Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

Decisions on staffing levels and workforce structure are for Royal Mail. Collective redundancy legislation requires employers to consult employees or their representatives within a 90-day period, and that must include consultation on ways to avoid redundancies, reducing the number of redundancies or mitigating their impact. We want a resolution as soon as possible.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The previous Secretary of State admitted that he had ignored looking at a price mechanism for pump storage hydro because he viewed it as a Scottish technology. It is actually a vital form of energy storage going forward, so can I get a commitment today on a timescale for BEIS officials to speak to SSE about a pricing mechanism for generating electricity at Coire Glas?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is an effective campaigner for pump hydro storage and it is important to look at that. We are looking at all possibilities for maximising renewable energy.

Scottish Devolution Settlement: Retained EU Law

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of retained EU law on the Scottish devolution settlement.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, Mrs Murray, and I welcome the Minister to his new post.

Should this shambles of a Government manage to stumble on past the weekend, we are being told that their Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will come before the House on 25 October. The Brexit freedoms Bill, as the Government like to call it, will give UK Ministers unprecedented powers to rewrite and replace almost 2,500 pieces of domestic law covering matters such as environment and nature, consumer protection, workers’ rights, product safety and agriculture, and that will be done with the bare minimum of parliamentary scrutiny. It is, in short, an ideologically driven deregulatory race to the bottom that will do enormous damage to our society and our economy.

The Bill, taken in conjunction with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, will fundamentally undermine and alter the devolution settlement by giving primacy to UK law in areas that are wholly devolved, such as environmental health, food standards and animal welfare. Today, I thought it would be useful to consider the Bill to examine what it could mean for Scotland and for the devolution settlement. I believe that any objective analysis would see not only that it puts at risk many of the high standards and protections that the people of Scotland have enjoyed and come to expect from more than four decades of EU membership, but that it is part of the Government’s long-term plan to undermine the devolution settlement and weaken our Scottish Parliament.

Under the Bill, and with the 2020 Act already in place, any legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament could be undermined by a Government here in Westminster whom we did not elect, even in matters that are wholly devolved. I will give a few examples. In the area of food standards, if the Scottish Parliament decided that we would remain aligned with the European Union and would ban the sale of chlorinated chicken, but this place decided that cheap, imported, chlorine-washed chicken was acceptable, there would be almost nothing the Scottish Parliament could do to stop lorryloads of chlorine-washed poultry crossing the border, with that chicken then appearing on our supermarket shelves.

Similarly, if the UK agreed a trade deal that saw the UK flooded with cheap, factory-farmed, hormone-injected meat, but the Scottish Parliament decided to protect Scottish consumers and Scottish farmers by adhering to the standards and protections that we have up to now enjoyed, under the terms of the Bill—again, backed by the 2020 Act—Westminster could override that and Scotland’s supermarkets could be inundated with inferior-quality cheap cuts of meat that under existing EU law would get nowhere near our supermarket shelves.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that this is not just about standards? On farming and farmers, we have only to look at the trade deal signed by the UK with Australia and New Zealand, which allows them a higher quota for importing lambs to the UK than is allowed for the entire EU. The EU is protecting our farmers whereas the UK Government are throwing them to the wind.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is correct, and I will expand on his point in a moment.

This Government and the Bill are an existential threat to Scottish agriculture. Scotland could decide to stick to long-established best practice in the welfare and treatment of animals, and retain the stringent checks on animals entering the food chain. However, if this place decides to deregulate, animals whose provenance is unknown, and whose welfare history is unaccounted for, can and almost certainly will enter the food chain. Most worryingly, if the Government decide to change food labelling standards, Scottish consumers not only could be subjected to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef, genetically modified crops and animals of questionable provenance, but will probably not be able to tell what they are eating. The labelling regulations could be so diminished that the protections consumers now enjoy could be completely removed.

