off gas as the marginal price setter, not to have even more of it.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made a helpful speech, although I will resist his new clause. We are in agreement about the issue of connection delays and the first come, first served process not working, and it is important that we reform that. We are of the view that our proposals do that, and the National Energy System Operator has worked with Ofgem and is of the view they are sufficient to do that.

The question of local power and local grids is an interesting approach that we are looking at. We take seriously the role of community-owned power—it is in the Great British Energy Bill, recognising our commitment to it—but we do not see it in itself as a barrier to what we are trying to do here. The infrastructure, including for local networks, that incorporates generation and demand is already permitted under the existing system. It can be constructed and operated by distribution network operators, by independent network operators or by a private wire under a statutory licence exemption provision.

We agree about the importance of community energy and are looking at a range of things, in particular at how communities might to sell power locally. They are all important points, and all this is how we will unlock the social and economic benefits of the clean power transition. For the reasons I have outlined, and because we think it is already entirely possible, we will resist new clause 19.

[Gideon Amos]

People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.

[Michael Shanks]

I betray my lack of English geography. I am sorry, but I assume that the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage are both in complete agreement with new clause 19. In any event, I thank them, but disagree with them both, instead of just one of them. I commend Government amendments 36 to 40 and clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Amendments made: 37, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3) only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”

The amendment makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the GEMA to modify a licence or agreement may only be exercised for the purpose of improving the purpose of managing connections to the transmission or distribution system.

Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 14, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) A relevant authority may under subsection (1) modify an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or a qualifying distribution agreement even if the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement.”

This amendment ensures consistency with clause 12(8) in clarifying that modifications made to a particular connection or distribution agreement under clause 9(1) may be made even if the effect of the modification might amount to the repudiation of that agreement.

Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment, together with amendment 40 moves the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” into subsection (7); this change is consequential on amendment 38.

Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 14, line 27, at end insert—

“‘qualifying distribution agreement’ means—

(a) the terms subject to which a connection is made by an electricity distributor in pursuance of section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, or

(b) a special connection agreement as defined by section 22(1) of that Act;”.—(Michael Shanks.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 39.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Directions to modify connection agreements

[Michael Shanks]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (1).

The effect of this amendment is that a relevant authority may give a direction under clause 12 without first having exercised its powers under clause 9(1) to modify an electricity licence or an electricity industry code.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 42 to 47.

Clause stand part.

[Michael Shanks]

Government amendment 41 will allow the Secretary of State or Ofgem to direct the NESO or a distribution network operator to amend an agreement under the clause without the need to have previously modified licences, codes and associated documents under clause 9. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to use the power to direct the National Energy System Operator or a DNO had not the modification powers in clause 9 —to make changes to licences, codes and associated documents—also been exercised. The amendment will mean that the directive power in clause 12 is no longer contingent on the use of the powers in clause 9.

An example of where the amendment would be needed is if an Ofgem and NESO-led process to amend licences and codes under the framework is successful, meaning that the powers in clause 9 do not need to be used, but the NESO or DNO has not accordingly amended its agreements with customers connecting to the electricity network. The directive powers could be used to ensure that the implementation of connections reform is successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.

One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.

As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?

Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.

We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.

The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.

The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out

“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”

and insert

“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.

Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert

“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.

This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.

Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”

This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.

Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—

“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—

(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and

(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.

(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).

(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.

(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”

This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.

Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—

“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.

Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—

“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—

(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;

(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—

‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)

This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 13 will require NESO and the DNOs to have regard to strategic plans designated by the Secretary of State when they carry out functions related to connections. The Secretary of State will designate one or more strategic plans, with the current intention that this will include the clean power 2030 action plan in the first instance and the strategic spatial energy plan going forward. There is precedent in imposing a duty on a body to have regard to a strategic document—for example, the designated strategy and policy statement under section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, which outlines the Government’s strategic priorities, policy outcomes, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing energy policy.

Let me turn to the detail of the objects set out in the clause. It amends part 5 of the Energy Act 2023 to include a duty for NESO to have regard to designated strategic plans. It also amends the Electricity Act 1989 to place a duty on DNOs to have regard to any designated strategic plan, and adds a further exception to the duty on DNOs to connect in cases where it would not be in accordance with the designated strategic plans. The clause will support the implementation of ongoing connections reforms led by NESO and Ofgem, and will provide guidance and support for NESO and DNOs in making decisions on issuing new connection offers. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has been clear in outlining how the clause relates to the previous clauses, and how he wants to overwhelmingly reform the electricity system. I do not see the clause as particularly controversial; it moves on from what he has previously described. Despite my previous speech—I have nothing against the Minister—the Opposition obviously want to be constructive where we possibly can be. The clause is simple and enables the process to carry on, and we will not contest it.

--- Later in debate ---

We have tabled the amendment to make sure that residents get that benefit, and to make sure that when fees come in, they are not kept by Scottish Ministers but are redistributed to local planning authorities, so that decisions can be made in a more streamlined, quicker way. That is what this Bill, and particularly this clause, could do for people living within those communities.

[Michael Shanks]

Normally, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is my sparring partner in both the Scotland and energy spaces, so it is nice that he has made an appearance in this debate, but I disagree with his amendment. The main reason is that it concerns a devolved competence. This is a UK Government Bill and it is right, given that the resource of local planning decisions and planning authorities is devolved to Scottish Ministers, that they make the decision on how they resource statutory consultees and local planning authorities.

On the point about community benefits, the Scottish Government already have an established process. The 10-year onshore wind ban in England was not in place in Scotland, and the process of good practice for community benefits for onshore wind, for example, is already quite well developed. Processes are in place. Over the past 12 months, developers have offered more than £30 million in community benefits.

We are, of course, exploring all options and the Bill includes bill discounts for network infrastructure—we will come to that shortly—but we are open to much more on community benefits generally, because we agree that if communities are hosting nationally important infrastructure, they should benefit, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly said. However, for the reasons I have outlined—this is a devolved competence and not a matter for me as a UK Government Minister—we hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I completely understand where the Minister is coming from. He does not want to tread on the toes of devolved Administrations. I thought he might be more encouraged to do so, considering that the Scottish Government are run by the Scottish National party, which is not doing a very good job at the moment. However, I also understand that he may not want to give them any more money to screw up the job that they are doing.

[Michael Shanks]

I agree.

[Paul Holmes]

Good—we have some consensus across the Committee. However, the Minister should not be fearful about giving those Ministers greater powers in this respect. We are trying to enable a greater amount of money to be devolved to the local authorities that are going to be directly responsible for ensuring community benefits from community infrastructure for the people who elect them. The Minister has said throughout our discussions that it is important to be transparent and to be able to resource some of the radical reform he is making. He should not be fearful—

[Michael Shanks]

I do not disagree with a single thing that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is not for me to dictate to the Scottish Government. They are democratically elected, and as much as I may disagree with much of what they do, they are none the less the Government of Scotland, and if they want to ringfence funding for a particular part of the process, they should be able to do so. In particular, diverting any funding away from the more speedy processing of planning applications would not be in the interests of the projects we want taken forwards. It is not that I disagree with him, but this is a devolved competence.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that, and I agree with him that it is a devolved competence—that is a fact—but he could be giving Scottish Ministers and constituents in Scotland a present by allowing the Government to make those decisions.

It is not just that the Government could be taking money from Scottish Ministers and giving it to local authorities under proposed new subsection (4)(a), but there is scope in the amendment for Scottish Ministers—the devolved Ministers—to be given the power to allocate consumer benefits packages where they think fit. That is strengthening the hand of devolved Ministers, not taking anything away from them. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “It doesn’t stop them.” No, but this would strengthen their hand. I think that giving devolved Ministers the power to give consumer benefits packages to Scottish people who are affected by infrastructure is a good thing.

I am not the intellectual powerhouse of the House of Commons, but even I can calculate that we would not win if we pushed this to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“Consultation requirements (Scotland)

1B (1) Where an application is made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under section 36 or 37, the Scottish Ministers must provide for the holding of a public consultation.

(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about the holding of consultations.

(3) Regulations may include—

(a) the length of consultation periods in urban and rural areas;

(b) requirements on applicants to publish the projected local economic benefits and other specified information in advance of a consultation;

(c) requirements on applicants to respond to or demonstrate consideration of submissions to consultations.”

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend for—

[Michael Shanks]

Gordon and Buchan.

[Paul Holmes]

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review.

This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas.

This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.

[Michael Shanks]

Amendment 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), concerns public consultations under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It is worth making it clear that the planning systems of Scotland and of England and Wales are very different, and the starting points are very different.

The 1989 Act—which we will come to shortly, in relation to the necessary updates to consents more widely—provides for the process of notification and objection at the application stage. This is very different from aspects of the planning regulations in England and Wales, in that there are already opportunities for consultations, but clause 14 creates a further power to make regulations to set out such matters relating to applications for consent, including a pre-application consultation requirement. That requirement will be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, but its purpose is to ensure that the application is proportionate, adaptable and future-proofed.

As much as I politically disagree with the incumbent Scottish Government, we have been working together incredibly effectively, since we came into government, on some key aspects. The reforms of the 1989 Act are a good example. To take the earlier point about the changing energy system, that Act was legislation for a different time, and the planning system in Scotland has not kept pace with the reforms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reforms that we are proposing give Scottish Ministers a framework to introduce regulations to allow for a pre-application consultation process, and to give both communities and statutory consultees meaningful opportunities to influence applications and have a voice early in the process. For that reason, I see much of amendment 84 as replicating provisions already in the Bills, so I hope the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought the Minister would recommend that I withdraw the amendment. I will put on the record that I am delighted that the Minister believes in pre-application consultation, because in one breath this morning—

[Michael Shanks]

In a very different system.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 14, page 19, line 9, leave out from “application,” to end of line 12 and insert—

“(b) consider the objection and the reporter’s final report,

(c) hold a public hearing, and

(d) allow a period of one month to elapse

before determining whether to give their consent.”

This amendment would require the Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

The amendment is in the name of the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who I know the Minister would be delighted to hear from—[Interruption.] I heard the “boo”. Amendment 81 is similar to amendment 84 but more specific. I suspect that the Minister will come back with the same argument, so I will take only a short time on this. The amendment would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing, and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

Put simply, that would allow local residents the right to provide feedback on proposed infrastructure. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that it is right that people can have their voices listened to by Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. The amendment would create one mechanism to ensure fairness in the planning system, by allowing not only the pre-application consultation but people to generally give feedback and a say, as they currently can in the English planning system. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the shadow Scottish Secretary, or acting shadow Energy Secretary.

[Michael Shanks]

Both.

[Paul Holmes]

Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way he is discussing these topics. I appreciate that they are from a planning system alien to the one with which he is, I am sure, very familiar—I am tempted to say that the shadow Energy Secretary could join him on the Bench, but he is not here.

I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the Scottish system, a public inquiry can be triggered with one objection into the planning system. The public inquiry can take years to conclude and often is not reflective of actual community sentiment on a particular project. This system does not exist in any form anywhere else in the UK. The purpose of these consenting reforms is to deliver significant efficiencies in the consenting process, and to make decisions faster—not necessarily to make positive decisions faster, just to make decisions faster. Introducing another element that feels like the element that we are removing takes away from that.

As I have said previously, there are still significant opportunities for communities to participate in the process. One of the key aspects that we are introducing is the right of a reporter, who is an experienced specialist in planning and consenting, to consider representations about whether there should be a public hearing on a particular process. That reporter will then make the decision about whether it should go forward into a hearing session or a public inquiry. That is rather than what we have at the moment, which is an automatic trigger that holds up projects for a significant length of time.

I am always happy to meet with the shadow Scottish Secretary on a range of things. I am happy to engage with him, because I appreciate that his part of Scotland has a significant amount of network infrastructure being built; but for the reasons I have outlined, this amendment goes counter to our objectives, and does not sit with the reforms we are making to the Scottish planning system, as distinct from the planning system in England and Wales.

[John Grady]

I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood.

These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.

The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 15 stand part.

New clause 53—Reforms to consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—

“Where any reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland are proposed, the Secretary of State must ensure that such reforms—

(a) do not reduce requirements for community engagement or public consultation;

(b) include measures to address local concerns, environmental impacts, and impacts on all key sectors including but not limited to agriculture and tourism.”

New clause 54—Annual report on consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—

“(1) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on applications for consent for electricity infrastructure in Scotland.

(2) A report under this section must include—

(a) the outcomes of each application for consent relating to an energy infrastructure project in Scotland;

(b) evidence of community consultation undertaken in relation to each application and, where applicable, how consultation has influenced the design of the infrastructure to which the application relates; and

(c) estimates of economic benefits to local communities from the relevant project.”

[Michael Shanks]

I will begin with a brief explanation as to why clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made a moment ago, and one that I have made before, which is that these reforms were in the pipeline under the previous Government. They are reforms to a long-standing piece of legislation that is long due for updating.

I thank officials in my Department and in the Scottish Government for working closely and at speed, with a similar set of objectives and an open-book approach to making this work, to draft the measures in a way that works for all of us. It is a reset of the tone of how we work as two Governments.

On enabling the introduction of pre-application requirements, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley referenced, in the Scottish legislation there are currently no steps to give the public an opportunity to engage as there are in the NSIP regime in England and Wales. This is about improving the quality and readiness of applications at the submission stage. It is important to say that this was driven by the views of Scottish Ministers, who said that they thought it was a useful process, but it will be directed in detail in regulations so that it can be updated and adapted to situations, unlike the process that we have in England and Wales at the moment, which has been held back and has added time and complexity to projects and not delivered what it was intended to do. It will give Scottish Ministers the powers to charge fees for pre-application services, enabling them to better support applicants in developing good-quality applications.

Secondly, the clause establishes a power to set time limits through regulations for key stages of the consenting process, which will support the timely determination of applications and bring down overall processing times. Thirdly, it will establish a proportionate process for responding to objections by relevant planning authorities through a reporter-led examination process. The reporter will choose the most appropriate procedure for gathering any further information they need to provide recommendations in a final report to Scottish Ministers. That may include inquiry sessions, where the reporter considers that that is the best approach to take to address particular issues. Such an approach is similar to the well-established process in which appeals in the town and country planning decisions are currently addressed.

Clause 15 enables regulations to be made that prescribe new processes to vary electricity infrastructure consents in Scotland after they have been granted. The clause addresses the current anomaly that there is no prescribed procedure for holders of overhead line consents to apply to Scottish Ministers for a variation to their consents. The current position forces consent holders to make full consent applications in order to authorise often very modest variations. The clause also allows Scottish Ministers to vary an existing generating station or overhead lines consent due to changes in environmental circumstances or technological changes. Such variations will be made with the agreement of the consent holder. Finally, the clause allows Scottish Ministers to correct any errors or omissions made in consents for generating stations or overhead lines.

I will come back to the new clauses later, but I want first to underline the importance of the consenting process. In Scotland, we generate a significant amount of electricity, and there are further projects in the pipeline, including both floating offshore wind and onshore wind. It is critical that there is an off-taker for that power in the rest of the UK, and that requires us to build significantly more network infrastructure to bring that clean power to where it is required. Although these changes to consenting relate to Scotland, they are of critical importance for the energy security of the whole United Kingdom.

[Paul Holmes]

I would like to move new clauses 53 and 54, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them first.

[The Chair]

Minister, are you happy to do that now?

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister wants to hear more! New clause 54 is in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross)—I want the shadow Minister to say, “Gordon and Buchan”, just so I can hear his pronunciation. The clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report providing detail of electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made in Scotland in previous years.

As hon. Members will be aware, responsibility for the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—not the UK Parliament—for the decisions that they make, for the rationale behind them and for what information they choose to provide on consenting decisions. I am aware that the Scottish Government publish all their decisions, which includes information about what public consultations have taken place and consultations with community councils, for example.

It would be inappropriate and potentially duplicative for the Secretary of State to have such an obligation, but fundamentally, to come back to the point I made earlier, there is a particular concern about putting a statutory obligation on what is a devolved power when there is a democratic link between Scottish Ministers and their democratically accountable Parliament, which is the Scottish Parliament and not this Parliament.

[Paul Holmes]

Do I move the new clauses now?

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly.

I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too.

I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.

[Michael Shanks]

That is reserved.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce.

Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.

It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.

[Michael Shanks]

I am in danger of going into British constitutional politics 101, but the hon. Gentleman is introducing the West Lothian question.

[The Chair]

We have to be very careful given the subject of the amendment. I gave the shadow Minister a bit of leeway.

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister is introducing the best example I have heard in a long time of the West Lothian question. The fundamental thing is that this is not a political question about the Scottish Government or the UK Government. There are reserved matters for which this Parliament is responsible for holding UK Government Ministers to account, and there are devolved matters that Scottish Ministers have responsibility for delivering and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for holding them to account for.

It would ride roughshod over this Parliament’s fairly consistent support of devolution in the UK for us to now suddenly say that those Scottish Ministers are also accountable to another Parliament. I think that we agree on the nature of devolution in this country, although we may strongly disagree on the actions that devolved Governments take, but we cannot support the new clauses, for the reasons I have outlined. This is not about thinking outside the box; it is about recognising the role that the devolved system plays in our constitution. For those reasons, I will resist the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 16 amends section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which provides for a statutory appeal to be brought by any person who is aggrieved by a decision made by Scottish Ministers—perhaps the shadow Minister. A challenge to an offshore electricity infrastructure consenting decision made under section 36 is by statutory appeal. The clause extends this, so that statutory appeal also applies to onshore electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made under section 36, decisions made under section 37 and all variation decisions.

The clause will create consistency in Scotland by making the challenge process the same for both onshore and offshore consents, and ensuring they are brought in a timely manner. A challenge will have to be brought within six weeks for onshore consents, as is already the case for offshore consents. This will bring the timescale for challenging large electricity infrastructure decisions into alignment right across Great Britain.

Clause 16 also amends the Electricity Act so that the six-week timescale for bringing a challenge commences from the publication of the decision by the Scottish Minister, instead of the date on which the decision was taken. This is a new requirement for both onshore and offshore, and is compliant with the Aarhus convention compliance committee’s recommendations relating to the timescale for challenging planning decisions. There is also a consequential amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of directions relating to deemed planning permission. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.