On Friday, I met with the Argyll and Bute regional board of the National Farmers Union Scotland. Its message was stark: farmers feel forgotten and undervalued. They have been battered by Brexit. They are barely surviving the energy crisis. At a time of falling incomes, they are at a loss as to how they will cope with the skyrocketing costs of feed and fertiliser.

Farmers know, too, that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is a potential death sentence for an agricultural sector that requires a hefty subsidy. It needs that subsidy because it manages the land, keeps the lights on in our hills and glens, provides employment in rural communities, and helps stem the tide of rural depopulation while producing high-quality, high-value beef, lamb and dairy products. They know—we all know—that the lowering of food standards, the relaxation of rules on labelling and animal welfare, and the mass importation of inferior products will be an unmitigated disaster for Scottish agriculture. They are also painfully aware, as we are, that there is precious little that their democratically elected Scottish Parliament can do about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) on introducing the debate. It is incredible, in an hour-and-half debate on such an important subject, that I am standing to sum up less than half an hour after it began. That shows a lack of care from many Conservatives, particularly the Scottish Tories.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, where are the Scottish Tories? They continually challenge the SNP when we talk about power grabs by the Westminster Government. They always ask us to name one power that has been taken away from the Scottish Parliament. As we have heard, this abolition of EU retained law is not a single power grab, it is a carte blanche undoing of devolution. It allows the UK Government to force standards in Scotland. When trade deals are signed and Westminster wants to diverge from the EU, the Internal Market Bill, for example, can be used to railroad and force those standards on Scotland. It is disgraceful that the Scottish Tories are not here to make a case for the Government and why they want to do this.

It could be argued that Scotland did not technically have full powers in all these remits because it was EU law, but the point of EU law in regulations is that it was agreed by member states. Scotland will no longer have the facility to keep EU retained law and that alignment, if the Westminster Government have their say. We have to remember that the EU single market is the biggest single market in the world. Why do the UK Government want to diverge from standards that allow access to the biggest market in the world? It makes no sense, but again it is a throwback to the British empire and bringing back British sovereignty. It is a falsehood—a fallacy.

We previously heard from Brexiteers that the good thing about being able to diverge from the EU is that we can improve environmental standards. I spoke last week in a debate about sewage discharges into watercourses and on beaches. Before coming to this place, I was a sewerage civil engineer, and I saw at first hand how the Tory Government back then resisted EU legislation to clean up beaches. The UK was known as the dirty man of Europe, and it is no surprise that, now that we have left the EU, the rest of the UK is having a problem with sewage discharges. It cannot be a coincidence. Given that you represent a coastal community, Mrs Murray, you must have concerns about water quality and the sewage discharges that this Government seem to be allowing.

Another Brexit falsehood is the so-called sea of opportunity. Fishing communities were told that they were going to benefit from Brexit, but unfortunately they were sold a pup, to mix my metaphors. That again is proof that whatever the Brexiteers promise never comes to fruition—they are just false promises.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, it is ridiculous that we are looking at overturning almost 2,500 pieces of legislation by some false 2023 deadline when we do not even have a functioning Government. That process is retained under the control of the Secretary of State. Previously, he was all about parliamentary sovereignty and scrutiny, but that seems to have gone out the window now that he is a member of the Cabinet. We only have to look at the Henry VIII powers inserted into the Energy Prices Bill on Monday to see that the Government are taking back control on one level—they are taking back control from MPs in the House of Commons. I have grave concerns about that.

As my hon. Friend said, this is about food standards and animal welfare. It is about maintaining standards and having checks in place. Another Brexit dividend is that we do not have enough vets because we have ended freedom of movement—it is ridiculous, and it just shows Brexiteers’ blinkeredness. As my hon. Friend said, this is an existential threat to Scottish agriculture. It is actually an existential threat to the devolution settlement.

On deregulation, I mentioned workers’ rights, and Frances O’Grady of the TUC has highlighted concerns about that. In his speech on the ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) attacked workers’ rights and said that the EU working time directive has allowed idleness. That is the attitude. I am sure you have read “Britannia Unchained”, Mrs Murray, which was co-authored by the Prime Minister, who attacked British workers for being lazy, idle and unproductive. That is the attitude at the top of the Government, so what hope do we have when EU retained law is completely abolished?

That brings me to the official Opposition. Of course, Labour has promised to make Brexit work. It is also in favour of a hard Brexit. It does not want freedom of movement or to be in the single market, so what does it stand for when it comes to EU retained law? What is Labour’s vision for the future? It seems to me that it mirrors the Tory vision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North rightly pointed out that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was forced on Scotland, but at the time we were reassured that the idea of retained EU law was somehow going to give us some continuity. It was going to give us protections, and it was shown that we were not going to diverge from the EU. Now the Government’s motives are absolutely clear: that was just another Brexit falsehood, and it is all about divergence and free market opportunities. Who cares about standards as long as it is a free market and prices come down? That is all they care about, not protecting workers’ rights, agriculture and food standards and hygiene.

Another silly example of this Government’s obsession with divergence from the EU is the weights and measures consultation. Why would we want to go back to imperial weights and measures? Scotland exports more manufactured goods to the rest of the world than to England, and weights and measures are important in that. Alignment with metric measurements is the way we do things. Why would we want to change? Last week, an article in New Civil Engineer magazine noted that using thumb measurements or inches might have been fine for a 16th-century carpenter, but today we have alignment with the biggest single market. Even the United States, despite being one of the few countries that still uses imperial measurements, aligns measurements for its exported goods with the metric system. Why would we want to go back on that? How much money would it cost to rip up what we do now? Again, it just shows the Brexit fantasy and falsehoods.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for raising this, because it is a fallacy that people would want to go back to those kinds of measurements. What the Business Secretary is trying to claim about going back to those measurements is just farcical. Could we perhaps talk about this matter in the bar tonight over 568 ml of beer?

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly flippant, but he makes a good point. That is the thing: the EU did not force the UK to go metric. It was done willingly. The EU allowed pints and other things to be retained as measurements because it was not about the EU imposing its will, but about a sensible way forward over alignment. Of course, it is a rare thing for me to enjoy a 568 ml drink—or a pint—but I might come back and do that at some point.

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman, who is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, telling us about Labour’s vision for making Brexit work, and why it will not align with the EU, why it does not want to rejoin the single market and why it does not want freedom of movement. I shall conclude there, because I really do want to hear from him and from the new Minister, whom I welcome to his place. Who knows how long he will be in his post, given the current chaos? I hope he will address these serious points and explain this Government’s rationale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The powers argument is a consequence of what the UK Government are trying to do. They want to get rid of all this EU law and this is the way they want to do it, so it is an ideologically driven piece of legislation and policy. The consequences of that are all the consequences he laid out in his speech.

There is one thing I want to say about power grabs. We have an argument—whether it be in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which is now on the statute book, or in this debate—where the Minister stands up and says, “This is a powers bonanza” and the SNP says, “It is a power grab”. It is probably neither, and it will depend on the decisions made by both Governments about what will happen, which is driven by the desire of the Scottish people. In the past few polls, nearly 70% of Scottish people want both Governments to work together. It surprises me that when the Scottish Government were talking about a power grab in the Internal Market Act, they were hiring all these new civil servants to deal with the new powers that were about to arrive. Of the 157 powers that have been repatriated from the European Union, 130 or 135 of them currently sit with the Scottish Government. These bland statements about power grabs and power bonanzas are rather unfortunate and are probably not of any use to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member about the consequences that could happen if decisions in Westminster are made in line with how we think they will be made. We only have to look at our inboxes over the past few weeks to see the emails from all the nature organisations, such as the RSPB, as the hon. Member mentioned, Greenpeace and others, which were apoplectic at the possible consequences for protections from this attack on nature across the whole of the UK. The Minister has to tell us the driving force behind this. I think the Minister or the Secretary of State said that the reason for this piece of legislation is that if it was not in place removing or amended outdated EU laws could take several years. I ask the Minister to give us an example—if we did not have this Bill—of a piece of EU law that would take several years to repeal. I bet he cannot give us one because it is just another line from the Secretary of State’s speech that makes no reference to the reality of the situation.