[Gideon Amos]

We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 17 will confer a power on Scottish Ministers to make regulations to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for processing necessary wayleave applications that they should make in Scotland. Necessary wayleaves are statutory rights that allow electricity licence holders to install and access their overhead electricity lines and associated infrastructure on land owned by others, and in Scotland they are processed and granted by Scottish Ministers.

The objective of the change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleave applications by the Scottish Government. It is important to act now.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?

[Michael Shanks]

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that amendment 80 was about forcing Scottish Government Ministers to spend funds on community benefits and other things. This clause is saying that the Government will have the power to raise application fees if they choose to do so. Of course, they could choose not to, but under this clause they will have the power to raise them.

[Lewis Cocking]

It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?

[Michael Shanks]

As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.

[David Simmonds]

A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.

I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?

[Michael Shanks]

In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.

I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.

[Paul Holmes]

Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.

[Michael Shanks]

No, we have not. A series of work will be necessary to come up with that figure, because the fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis. It is not a money-making exercise for the Government. That is in line with approaches in the rest of Great Britain. There will clearly be a significant number of such applications in the coming years—more than in previous years, probably—but the detail will be worked out with the Scottish Government. We do not know in advance exactly how many wayleave applications there might be, so we cannot give an exact figure.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will forgive me for intervening again; it will mean that I speak less later. In outline, has he started any engagement with Scottish Ministers to find out whether the intention of the clause will be borne out in reality? If the costs are being recovered on a cost recovery basis, has he secured the necessary assurances from Ministers that the money collected will be used to process the decisions more rapidly, and that it will not be spent in other devolved Scottish areas?

[Michael Shanks]

I am sorry to come back to this point, but the Government do not bind the hands of devolved Governments in any spending area. When this Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the Bill gives them the power to do that, which they do not currently have.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will carry on answering this point, if that is okay.

We are very enthusiastic about clause 17—who would have thought it? To be clear about this point—I feel as if I am the only Scottish MP on this Committee, but I am not—when this Government increase spending in a particular area, that results in a budget transfer to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive, which they can spend on whatever they see as their local priorities. An increase in NHS spending in England does not lead to the exact same in Scotland. We will not bind the hands of every single decision that is made in this case. This is about conferring a power on Scottish Government Ministers to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for necessary wayleave applications in Scotland.

[John Grady]

I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.

[The Chair]

Order. Let us stick to the point.

[Michael Shanks]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. That is helpful.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will respond to that point, if I may. I respect the view of the Conservative party and the argument that Conservative Members are making. I completely understand it, but I am trying to make the point gently that this is not about our directing specific decisions that will be made by Scottish Ministers. It is about how—in this case, as it is across wayleave applications in England and Wales as well—fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis in line with UK and Scottish Government policy on managing public money.

[Lewis Cocking]

Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government:

“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”

The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?

[Michael Shanks]

I am trying to find the exact wording. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have outlined to him three times now why it is different. I do not have amendment 80 in front of me at this precise moment, but it had two parts to it, one of which was about community benefits. It was directing the Scottish Government to take funds and direct them to a specific purpose. This Parliament does not do that in any other aspects of devolved policy, because it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. I think that I have made that point clear, but if not, I will write to the Committee and make it even clearer. [Interruption.] I am grateful. I now have amendment 80 in front of me. It mentions

“consumer benefits packages, or…local planning authorities”.

Neither of those things is in the gift of the UK Government to direct the Scottish Government to do. Consumer benefits packages are ill-defined, if nothing else, but local planning authorities are democratically elected in their own right, and the Scottish Government make budget decisions to local government, separate from any budget decisions that the UK Government make to the Scottish Government. The two are not comparable in any way. In any event, the Committee has already voted down that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—

[Michael Shanks]

It’s the same thing.

[Paul Holmes]

It is not the same thing. I asked him, in his role as a UK Government Minister, to seek an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers that the retrospective collection of funds under the new power would be used to increase capacity and improve the processing of this proposal. He was not rude to me, but he said, “That’s not my job as a UK Government Minister. It’s up to them as Scottish Government Ministers.” His own explanatory notes say:

“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”

When I asked the Minister whether he had sought an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers, I was not asking him to instruct them. I asked him whether he had any information on the total amount of money that would be brought in, which I accept could vary. I perfectly understood and respected that answer, but in his second answer he said that he could not seek such an assurance because he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers or take power away from them. Given the objective set out in the explanatory notes, how can we have confidence—

[Michael Shanks]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course.

[Michael Shanks]

There is no contradiction here at all. We are confusing two different things. My ability to say that the Scottish Government could raise x amount of money and must spend it on y is different from what we have clearly outlined—the hon. Gentleman has just repeated it—which is that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers do not have the power to raise fees for wayleaves, as is the case in England and Wales. Those are two very different things.

I have said clearly, I think six or seven times now, that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers have no power to charge for the processing of wayleave applications. The clause will give them the power to do so. Of course, I would hope that those funds will be spent on the planning system, or whatever it might be, but I am not going to bind their hands and evaluate the success or otherwise of that in this Committee. The two issues are quite separate.

[Paul Holmes]

We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I know that the Minister has no power to do that and does not want to have such a power, but how can he, as a UK Government Minister, commend a clause whose objective the explanatory notes explicitly say

“is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government”

while claiming that he does not have the power to ensure that it happens?

I am not trying to be difficult. The Minister is doing a very good job of outlining the clauses, but he has said several times in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—not just in relation to amendment 81, which was not accepted, but in relation to the clause—that he does not have the power to direct Scottish Government Ministers. All I am asking is why he set out the objective of the change in his approved explanatory notes if he cannot make it happen.

I am not asking the Minister to strengthen the legislation; I asked whether he has sought reassurances from Scottish Government Ministers that that is what they will do with the extra income from the measures. He answered that he did not want to force them. That was not the question. All I am asking—he is welcome to intervene on me—is whether he has had a conversation with Scottish Government Ministers about whether they will use this income for the purposes that his legislation has set out.

[Michael Shanks]

I have not had the conversation. I am happy to have it, but the tone will not be, “Here are my expectations of you as a democratically elected Member of the Scottish Parliament accountable to a Parliament I do not sit in.”

I do not know how familiar the shadow Minister is with the devolution legislation in the United Kingdom, but I gently say that this Parliament gives the devolved Administrations power to raise a whole series of taxes, charges, levies, fines and various other things. We give that power to those devolved assemblies; we do not then tell them exactly how to spend every single penny of that money. This is another example of that. It is a perfectly common thing in the devolution settlement.

[Paul Holmes]

I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.

I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 19 stand part.

Schedule 1.

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 18 is technical, amending section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 to make provision for procedural requirements that apply to the new powers conferred by the provision in clauses 14, 15 and 17. All new regulation-making powers, except for the power to amend primary legislation in clause 14(4), are subject to the negative procedure. Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State must consult each other before making regulations relating to clauses 14 and 15. The power in clause 17 is to be exercised by Scottish Ministers, and it does not require the Secretary of State to be consulted.

Clause 19 introduces schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 consequential to the amendments made by clauses 14 to 18. It also makes some minor amendments relating to consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland. These amendments are made to sections 36, 36B, 36C and 37 of and schedule 8 to the 1989 Act. Schedule 1 is needed to ensure the Bill’s consistency and clarity in relation to the 1989 Act. Some changes are needed to ensure that the new Scottish consenting reforms can function as intended. Some of the clarifications are needed because the 1989 Act was originally drafted prior to the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. Given the number of changes made to the 1989 Act in relation to Scotland, it is necessary to update outdated references in legislation to ensure that such references are clear and consistent.

The consequential amendments cover three main aspects. First, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about time limits for various parts of the consenting process, the amendments clarify how this relates to Scottish Ministers obtaining advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new section 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.

Thirdly, there are clarifications to reflect the new processes for variations of consents and the new procedure following objection by the relevant planning authorities for consents under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the minor amendments include those to reflect previous transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers, and some references to the water environment regulations are updated to refer to the most recent version.

As I have said, this is a very technical clause. I look forward to having slightly less debate on it, unless there are any questions.

[Paul Holmes]

Clauses 18 and 19 are consequential to the previous clauses, and consist of simple process amendments. The Minister will be delighted that we welcome the fact that clause 19 amends the Electricity Act 1989 to reflect earlier transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers. That is exactly as it should be, and we will not be scrutinising the various words. These amendments should go ahead, and I have no further comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 20

Environmental impact assessments for electricity works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 20 creates a power for the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make limited procedural amendments to the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which for ease of reference I will refer to as the EIA regulations.

As part of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, Scottish Ministers are required to assess the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed EIA development. Before the UK left the European Union, Scottish Ministers and UK Government Ministers had concurrent powers, under the European Communities Act 1972, to make regulations for electricity works EIAs. However, although the EIA regulations remained in force as assimilated law after the European Communities Act was repealed, the result is that neither Government have the power to amend them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.

Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.

This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Great British Energy on job creation in industrial communities.

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

Great British Energy will support the creation of thousands of high-quality, well-paid jobs right across the country and help rebuild the UK’s industrial heartlands. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced £300 million for Great British Energy to kick-start supply chains here in the UK. Once the Great British Energy Bill finishes its final stages in Parliament, we will come forward with more exciting plans for our domestic clean energy champion.

[Chris Vince]

I welcome the £300 million of investment for GB Energy announced last week. I think we all recognise the opportunities of the green energy transition, but what opportunities are there for my Harlow constituents to be part of that publicly owned energy company?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, with Great British Energy and our clean power mission, we are trying to create the jobs that will deliver that transition here in the UK, which is something that the Conservatives failed on for many years. We expect that funding, and much more that will come from Great British Energy, to mobilise more than £1 billion in private investment in domestic supply chains, driving forward manufacturing and industry here in the UK and the good jobs that go with it.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the number of jobs that Great British Energy will create in the People’s Republic of China?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the right hon. Gentleman gives the game away there. Although the Conservative party did not particularly care where the supply chains were, we in the Labour party are committed to delivering good, well-paid jobs in this country. If he was so concerned about investing in British supply chains, he might have bothered to vote for Great British Energy in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday,

“they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing”

the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not quite sure which one of the variety of parts in that speech the hon. Gentleman would like me to respond to. As usual, he steamrolls through his question faster than he ran the marathon— I congratulate him on that. He happens to be the only person in Aberdeenshire who is against investment in his community. When Labour Members voted to deliver investment through Great British Energy—not through jobs in the headquarters but through the investment it makes in supply chains and innovation in his city—he voted against it, and he will have to answer to his constituents for that.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to support the nuclear power sector.

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

Nuclear power is a critical part of our clean power ambitions. We are making strong progress on Sizewell C and Great British Nuclear is driving forward its small modular reactor competition. We have also seen the nuclear regulatory taskforce set up by the Prime Minister, and we are ending the legacy of no new nuclear being completed in the 14 long years when the Conservatives were in power.

[Douglas McAllister]

The transition to net zero is a chance to create decent, high-skilled jobs for the future. That includes the next generation of small nuclear reactors, which could revolutionise our energy market and deliver cleaner affordable energy. The SNP has vetoed nuclear energy projects in Scotland for almost 20 years, determined to leave Scotland behind. Is Scotland missing out on the economic opportunities that nuclear offers?

[Michael Shanks]

Planning matters, including the siting of new nuclear, are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so it is rightly for it to decide. However, I agree that Scotland is missing out on the huge potential of new nuclear. If the ideological block introduced by the SNP were lifted, billions of pounds could be invested in Scotland, with the countless skilled jobs that go with that. That could well be delivered next year if a Scottish Government are elected that take the industry and opportunity of Scotland seriously and deliver those well-paid skilled jobs—that would come by electing a Scottish Labour Government.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Data from the last year showed that Ynys Môn saw a drop of 57% in jobs linked to the nuclear industry; the worst figure for a UK constituency. Despite Wylfa being recognised as the best site for new nuclear in Europe, we saw no development from the last Government. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister give us the recognition and acknowledgment that Wylfa needs new nuclear and that that will be seen in the near future?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady has raised with me that point and the wider question of energy jobs in her constituency a number of times, and I thank her for that and for the way she has done so. Wylfa is an important site and continues to be one that the Government are considering. We will take forward those decisions in due course. As I have said to her on a number of previous occasions, we are committed to delivering the jobs that go with that and Wylfa remains an important site.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resilience of the national grid against the potential disruption of offshore energy infrastructure.

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

Before I answer the hon. Lady’s substantive question, I want to offer her my huge congratulations on smashing to smithereens on Sunday the previous record held by a female MP in the London marathon.

Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network with diverse sources of supply. The national energy system operator can balance the system in a wide range of scenarios, including potential disruptions to offshore infrastructure.

[Harriet Cross]

The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not comment on individual investment cases, but in every single case the Government make an assessment and we look at the national security implications seriously, just as the Conservatives did when they were in government. I would just gently say that the reason the supply chains in this country are as weak as they are is that they were underfunded and under-invested for years by the Conservatives. There could have been a decision, at the point when they took ambitious steps to move towards clean power, to build the supply chains here, but they chose not to do so; they chose to tow things into our waters instead. We are reversing that, but it cannot happen overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Following the publication of the Severn estuary commission report on tidal power, will the Government produce a national policy statement to support tidal range energy, and will they publish a review of the available opportunities?

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

I have had a number of meetings on this issue since coming into post. Clearly, tidal could play an important part in an energy mix. We have been clear that we are supportive of it in principle, but questions about its cost benefit and value for money must be answered. We are happy to continue looking at it in future, as projects develop and more detail comes forward.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T4. I welcome the Government’s view that nuclear power is essential to our clean power goals. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that new nuclear can be built wherever that is possible across the country, including in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a lot of Members I need to get in. These are topical questions—they are meant to be short and punchy.

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that public charging points are critical. That is why the regulator, Ofgem, allocated £22 billion over the next five years to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. I have had a number of meetings with network operators about this question, and I work closely with my colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure we are rolling out more points.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?

[Michael Shanks]

A consultation has just closed on the future of North sea energy. We have been very clear that our manifesto commitment was to not issue new licences for exploring new fields, but we will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the role that local community energy can play; I think that is what he is alluding to. We are committed to ensuring that. Great British Energy local has already made some announcements in this space, including on local energy funding in England. We will have much more to say in due course, but we want to ensure a partnership, so if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will make sure that what he says gets to GB Energy.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The Scottish National party celebrated the closure and demolition of Longannet coal power station in my constituency without having a plan for its future. The former First Minister pressed the button on the charges herself. What conversations do Ministers plan to have with the site owner, Scottish Power, about the future of the site, and what role might there be for the UK Government in bringing investment and jobs to my constituency?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to make the point about Longannet. We have conversations with Scottish Power on a number of issues, including this. He again emphasises the important role that nuclear could play in Scotland in the future. It could obviously be an important site for a range of uses, but if the ideological ban on nuclear by the SNP were lifted, we could look at other opportunities for such sites.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware of the switch-on of Moray West offshore wind farm at Buckie, in my constituency, last week, creating jobs, delivering clean energy and helping our nation to achieve net zero. Does the Minister accept that the current transmission charging regime poses significant and immediate threats to investment in offshore wind in Scotland? Will he meet me and industry representatives to explore that matter further?

[Michael Shanks]

We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject.

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

The United Kingdom was particularly susceptible to changes in international gas prices during the energy crisis, and bills and prices soared as a result. Under this Government, GB Energy is installing solar panels in hospitals in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, but will the Minister remind us which party presided over the worst cost of living crisis in memory—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.

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

Q Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. As a Government we have set out the ambitious clean power by 2030 plan, which involves significant roll-out of renewables. Key to that will be storage and our ambition to build the first long-duration storage in 40 years in this country. I would like to ask Beatrice and Ofgem, what is your sense of the importance of the mechanisms for doing that, particularly the cap and floor financing scheme; and how important is long-duration storage to the energy mix we are trying to build?

Beatrice Filkin: As you said yourself, Minister, we have not seen any large scale, long-duration energy storage built in this country for decades now. We know that the market is not willing to take on those risks at the moment and it is absolutely right that the Government are instructing us through this Bill to expand the regimes and protections.

We support the proposed introduction of a cap and floor regime for long-duration storage. We have seen NESO’s advice to you as part of the development of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan—that increasing the amount of flexible storage on the system is critical to getting through your clean power targets. We are very keen to be part of supporting that. We think the cap and floor regime has proved its worth over the last decade or so through interconnectors, and obviously, we are adjusting it now with input from a wide range of stakeholders to make it appropriate for the long-duration storage schemes.

[Michael Shanks]

Q Christianna, this Bill has a significant amount of planning reform in England and Wales, but the key element in the energy space in chapter 2 is around the reforms to Scottish consenting. We have worked very closely with the Scottish Government to update the Electricity Act 1989. Can you give any sort of sense, from your extensive experience in this in Scotland, of how much those changes are necessary, or perhaps how much of the development is being held back by that planning reform not being updated at the moment?

Christianna Logan: We really welcome the powers in the Bill that create that framework to increase the timeliness and effectiveness of consenting in Scotland, particularly around introducing timescales for determinations and replacing automatic trigger of public local inquiries with a reporter-led process.

Public inquiries are one of the main causes of delay to consent decisions in Scotland, with the impact and cost of that borne ultimately by bill payers and local communities through local authority investment. We believe that to make the powers in this Bill effective in practice, the secondary legislation will be critical. We ask that the secondary legislation providing the details of implementation is delivered in parallel with the Bill, so that it can be laid as soon as decisions are made, and that within determination, timelines are set at 12 months to make sure that we can get timely delivery.

We welcome all the joint working between this Government and the Scottish Government, and we would like to see that continue for that secondary legislation. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a 12-month determination for projects, but we are not yet seeing that in practice. For example, our Sky project, which is both an energy security and decarbonisation project, is still awaiting determination more than two and a half years on. That is why the ask is so important.

[Michael Shanks]

Finally, Dhara, picking up on the questions on connections reform and the wider push in the Bill on how we build network infrastructure more quickly and the ambition of that, how critical is it to the broader energy space—particularly on the questions of energy security, bringing down bills and the wider space on our energy mix going forward—that we build more network infrastructure and get the grid working? How critical is that aspect to delivering in the 2020s, and in the 2030s in particular, to meet the demand that we are going to see, and the Government’s other objective of bringing down bills?