The key point is that we were all told at the Brexit referendum that EU law would be repatriated to the EU, but it would be the minimum standard and it would be built on. We seem to have a bonfire of regulation and a clumsy drive from this Govt and the previous two Conservative Governments since the EU referendum to rip up regulations and turn the UK into the Singapore of Europe. Rather than working in the national interest, it is always about what is in the party’s interests.

Hon. Members have asked some questions. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) rightly talked about the impact on devolution. All these things have an impact on devolution. Asymmetric devolution across the United Kingdom gives us these kinds of issues, and it is driven by a Government that wishes to create them. We have a situation where the UK Government and the Scottish Government want to rip up the devolution settlement. That is just a fact. Whether the Government realise it, every time they bring a piece of retained EU legislation to this House, they just give succour to the nationalists who wish to rip up the devolution settlement to deliver independence.

While we have just had a huge discussion about this Conservative Government wrenching the UK out of the European Union with a hard Brexit, we have the hard Scexiteers here, who want to do exactly the same. [Interruption.] They like that, don’t they? They are hard Scexiteers who wish to do exactly the same, and it is not my words: it is the words of the economic paper that the First Minister launched on Monday. There would be a hard border between Scotland and England for goods, services and probably people. They want to seamlessly rejoin the EU with a 12% deficit, using someone else’s currency with no central bank as a lender of last resort with no money. The paper itself has been trashed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was trashed by Robert McAlpine, who is a massive supporter of independence, who asks, “How do we get out of this crazy mess?” While we have a discussion about hard Brexiteers, we have three hard Scexiteers here—I will give way to one of them.

[Alan Brown]

I am trying not to bite here, but I will go back to the question I posed. The hon. Member mentioned a hard Brexit and said it is what the Tories are doing. Is it not the case that Labour favours a hard Brexit? The hon. Member has not mentioned why Labour is against re-joining the single market, nor defended why Labour is against freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member agree with the shadow Chancellor who thinks that the UK needs to process and deport people back to their countries more quickly? That seems to be the Labour view, and it is no different from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

That is more fantasy from the SNP. I find it strange that, when we have a Government on their knees bringing forward a piece of legislation that ultimately could undermine devolution, the main part of the hon. Member’s speech was an attack on the Labour party. That maybe tells us that our ascendancy in Scotland is worrying the SNP.

Let me say what would have happened. The hon. Member calls the Labour party hard Brexiteers; had the SNP not abstained on the amendment for the customs union it would have passed in Parliament—a matter of public record. The SNP spent less on the EU referendum than it did on the Shetland Scottish parliamentary byelection—to win 3,400 votes. The SNP asks about where we are as a country at the moment. It is perfectly practical for the Labour party, who wish to be the next Government, to try and make Brexit work. The first day that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) walks into No. 10 as the Prime Minister, he is going to face the circumstances of the day, not those that we may wish to find. The first task will be to make what we have got work, the second task will be to build and deepen that relationship with Europe, and the third task, which overarches all of that, is to do what is in the national interest. That is clear.

That shadow Chancellor was actually saying that part of the problem we have in this country with the immigration system is the Home Office not processing applications for asylum quickly enough, which leaves the massive backlog of tens of thousands that we have at the moment. If hon. Members had listened to what she actually said, that is what she was referring to—which I think is SNP policy? If the Home Office was processing applications in a timely manner, and in a humane way, we could get through applications much quicker, lessening those issues.