Dhara Vyas: That is absolutely the right question to be asking, because we will not achieve any of it unless we unblock the issues we are seeing within the infrastructure space. The reality is that with these so-called zombie projects, at least half of them are ready to move on to the next stage. In large part, that is down to the work that has been happening as part of the connections reform project. It is really important that we keep on moving with the momentum we have right now, because gaining planning permission and making progress through the new milestones that the National Energy System Operator has set out is the next big challenge for us.

We are in a really difficult position right now. Bills and debt owed by customers to energy suppliers are at a record high. We are still really feeling and living in the long shadow of the cost of living crisis, which was partly down to the energy security crisis following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Investing in an abundance of clean power will be completely pointless unless we have the infrastructure to move it around the country, and unless we invest in clean power, we will not ultimately bring down bills to the extent that we need to. The other part of that is demand. We will see demand increase by at least sixfold. We are going to have electrification of our homes and our transport, which brings us back full circle to the need to be able to move the electricity around.

[John Grady]

Q I have a question for Christianna, Beatrice and Charlotte. To bring this to life, I am a Scottish MP, so if I am building a set of offshore wind farms in the north of Scotland, I also need to build transmission infrastructure from Scotland down to England. The holdouts of this involve connection queues, planning delays in Scotland and planning delays in England. The Bill, with the reforms in England and Scotland, seeks to reduce those delays. I want to unpick what that means for my constituents in terms of jobs and investment. How much money will be invested in the grid in Scotland over the next five to 10 years, because this Bill helps speed that investment up?

Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network.

All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), not just for securing this important debate but for the tone with which she introduced it. Her seriousness and passion came through in her contribution. I genuinely thank her for that, as well as for all the conversations we have had on this important topic.

It has been a wide-ranging debate, but at the heart of all the contributions have been three key things, which I will try to sum up. First, we may all disagree on the timing, pace and detail of the transition, but there is an acknowledgment and understanding that a transition in the North sea is under way. It is important to recognise that. Secondly, if we accept that, as it seems we all do, then we need a credible and detailed plan for how to manage the transition. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North put it well by saying that the transition needs to be managed properly, and I will come back to that point. Thirdly, the workforce must be at the heart of any plan and transition. The shadow Minister made the point well: this is deeply personal for anyone with a job in the oil and gas sector, but particularly in north-east Scotland, where there is a significant concentration of workers in the industry.

Many Members have spoken about the importance of oil and gas in our energy story. A few months ago, I was pleased to be at BP’s headquarters to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first licence being issued in the North sea, and there was a powerful video of the history of some of BP’s offshore infrastructure. The engineering skill that it has taken to extract oil and gas from extremely difficult North sea waters over the past 60 years is extraordinary and, as I have said on a number of occasions, we should be very proud of that workforce and everything it has achieved.

Oil and gas will continue to play a critical role in our energy mix and economy for decades to come. However, as we and the world embrace the clean energy transition, I want us not just to be proud of the history of the North sea but to be hugely ambitious and excited about the opportunities in the next chapter of our energy story. Our clean power mission is about not just driving forward clean power in this country but creating the jobs in manufacturing and industry that go along with it, and it is critical that those jobs materialise in the communities that have been mentioned.

It is right that we recognise that tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the sector over the past 10 years. The truth is that we should have been planning for this transition a long time ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) talked about Grangemouth. There is no greater example of the failure to plan for the transition than Grangemouth: we knew years ago that it was in a precarious position and should have been planning for the workforce at that point. My driving purpose in my role is ensure that we do not make the same mistake again in the wider North sea sector.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked whether the Government are listening, so I want to say how much we have engaged with the sector and how much time I have spent in Aberdeen listening to the industry—not just the oil and gas companies themselves, but the companies involved right through the supply chains, in decommissioning and in training. I had an interesting visit to a training provider and met apprentices who are working in oil and gas in the immediate term but will transition into renewables. They are being trained both on oil and gas platforms and on the renewables jobs that come next. Exciting work is going on, and we need to capitalise on it and speed up such projects across the city and the north-east.

We have a fantastic opportunity to utilise the skills that are already in Aberdeen, which many Members have mentioned. Given the global race for skilled workers and for much of the equipment and the supply chains for the clean power missions around much of the world, we have a real opportunity to capitalise on that in Aberdeen. I suspect that the ears of Robert Gordon University will be burning after this debate, given the number of times it has been mentioned. I had a fantastic visit there a few months back to go through some of the data in great detail, and it was fascinating.

Members made the point about the number of jobs that are transferable from oil and gas into renewables. That presents us with an enormous opportunity to provide long-term, sustainable jobs for people. The pace at which we do that, and the methods we use to support the workforce to transition, are key, which is why, when we came into government, we were determined to work with the Scottish Government and with industry to move forward on skills passporting, and we have launched the first phase of that. There is clearly more work to do on expanding the passporting process, but that is a sign that we are taking practical action to support the workforce to transition.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about a plan for the transition, which was a good point to make. We have launched our consultation on the future of energy in the North sea. We were keen for that to be a genuinely open conversation with industry, communities and trade unions about what the future of energy in the North sea should look like—not a conversation focused narrowly on a series of specific questions. The consultation is still open: there is a week left for those who have not had a chance to submit their responses—I am sure that many thousands are watching this debate online—so please do submit them. It is a key opportunity. We have deliberately asked open, broad questions so that we can have a genuine conversation about the future of energy in the North sea.

The first section of the consultation deals partly with the data and the science about the decline of the North sea basin. The shadow Minister rightly made the point about language. I have always been careful about the language that I use, but it is important to recognise that the declining nature of the basin means that we have to start planning now for what comes next. As part of my engagement on the issue I have had a number of roundtables, including with trade unions a few weeks ago, to look at the specific support that is necessary for the workforce now.

[Barry Gardiner]

The trade unions and others have made a case for £335 million a year to be invested in skills and training to ensure that workers are not unpaid on their training days, among other things. What conversations can the Minister have with colleagues to ensure that that happens?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. He is right that it is about not just the passporting and the training available but, importantly, the ability of workers to access it. I will take away that point, which also came up in the roundtable with trade unions. We have launched a number of skills pilots in four areas, of which Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is one. The process there is slightly different from that for the other three, because skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, so the UK Government’s role is slightly different, but we want to work in partnership to ensure that we deliver. I will take away the point away and come back to it.

[Andrew Bowie]

I pay tribute to the Minister’s continued commitment to and engagement with the industry and the region. It seems, given the amount of times he is in and out of the north-east of Scotland these days, that he may be buying a second home in my constituency. Of course, we welcome that, because any engagement with the Government is positive. The tone with which the consultation on the future of North sea energy was launched was incredibly positive and has been warmly welcomed. However, there is also an ongoing Treasury consultation on the post-EPL fiscal framework; what engagement is the Department having with the Treasury on what that will look like? Is there any opportunity to speed up the process by which we can replace the energy profits levy?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for making that point. We deliberately launched the consultation on the future of energy and the Treasury consultation on the future of the EPL at the same time, because we want to bring them together to give certainty about the future of industry. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has been in Aberdeen a number of times and, indeed, we have we have had many of the same engagements, dealing with the fiscal forum and others and having the conversations. I engage with Treasury colleagues regularly on this question. The EPL, which has changed many times under both Governments, has not given industry the confidence it is calling for. We have been clear that it will end post 2030, and we want to put in place a regime that gives confidence about what the landscape looks like but still has the recognition of excess profits built into it. The consultation is open for, I think, another two or three weeks.

[Barry Gardiner]

The taxation regime is critical to the ability of companies to make profits in the North sea. We have the lowest base rate of tax on oil and gas production companies in the world, and it is only because we have the windfall tax that we take the rate up to the average. The Minister needs to look at the investment that would be available were we not subsidising the operations from the public purse. It is not quite the zero-sum game that he suggests.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but he tempts me into both concluding a consultation and speaking on behalf of the Treasury—two things that I absolutely will not do. But he made an important point. The purpose of the consultation—again, it is an open consultation with all those in the sector—is to get to the heart of some of these questions.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister agree to consider the timescale of the consultation outcomes so that people have the earliest possible notice, in advance of next year’s budgets, if possible?

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to come to that point, which has been well made. In both consultations, we are looking internally at how quickly we can turn around the responses. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck, particularly in respect of the consultation on the future of the North sea. It is a hefty document and we expect a significant number of responses, which is a good thing. There is also a balance to be struck between turning around a response quickly and having a credible, detailed look at all the evidence that has been submitted, but we are trying to move as quickly as possible with both consultations.

I want to turn briefly to the point about the future, and the points that a number of Members made about investment in clean energy. It is right to say that the future of the North sea has enormous potential for offshore and floating offshore wind, and for a number of other industries, such as hydrogen and carbon capture. Since coming into government we have moved as fast as possible to drive that forward, including establishing, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned, Great British Energy in Aberdeen—although I cannot help but notice that the SNP did not support that. It is all about driving investment, not just by creating jobs in Great British Energy’s headquarters but through the investments it makes in supply chains and developments throughout the country, particularly in the north-east of Scotland.