Where was I with the hard Scexiteers? I think we had gone through that. I will get on to some of the issues raised about what the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will do. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government’s plans are, because this is essentially a theoretical Bill about trashing, amending, or otherwise, EU retained law in this country. The Government always have those grand phrases, but they do not tell us what they are going to do. Can the Minister answer my first question: what would take several years if it was not in the Bill? Will the Minister give us an example about what he wishes to do with some of those regulations? I would be happy to listen to that.

The Labour party wants to use that platform to put in a new deal for working people. That is a prime policy example. That would give people workers’ rights from day one and it would build on EU regulations that we have already had. Incidentally, the UK has always gold-plated EU regulations. In fact, Conservative Governments have always gold-plated EU regulations. The Labour party would end fire and rehire and zero-hour contracts—is that part of the Government’s strategy? We would make work more family friendly and flexible. We would strengthen trade union rights, which would raise pay and conditions. We would roll out fair pay agreements, and we would use Government procurement to ensure that we could lift standards, pay, conditions and skills right across the country.

Our new deal for working people is a practical example of what we would do with regulations, rather than a Bill that says we will rip up every piece of EU regulation without saying what we would do instead, while, at the same time, undermining devolution.

I will ask one final, two-part question to the Minister. What discussions is he having with the devolved Administrations about the Bill, and about trying to achieve a consensus so that legislative consent motions can be passed? The Sewel convention—which was right—was put on a statutory footing under the Scotland Act 2016 by an amendment brought forward by the Labour party. We cannot just disregard that; the Sewel convention is clear that the UK Government will not legislate in devolved areas where they do not need to. If they do, a legislative consent motion must be positively passed by the Scottish Parliament—not the Scottish Government. What discussions is he having to make sure those legislative consent motions can come forward?

I am grateful that the debate has been brought forward, and that we have had the hard Scexiteers and hard Brexiteers arguing over the EU. However, yet again we have had a combined 37 minutes from three SNP Members, and they have not told us one iota about how they can get back into the European Union with the huge deficits they have, no currency, no central bank, no lender of last resort and no immigration policy—[Interruption.] Now they are claiming that I am slagging them off, but they spent a lot of their speeches slagging off the Labour party. I look forward to the Minister answering some questions, and maybe at some point in the future we will get some answers from the SNP as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Dean Russell)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I have to say, I have quite enjoyed this debate. I will respond to as many of the questions as possible. Given the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is likely to push to form a coalition with the SNP, I do not quite know how the divide that has been so clearly created today will be filled.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on securing this important debate. I am grateful to him for the opportunity to debate this very important topic ahead of the Second Reading of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. I look forward to continuing discourse with him, his SNP colleagues and others during the passage of the Bill. I intend to cover as many of the points raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) as possible.

I will start with a clear message: the Government are absolutely committed to the devolution settlements and to safeguarding the Union. It is our mission to deliver economic prosperity for every citizen in every part of the UK. As my colleagues are undoubtedly aware, the Government are committed to devolution and to working collaboratively and constructively with the devolved Governments. That is the way to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK. The people of Scotland rightly expect both the UK and Scottish Governments to work together and focus on the issues that really matter to them.

We have the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and global economic slowdown, which has created incredible challenges for the UK—for Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish citizens. The Government are committed to working towards economic and legislative solutions that work for the whole of the UK. Accordingly, the Government remain fully committed to the Sewel convention and the associated practices for seeking consent for the devolved legislatures.

Retained EU law, the subject of today’s debate, was brought on to the statute book as a bridging measure to ensure continuity as we left the European Union. It was never intended to sit on the statue book indefinitely. Its existence has created legislative anomalies that we must now address. On 31 January, the Government announced plans to bring forward the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. It is a culmination of the Government’s journey to untangle ourselves from nearly 50 years of EU membership, and it will provide the tools for the Government to fully realise the benefits of Brexit. We realise that those benefits for citizens are paramount, especially for businesses across all four great nations of the UK.