We oversaw a record-breaking renewables auction and, as many Members mentioned, we are currently working through the process of the clean industry bonus, which is designed to reward investment in good manufacturing jobs and clean supply chains. This gets to the heart of the point made by many Members about how we bring the benefits of the clean power mission to the UK, delivering the industrial jobs that too often have been missing in our transition. Of course, the clean power action plan will drive £40 billion a year of private investment towards our goal of clean power by 2030.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to reflect on two brief points that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made in her closing remarks. The first is about listening to communities, which is important, and I will continue to do that, as will my colleagues. The second is about the oversight and management of the plan, which is a question we are looking at. I am always slightly resistant to simply saying that setting up a taskforce or a commission is the answer, but the point that the Just Transition Commission made, and that the hon. Lady also made, is right: we need to grasp it at the heart of Government, and we are actively looking at that.

I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her important contribution. The future of the North sea is incredibly important for all our communities, particularly in the north-east, but also for our energy and our economy in a wider sense. We are determined to deliver a credible, just and prosperous plan for the future, for the workforce now and in generations to come.

Onshore Wind and Solar Generation

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. This instrument is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure our country needs to deliver 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, where potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The nationally significant infrastructure project regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, whereby decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State 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. Following submission into the NSIP process, an extensive examination period will commence, where interested parties—including local authorities, people of office and the general public—can make written or oral representations to the examination, ensuring that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Rather than traducing what remains of our countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the UK-Morocco power project run by Xlinks, which would deliver 11.5 GW of energy and power about 8% of our grid needs? It would seem that the block to this project is not the Moroccan Government, nor the Governments of countries through whose territorial seas the cable would pass, but resides instead in Whitehall. What is the Minister doing about it?

[Michael Shanks]

I give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the ingenious way he brought that up in a debate on solar and wind in the UK. He raises a good point. We are looking at the detail of a proposal that has been put forward by a private company—I am not going to say anything more on the Floor of the House.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I have given way already.

Turning back to the statutory instrument in front of us, until recently the de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England introduced by the Conservatives limited the deployment of onshore wind in England. Those changes to the planning legislation set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects shrinking by more than 90%, with less than 40 MW 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 10 years 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 MW in England will be eligible to be consented under the NSIP regime.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

This legislation is crucial to achieving our net zero commitments. GE Vernova, a renewables company in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, struggled with really long waiting times for an expansion of its site, but it has recently been approved, which means good new jobs for people who live in my constituency. That exemplifies the importance of streamlining the planning process, which will eventually lead to lower bills for people in my constituency and around the country. Does the Minister agree that this legislation is integral to developing the jobs we need across the country, and would he like to come and visit GE Vernova with me?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that warm invitation; I will of course consider it, and I look forward to visiting her constituency at some point. She makes an extremely important point. We are reforming the planning system to deal with challenges that have meant that, for too long, infrastructure that is incredibly important for our energy security has been held back by dither and delays in the process. We want to sweep that away and move forward much more quickly. The prize is energy security, but as she rightly points out, this is also about jobs and investment in communities right across the country.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will, then I need to make progress.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister talks about our energy security. What will increase our energy security is issuing new oil and gas licences so that we can have more home-grown energy. Why will the Minister not change his policy on that?

[Michael Shanks]

We really are stretching this debate, but I am very happy to discuss this matter. The point has been raised on a number of occasions, and the answer is always the same: it is not delivering energy security at the moment. We have said very clearly that oil and gas plays a crucial role in our energy mix now, and it will continue to play a role for decades to come, but the North sea is already in transition. The reality of the past 10 years under the Conservatives was that more than 70,000 jobs were lost, with no plan for how to deal with it. We are determined to deliver on the transition and on energy security, which will get us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices that we are all still riding.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will make a little progress and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Although we have 90 minutes, I am conscious of time.

This instrument is about making sure that onshore wind projects in England that offer capacity of over 100 MW will be eligible to be consented under the regime. It reflects advances in turbine technology over the last 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 seeking planning consent where they are of a certain scale and complexity, so that local impacts can be carefully balanced against national benefits and the need to meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and grow the pipeline of potential projects in England once again.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talks about national impact. I wonder what provision there is under this legislation for protected national landscapes. Many of the windiest places in the UK are among our most beautiful, whether it is the hills and mountains of our national parks or the downs of our national landscapes, like the North Wessex downs in my constituency, which was an area of outstanding national beauty but is now a national landscape. Many of my residents are concerned, because the Minister is quite right that the turbines that are now being developed are huge. It is likely to mean that for most of our lifetimes we will lose the landscape to these new developments. Will this system still encompass consideration of protected landscape and make sure that it stays as it is for future generations?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I have always said from the Dispatch Box in this role, there is a balance to be struck here. We need to build nationally important infrastructure, and that does mean much more onshore wind in England to match the significant amount of onshore wind that has been built in Scotland over the past few years, including not far from my constituency. But the balance must be struck with protecting land as well. Even if we build the significant number of projects that are needed, there will still be protections for land in the areas he mentions. The planning system allows for those considerations to be taken into account.

The NSIP regime already includes nuclear and solar. We are saying that the ban on onshore wind introduced by the Conservatives was not a rational decision, so we are bringing it back into this process. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that it was absolutely rational, but his party’s former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that it was “always mad”. I think we should remember that not everybody in the Conservative party agreed with it, including, I suspect, the shadow Minister himself.

Let me come to the second part of the statutory instrument: the question of solar. Solar has been subject to a 50 MW NSIP threshold since it was originally set out 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 MW threshold is now causing a market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. That is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact. That has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system artificially capping their capacity just below the 50 MW threshold, leading to a potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections.

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

The approach set out in the order is a continuation of the Minister’s work to build the clean energy infrastructure that the country needs. I agree that the capacity threshold and the reintroduction of onshore wind generation stations into the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects will help deliver the triple benefits of decarbonisation, energy security and job creation. However, as the Minister knows, Cornwall is a leader in the roll-out of onshore wind and solar energy. Does he agree that the order will further opportunities for renewable energy growth across Cornwall that would have been ignored by the flat Earth climate change deniers in the Conservative party?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the point, although I am disappointed, because while he normally invites me to visit Cornwall, he did not on this occasion. I will not take it personally. Since he was elected to this place, he has done a fantastic job in delivering jobs in his community on the clean power mission, most recently by looking at some of the raw materials that are so essential. He has made great progress on that, so I pay tribute to him.

My hon. Friend is of course right about the Conservative party’s scepticism of a policy that it used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country. It has now turned its face against that; I am not sure whether that is flat Earth or not. I am sure that the shadow Minister will regale us with his long list of commitments in this space, but it is clear that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing and investment in communities that have suffered for so long under economic decline, as well as delivering on our climate ambitions and energy security. That is the right path for us to be on.

I will return to solar for a second. Raising the NSIP threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. It should incentivise projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of written questions on this topic to try to get to the heart of the matter, and he is now testing me on the number, which I think we did provide him with in response to one of those written questions. Since it is not on the tip of my tongue, I will write to him with the answer. On the general point, I do accept what he is saying. Part of the reason for the instrument is to try to get to a more rational point where we do not have projects limiting themselves artificially to a level based on a figure.

We settled on 100 MW because we think it strikes the right balance by allowing larger projects that can deliver the outcomes we want in the energy system through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, while limiting the number of projects coming into the national planning process. We think that balance is right, but we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman has raised important points with me in in written questions that I am happy to discuss with him in more detail.

The Government are mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects that may be preparing to enter the planning system might have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a particular planning regime. Therefore, changing the NSIP criteria at short notice could result in projects entering into a different regime from that which they expected, which could increase costs for developers and cause delays. Therefore, the instrument before us also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when the order comes into force. The provisions will therefore ensure that projects already progressing under one regime will not be required to move into a different one.

In conclusion, through consultation, we sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime. We received a range of responses from different groups of people. Most agreed with our approach and the majority agreed with the 100 MW threshold. Indeed, although we initially consulted on the idea of a higher threshold of 150 MW, based on the analysis of those consultation responses, we concluded that a 100 MW threshold would be more appropriate and would reflect modern technology.

This instrument is another important step forward in delivering our clean power mission, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports all our work as a Government on delivering an effective planning system—one that ensures that applications are processed efficiently through an appropriate regime and that avoids distortionary effects on deployment. The measures ultimately aim to support our future energy security and resilience, alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I commend the order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate, but I will not detain the House long, as I know we are keen to progress through the Order Paper.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. The regulations lift the nonsensical ban on onshore wind in England that the Conservatives drove through. For 10 years, that ban has held back energy, security and economic development opportunities across the country. The measures before us come to a rational position on solar in the planning system.

I will respond briefly to the points raised about nature and other issues. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) put it particularly well: the public want us to take action on the climate crisis. The Conservative party might want to pretend that that does not exist any more, but it does. The greatest threat to nature in this country is climate change. We will tackle that, but in doing so, we will deliver energy security.

On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), let me say that neither of us Scottish MPs will have a vote in the elections in four weeks’ time, but people will have the choice between the Conservative party, which has still not owned up to any of the mistakes that it made in 14 years, and the party that is trying to fix the mess. They can choose between a party that is moving forward to deliver economic growth and energy security, and a party that would rather hold us back and keep us on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. Today’s vote is a chance for us to demonstrate that we want that economic opportunity, and want to deliver energy security and climate leadership. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to support us today.

Question put.

Great British Energy Bill

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 12.

[Michael Shanks]

I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.

Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.

We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.

Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.

I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.

I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his many years of work on this issue. I will come to some of the detail in addition to this measure, but it is important to say that the debarment list, which was part of the Act passed by the Conservative Government, has been in force since February and will be populated in due course. We will use that list as the basis of challenging the decisions that Great British Energy can make not to take contracts with those on that list. I will look in more detail at the specific points that he raised, and I will come to some of that later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff is a Holocaust survivor. She knows what slave labour looks like, and she has written to the Prime Minister to urge that our energy transition does not repeat so many of the atrocities that she has seen. She is awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister. Will the Minister nudge No. 10 to ensure that she gets the response that she needs and deserves on her own behalf and that of victims of modern slavery across the world?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I saw that powerful letter, which was widely reported in the press. I am not sure that nudging No. 10 is quite within my gift, but I will certainly raise the issue for a response. The wider point raised is absolutely right. I recognise the need not just in the energy sector but across our economy to ensure that we remove any risk of forced labour in supply chains. We all share that commitment across the House. We need a number of different measures to make that happen. I am determined that Great British Energy will a leader in the sector on doing that, particularly within the energy space.

Returning to the focus that Great British Energy will have at the highest levels of its work, I can commit today that it will appoint a senior individual in the organisation to lead on ethical supply chains and modern slavery. Further, the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which the Secretary of State will issue to GBE once it receives Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that GBE proactively works to deliver on these commitments and, in doing so, becomes a sector leader in this space, as we would expect from any company owned by the British public.

To further demonstrate our commitment across Government, we will write to all FTSE 100 companies outlining our expectations on responsible businesses to ensure that these issues, especially forced labour and supply chains, are being effectively identified and addressed. Given the importance of tackling modern slavery, it is crucial that businesses play their part to tackle that abhorrent crime. We cannot do this without their support, so it is an important step across Government.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister is explaining what the Government are doing, but they are not doing what Members of this House and of the other place want—not just asking people to do stuff but leading. That is what this amendment does: it would allow the UK to really show its leadership on behalf of the British public. This will be a huge public company. Why will the Minister not just commit to that further step today?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me come to that point, because the specific reason that we disagree with their lordships on this amendment is that it would not actually do what the hon. Gentleman says. It would force the Government to cease all GBE’s activities, rather than give it the scope to address any of the issues that we are raising today directly within the framework that we have outlined. As I said, we as a Government are wholly committed to doing this. Great British Energy will be committed to ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. The amendment would cease the funding immediately, which would not give GB Energy the scope to actually invest in the appropriate supply chains and to tackle those issues directly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister accept that many people listening to this will see it as evading rather than addressing the issue? We can have the Procurement Act, the taskforce and the letters to all the major companies, but the fact remains that most companies will seek financial assistance for the kinds of projects that they wish to do. If credible evidence is discovered that supply chains have been contaminated by slavery, the easy way of stopping purchases from suppliers who act in that way will be to say, “You’re not getting any support.”

[Michael Shanks]

I do not disagree with that at all, and that is possible. Nothing forces Great British Energy, or any other company, to take investment from any individual or company. They can choose not to do so for a whole variety of reasons, and if one of those reasons is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, I would fully expect them not to invest in those companies. That is exactly what we are talking about today. The point is that that conversation must be broader than one just about Great British Energy. It is about wider supply chains and companies right across the economy, and that is what we are hoping to tackle.

In parallel, although the energy sector is particularly important to me, I want to work across Government to outline a comprehensive plan to tackle modern slavery, which is a question right across the economy. Rather than dealing with the problem on a company-by-company basis, we must look to do so more broadly. To drive forward that work, I confirm that in the coming weeks I will convene cross-departmental ministerial meetings involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my Department to discuss how we can accelerate work across Government on this really important issue.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and the consideration that he is giving to this issue. Will he look at a reverse burden of proof so that, instead of proving an exclusion, it is switched to show no association with modern slavery?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to that briefly in a moment.

All of this work builds on the implementation of the new procurement regime, which focuses on ensuring fair and open competition and treating suppliers equally, as well as the work that we are doing on the relaunched solar taskforce—it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government—to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative solar supply chains that are free from forced labour.

We recognise that the landscape has shifted since the Modern Slavery Act came into effect, which is why yesterday the Home Office published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains that provides comprehensive and practical advice for businesses on how to tackle forced labour in their supply chains. Great British Energy will, of course, follow any new measures on modern slavery to which it is subjected, just as any responsible public or private body should. I hope that the new steps I have outlined will reassure the House that Departments across Government will continue to work intensively on this issue.

Before I move on, I will reflect briefly on amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), which would require the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define “credible evidence” in Lords amendment 2. While I thank him for the amendment, we have to resist it as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s role was established to encourage good practice rather than to look specifically into supply chains of individual companies. The amendment would place a significant lawmaking function on the commissioner, which the role was not designed for, and is currently not within the commissioner’s powers. The amendment would also have wider implications for how evidence of modern slavery is assessed and could create unnecessary legal uncertainty and precedent.

I turn to the remaining amendments. The Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendments 3 to 12 following positive discussions with peers in the other place. Lords amendment 1 puts community energy on the face of the Bill. The Government had a manifesto commitment to deliver a step change in community energy across the UK. We set up GBE to deliver our local power plan: it is at the heart of our plans for GBE. However, we recognise that during the Bill’s passage, it was highlighted that the role of community energy should be made explicit in the Bill. As my colleagues in the other place said, the Government have accepted that, and it is right that that is now in the Bill.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the amendment. Does the Minister agree that community energy is important not just for jobs and investment but for engaging communities with the transition to a new energy system? Does he recognise the need for the Government to support those initiatives with funding going forward?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Community energy is incredibly important to give communities a stake in their energy future and to deliver the social and economic benefits that go with it. Just last week we announced a significant amount of funding through GBE for community energy projects across England, and funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on similar projects, including community energy projects in their own areas.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly, but then I will have to make a bit of progress.

[Dave Doogan]

Can the Minister advise the House on the level of recurrence to that funding? Will it be year-on-year funding? Will he also give us an indication—maybe not precisely, but broadly—what that funding stream will be year on year under GB Energy?

[Michael Shanks]

It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.

Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.

Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.

I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments.

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

This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.

We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?

Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.

In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.

It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.

I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, although it has been short, on a number of the amendments but perhaps most importantly on forced labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to reflect on some of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but let me start by saying that I hear the very strong views that have been expressed on this issue. It is right that Governments of whatever party constantly challenge themselves to go further in tackling these issues, because—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it—even one person being affected by forced labour is an absolute disgrace. We should collectively tackle that issue using whatever means we can.

As such, I want to reiterate clearly that contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from Conservative Members, Lords amendment 2 is about amending the Great British Energy Bill, not about the Government’s wider commitment to tackling modern slavery. It can be repeated as often as Conservative Members like, but it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that the Labour party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue. I really do take issue with that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for a lot of the debate, but I will give way to him.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I think the Minister would accept that Lords amendment 2 is a very modest proposal that could make a significant difference to people’s lives and outcomes in China. There is talk of Labour buying off its Back Benchers by saying that further legislation is coming down the line—is that in six months’ time, a year’s time, or two years’ time? When is it going to come?

[Michael Shanks]

First, the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about the issue that he has only just turned up to the debate. Secondly, he was a senior member of the Government for 14 years. If this was an issue that he cared about so much, why are we here debating it now? The truth is that the previous Government could have tackled this issue in a much clearer way. I will not follow him on that point.

As I said clearly in opening the debate, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here for, there should no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains. To deliver, we must work across Government and across the economy, because it is not just about the investments that Great British Energy makes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and then I need to finish.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not work in this area. To do anything, two criteria must be met, and they are only advisory. In the World Health Organisation, we had to prove that organ harvesting was not an “ethical organ transplant system”, and we cannot get to the supply chains, which are state-invented, state-imposed and disguised. I urge the Minister to give a commitment that he will listen to the argument in these two amendments.

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making, but the issues she rightly highlights, as other Members have, go much wider than Great British Energy, which the Bill sets up as a publicly owned energy company. Those issues are about the wider economy and investment across our supply chains.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I need to close. I am sorry.

In part, we are setting up Great British Energy because we want to deliver home-grown supply chains and an industrial strategy, in spite of the Conservative party having completely failed to deliver that for 14 years—in fact, it had a complete ignorance of how to build supply chains. Had it delivered on some of the supply chains in this country, we might not have to import so much. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can shout all they want; they know that they failed on this matter, and we are picking up the pieces.

For those Members who were in the debate, I want to respond to the points raised, in particular in the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one. We need to work across Government to tackle the problem throughout the economy. She asked for clarity on some of the points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together Ministers from across Government, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and my Department, to look at how we can collectively tackle the issue. There will be a designated leader within Great British Energy to drive this work forward. We will utilise the debarment list.

More broadly, we fully expect Great British Energy to do everything in its power under the relevant guidance and legislation to remove any instances of forced labour from supply chains. GBE must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.

This is an important debate on a Bill that was in our manifesto. It delivers the first new national publicly-owned energy generation company in 75 years. It is backed by the British public, and it will deliver jobs and investment all over the country. It will deliver the deployment of clean power. We will tackle the supply chains to ensure that jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE but across the economy. That is our commitment. I urge Members to support the Government’s position. In the 15 seconds I have left, I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am willing to work with Members across the House to tackle this fundamental issue, which is of extreme importance across the Government.