[Alan Brown]

Can the Minister actually explain the brilliant benefits of untangling the UK from EU legislation? What are those benefits?

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for asking that very clear question. There are many benefits. In fact, on the EU dashboard there are over 2,500 pieces of legislation that we can start to look at. The key point of this Bill is to create a framework to enable us to look forward at how we can get the best out of Brexit. It will affect every citizen across the UK, and the Bill will make sure that we are covering that. I will come to points raised earlier, if I may.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; I appreciate it. Please will he name one EU law that will be abolished that will benefit the lives of my constituents in Kilmarnock and Loudoun?

[Dean Russell]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. The key point about the Bill today is to talk about the framework, and what we are trying to ensure is that as the framework goes through, we will then be able to look at the individual pieces of regulation and legislation—all of those pieces that will then be looked at.

There are many, many, many, but I will not be drawn on the specifics today, because it is, of course, important that the conversation happens for the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Government, to make sure that we are getting the right output from this, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt that. However, I am sure that within the coming weeks and months we will have lots of conversations, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will himself be listening to many of them in the coming years.

[Alan Brown]

I will be listening.

[Dean Russell]

Thank you.

The Bill will abolish the constitutional and outdated special status that retained EU law currently has on our statute book by 31 December 2023. It will empower the UK and devolved Governments to amend, repeal and replace their retained EU law more quickly. It will also include a sunset date by which all remaining retained EU law will either be repealed or, if a decision is made to keep it, stripped of interpretive provisions associated with retained EU law, and assimilated. I noted the comment of the hon. Member for Glasgow North, being a fellow “Star Trek” fan; although I disagree with his analogy, I understood the concept of the Borg, which probably has not been mentioned in Parliament very often. The key point is that any retained EU law that we keep will be assimilated into domestic law.

The Bill will enable the Government and, where appropriate, the devolved Governments to take back control of the UK statute book. The powers in the Bill will enable swift reform of the laws—more than 2,500 in total—derived from the UK’s membership of the EU. Many of those laws are outdated; some are even inoperable or not fit for the UK’s economic circumstances. That is why reform is needed.

Without the Bill, there is a risk that retained EU law becomes an immutable category of law on the statute book. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 preserved EU laws as if they had effect in domestic law immediately before the end of the transition period following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It is manifestly sensible that we all have the power to repeal or reform those laws and that we do so without delay.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend has pre-empted a couple of paragraphs of my speech, because I was going to say that the consultation should consider the use of local referendums. I think that is one of the ways in which local consent could be indicated.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Not at the moment.

We want to ensure that the consultation considers the views of regional Mayors and local authorities, as well as the immediate concerns of those most directly affected. I also want it to consider the views of MPs, as well as the use of local referendums, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb). We will consult on the mechanism, but I can assure the House that any process of evidencing local support must be independent rather than directly by the companies themselves, and if evidence of appropriate local support for any development is insufficient, that development should not proceed. Local communities will have a veto, so I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) that if the people in his constituency do not want fracking, they will not have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

As the licensing of fracking and the planning process are devolved, I was not initially planning to participate in the debate, but given that the Government have effectively made it a motion of confidence in them, it is only right that we do so and outline the thoughts of the Scottish National party. No matter what the official Government line is, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), made it clear that the Tory Government are making this a vote of confidence in them. I oppose fracking, and the SNP Government have ruled out fracking in Scotland, producing an effective ban on it, so I agree fully with the motion in that respect. It is not for us to impose our views on what happens in England, but we will vote for the motion to show that we have no confidence in this utter, utter shambles of a Tory Government.

We have heard interventions on the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), from Tory MPs who say that they are opposed to fracking and want to represent the views of their constituents who oppose fracking, but that they will vote for the Government amendment and against the motion. That makes no sense. If they have any backbone, I urge them to vote for a ban on fracking.

[Richard Graham]

SNP Members are huge champions of local democracy, so does the hon. Member accept that if a local council were to support the idea of fracking, that does represent local consent? Does he agree that the support of the local council should be the crucial issue involved?

[Alan Brown]

That brings me to the point that I was going to make. If this is all about local democracy and democracy itself, why are the hon. Member’s Government making his MPs vote in a way that they say they do not want to vote? How can we trust them to implement some form of local democracy when MPs are getting forced to vote for the Government amendment against their will?

[Sammy Wilson]

At least the hon. Member is being honest in his speech. He has made it clear that the only reason why he is intervening on what he believes is an English issue is that this is a vote of no confidence in the Government. Surely he understands, therefore, why this ceases to be a debate about local democracy and where we get our gas from. This is all a bit of political playing by the Opposition.

[Alan Brown]

The political playing is by the Government, who have made the motion a vote of confidence in themselves, and are making their MPs vote in a way they do not want to. It is not the Opposition playing games—it is that lot over there.

[Christian Wakeford]

I was at Lancashire County Council when this issue first came to it seven years ago. It was rejected then and overruled by the planning inspector. Since then, we have seen that the public do not want it, councils do not want it, the Secretary of State’s Back Benchers do not want it, the leader of the Secretary of State’s council, I believe, does not want it, and Ministers do not want it—at least not in their own backyard. Who actually wants fracking? I cannot think of anybody.

[Alan Brown]

That is a good question, but it is more one for the Secretary of State. It is clear that he is in favour of it and is imposing his will on the rest of his party.

[Maria Caulfield]

I gently say to Opposition Members that many of us—as we have heard from a number of colleagues in the Chamber—do not support fracking, and if the Opposition want to win hearts and minds, the way to do it is not through political games and stunts such as this, which would introduce a Bill. There is no way that we can support the Opposition taking control of the Order Paper. If they want to be serious about fracking, let us have a serious debate on fracking. When the Government bring forward the motion, we will be able to vote, whether we support fracking or not. The way to do this is not to hijack the Order Paper and play political games with legislation.

[Alan Brown]

I have news for the hon. Member: if she votes for the amendment, she will be voting for the principle of fracking, no matter how she dresses it up.

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that anyone who votes for the Government amendment is voting for fracking. That is not correct. As he knows and you know, a vote for the Government amendment is a vote for the Secretary of State to bring back a definition of local consent for this House to vote on before any fracking can conceivably move forward. Can you, from the Chair, advise the hon. Gentleman of the truth of the matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us hope that there are no more devices like that. That is clearly not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has made his view known and it is on the record.

[Alan Brown]

It is great to hear Tory Back Benchers tying themselves in knots to argue about why they are voting for the principle of fracking.

Let me get back to local consent. The Government amendment refers to consulting

“regional mayors, local authorities and parishes”.

That is quite a vague concept and could open things up to cronyism and political machinations. However, I welcome the sentiment of the Secretary of State, who is now talking about local referendums. It is good to know that the Tory Government now believe in the principle of referendums for people to exercise their democratic right; I look forward to Scotland being able to implement that next year. I welcome that damascene conversion.

The Tory Government’s new-found enthusiasm for shale gas is not based on credible evidence. They have put forward arguments that it will increase energy security, that it is required because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and that we need to move away from our reliance on Russian oil and gas imports, but really they have arrived at a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is quite clear that the UK had minimal reliance on Russian imports and has already managed to eliminate the small percentage of oil and gas imports from Russia.

If the argument is that shale gas will reduce prices, that is quite clearly not true either. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—the then BEIS Secretary, now the former Chancellor—admitted that any shale gas would be an internationally traded commodity on the international market and that traders would determine prices. The only way that that will not happen is if there is another damascene conversion and if the Government are planning some sort of nationalised energy company that will frack the shale gas, control it and put it on the domestic market at low prices. Otherwise, it will be all about the international market.