Great British Energy: Rooftop Solar Power

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Hundreds of schools, NHS trusts and communities across the UK will benefit from new rooftop solar power and renewable schemes to save money on their energy bills, thanks to a total £200 million investment partnership between Great British Energy and the UK Government, including the Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care.

In another step forward for the Government’s plan for change, the Energy Secretary has today, Friday 21 March, announced the first major project for Great British Energy—a company owned by the British people, for the British people. It will immediately begin working with schools, the NHS and the devolved Governments to install rooftop solar panels, build local clean power and bring down energy bills.

In England, around £80 million in funding will support around 200 schools. This could lead to lifetime savings of up to £140 million. Estimates suggest that, on average, a typical school could save over £25,000 per year.

Additionally, £100 million will be allocated to nearly 200 NHS sites in England. This covers a third of NHS trusts. The NHS is the single biggest public sector energy user, with an estimated annual energy bill of £1.4 billion. This has more than doubled since 2019. Great British Energy’s investment could save the NHS up to £260 million per year—up to £45,000 per hospital.

The first panels are expected to be installed by the end of summer 2025. This will save schools and hospitals money for the next academic year. There is also the potential to sell leftover energy back to the grid.

Schools and hospitals have been hit with rocketing energy bills in recent years, costing taxpayers millions of pounds and eating into school budgets. This has been driven by the UK’s dependency on global fossil fuel markets. Great British Energy’s first investment could see millions invested back into frontline services, targeting deprived areas, with lifetime savings for schools and the NHS of up to £400 million over around 30 years.

A further £9.3 million will power schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These projects can be a mixture of installations on public sector buildings, new community or local renewables projects, and other complementary technologies such as battery storage solutions. This funding has come from the budget allocated to GBE local delivery in the 2025-26 spending review, which has been apportioned between all four nations by population share. England has supplemented this with funding from existing budgets, including health and education. The devolved Governments may similarly choose to use this new funding alongside existing budgets to deliver ambitious new projects or expand existing schemes.

In addition, local authorities and community energy groups will also be supported by nearly £12 million to help build local clean energy projects—from community-led onshore wind to solar on rooftops and hydropower in rivers—that can help drive growth.

Great British Energy’s community energy fund will provide £5 million in grant funding to support community energy groups to develop their own clean power supply projects. These could generate profits that could then be reinvested into community projects or take money off people’s bills.

The UK Government will continue to fund the local net zero hubs in England, with a total of £6.8 million for existing hubs. These offer a free-to-use service for local authorities to access the expertise and resource to get clean energy projects up and running.

Great British Energy is also launching partnerships with strategic mayoral authorities. The metro mayors can apply for a share of £10 million to deliver clean power projects in every region of England.

We have been clear from the start that expanding support for local and community power is a core ambition for Great British Energy. This announcement demonstrates an immense commitment by Great British Energy and the UK Government to support local and community energy now and in the future. These schemes will deliver clean, secure, home-grown power for our core public services and local communities.

[HCWS543]

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

7. What recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030.

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

Our clean power mission will end our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, giving the British people the energy security they deserve and driving jobs and investment into our communities. We are already seeing the impact of the clean energy transition, with thousands of jobs being created across the country in CCUS—carbon capture, usage and storage—hydrogen and offshore wind, and more nationally significant solar power being approved in eight months than the previous Government managed in 14 years.

[Mr French]

The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?

[Michael Shanks]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the London power tunnels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited them recently and they are a fantastic example of engineering and of what we can achieve if we set ambitious targets in this area. I gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the wider point, however, as we are going to have to build infrastructure across the country to get the benefits of the renewable energy that we are generating, and battery storage is important for that. Of course communities have a voice through the planning system and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual applications, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must remember that we cannot simply block every infrastructure project that needs to be built. We need to build for the economic growth of the country and for our energy security.

[James Wild]

Once again the Minister has failed to answer the question about the cost estimate, but we do know that the Government’s dogma-driven 2030 target will drive up costs and that we will see pylons and substations imposed in Walpole in my constituency and across the country against the wishes of local people. That will damage our countryside and it relies on Chinese supply chains, which the Energy Secretary visited only over the weekend. When will the Government realise that their approach of ruling out underground options and attempting to buy off local communities on the cheap, rather than listening to them, will only drive opposition to their plans?

[Michael Shanks]

Once again, we hear from Conservative Members about all these grand plans that they wish they had done in the 14 years that they were in government. They could have moved forward on undergrounding if they were so keen on it, but of course they did not. The reality is that it is for individual companies, not us, to set forward the design of individual projects, and cost estimates for undergrounding are five or 10 times more expensive.

The bottom line on all of this is that the leader of the hon. Member’s party earlier today moved away from the commitments that she had made on net zero. Just a few years ago, she said that

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes”

can make it

“harder…to heat our homes”.

They recognised then the importance of this net zero transition; now they are running away from how we deliver on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas. Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?

[Michael Shanks]

The Select Committee Chair makes an important point. Along with the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), I am looking at all options, because it is important that we bring down bills and that we are building an energy system that protects us from the volatile fossil fuel markets in the future. There are trade-offs to be made when rebalancing that we need to be aware of, in particular whether a diminishing number of gas customers can pay bills if we were to transfer levies, but we are looking at all options and are, of course, looking at how we review with Ofgem the wider question of standing charges to make sure we bring down bills. My hon. Friend is right to say of the journey that we are on—and that the Conservative party used to be on, and on which there used to be consensus—that our transition to net zero is important for energy security and for the climate, but also for protecting bills in the long term.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

The Minister is clearly aware of the foolhardy decision by the Opposition to abandon the political consensus on net zero, but has he made an assessment of the cost to the consumer of pursuing that disastrous path, which would lock us into our dependence on polluting fossil fuels, volatile oil and gas prices, and the whims of foreign dictators?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that where once there was consensus in this country on how we tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, how we deliver the economic and industrial advantage, that consensus seems to have been splintered by the Conservative party. It was only two years ago that the leader of that party made an important point, which I agree with strongly, when she said

“if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.”

The Conservative party now wishes us to be on the backfoot, but we are determined that we will drive forward because that is the best policy for consumers, economic growth and energy security.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly. The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that. We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.

[Nick Timothy]

That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?

[Michael Shanks]

Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago. We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme on the living standards of the recipients of that pension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the development of large-scale solar farms.

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

Meeting our clean power mission will require a significant increase in the deployment of both ground-mounted and rooftop solar projects. As well as consenting record amounts of ground-mounted solar, we want to see a much greater deployment of rooftop solar power. We will soon publish the solar road map—work that started under the previous Government—to bring together our next steps in this area.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Government say that only 1% of agricultural land will be taken up by solar farms, but in the pipeline around Gainsborough 10,000 acres have already been put aside for solar farms, with another 4,000 announced a couple of weeks ago—up to 15% of my constituency, which is the most arable and most fertile in the country. I make one quite reasonable request of the Secretary of State: will he consider applications in the round rather than individually, and look at their cumulative effect on food production and the local environment?

[Michael Shanks]

Under even the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about their being holistically planned, the strategic spatial energy planning that we have taken forward is important in having a coherent view of the entire energy system. That is work that we should have done many, many years ago. We are now moving at pace to do it, but individual planning applications are—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Luke Murphy.

[Michael Shanks]

I think we have rehearsed the arguments about the absolute failure of the previous Government over the past 14 years. The Conservatives have just gone further back today. On GB Energy, I was delighted to be in Aberdeen yesterday to join the board of GB Energy for its first board meeting. The Bill will soon, we hope, complete its passage through Parliament. It can then get on with delivering for the British people.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T4.   I welcome the plans brought forward last week to provide money off for people living near new energy infrastructure. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another thing that the Conservatives promised, but never had the ability to deliver?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister may be aware that SSE is supporting more than 1,000 new homes in rural Scotland to aid energy infrastructure development. Does he agree that the SNP Scottish Government’s failure to get a grip on our rural housing crisis is a major barrier to infrastructure development, and will he urge SSE to expand the scheme into my constituency, where we have key projects around the communities of Killearn, Lochearnhead, Tyndrum and Crianlarich?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He underlines the importance not just of delivering on energy projects but the wider economic benefits from building infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that the Conservatives now oppose. He is right that in order to deliver these projects, we need to see investment in rural communities by the Scottish Government. We will continue to press them on those issues.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T9.   Kent county council plans to introduce 10,000 on-street car chargers over the next decade. To put that in context, Kent has a population of 1.6 million people. At this rate, Kent will have burned down by the time we all have electric on-street car charging. What can the Secretary of State do to speed this up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?

[Michael Shanks]

Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.

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

Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?

Viking CCS Pipeline: Development Consent Application

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Written Statements

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

This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Chrysaor Production (UK) Ltd for the construction and operation of an onshore underground pipeline for the transportation of CO₂ from Immingham to Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report, unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.

The statutory deadline for the decision on the Viking CCS pipeline is 5 March 2025.

I have decided to allow an extension and to set a new deadline of 5 June 2025. This is to allow time to request further information.

The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.

[HCWS498]