The harsh truth is that there is not even enough firm evidence of the reserves available in the basins that can be used for extraction. Without that knowledge, any talk of increasing energy security and reducing imports is pure fantasy at this stage. Any talk of jobs or of boosting local economies also remains completely speculative—there is no evidence for it.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Our country is fortunate enough to have massive potential for the development and harnessing of renewable energy. Does the hon. Member agree that in resorting to fracking, the Government are essentially admitting that they have no interest in developing the skills, infrastructure, jobs or industries necessary for a green industrial revolution in this country?

[Alan Brown]

I agree. We have only to look at the renewable energy revolution that has happened in Scotland. Of course, for Scotland to fully embrace that potential, we clearly need the powers that come with independence and we need to get away from the decision makers on the Conservative Benches.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

At a time like this, I am thankful for devolution, because my Northern Ireland Assembly colleagues were able temporarily to prevent fracking in Northern Ireland by banning permitted development rights. Does the hon. Member share my concern that the Prime Minister is taking advantage of the cost of living crisis? Coupled with the removal of retained EU law, this policy risks environmental degradation across these islands and does nothing to sustainably manage the climate crisis or the energy crisis.

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. As I have said, the Government are trying to present a solution to a problem that does not exist, but which they are using to further their argument.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way; others would not. He may know that satellite data on fugitive emissions of methane in the United States shows that 5% of methane from fracking has leaked. As methane is 80% worse for global warming than carbon dioxide, that makes fracking worse than coal. How can anybody who is serious about net zero support fracking?

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point very well, and it is one of which we need to take cognisance. We have to doubt the Government when they say they are committed to net zero by 2030. We have to wonder how serious they are about that. They know that 2030 is a while away—it is future Governments away—so they can do what they want now, and pretend they are still in favour of abiding by that net zero commitment.

Even if we accept some of the Government’s arguments, the exploration and appraisal phases of a fracking site last for, roughly, between two and five years, so it is not possible that fracking can produce any sort of quick-fix solution to the problems that they think they are trying to solve.

If this Tory Government are so worried about people’s energy bills, they must ask themselves why they did a screaming U-turn on the so-called energy price guarantee this week. The Prime Minister had told us previously that she would prevent household energy bills from rising to an astonishing £6,000 a year, but presumably the UK Government now believe that—unfortunately for the majority of households in the UK—bills might rise to that level at some point after April 2023, when they are scrapping the guarantee. They may not think the bills will become that high, but the energy prices paper produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy contains an estimate of £4,400, and other papers produced this week speculate that average bills could easily hit £5,000.

Even if the Government introduce measures which they say will protect the most vulnerable, bills as high as that—allied with record inflation—will still cause misery to millions of people. These are, of course, households that have already seen mortgage rates and costs increase as a direct consequence of the Prime Minister’s ideological mini-Budget. Bad decisions made by the Government are already affecting household expenditure, and such measures are obviously not the solution. National Energy Action estimates that even under the current support scheme, with average household bills of £2,500, 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, and it is clear that if bills became much higher than that, millions more would be in that position. A year and a half ago, when the price cap set bills at an average of £1,100, constituents of mine were already struggling, and some were in fuel poverty. If the bills go up by much more, there will be misery for many. Fracking does nothing to help them in the here and now, and I urge the Government to start thinking about the support that they will have to provide to bring household energy bills down for people.

Other measures that should be taken include energy efficiency installation. The Government need to increase, massively, their commitment to upgrading homes to the target of EPC band C. Energy efficiency installation clearly reduces energy demand. It reduces reliance on gas, at least for energy generation, it brings down household bills, and it creates jobs.

As for energy security, it is not so long ago that the UK Government blocked the six years of onshore wind development. Given that onshore wind is the cheapest form of energy generation, they have arguably added costs to consumers’ bills. That form of electricity generation could have reduced reliance on gas, and on imports, in the UK, so why was onshore wind development banned? It is because some loud Tory Back Benchers were against wind turbines, and the Government used that—and some voices in the community—to argue that local consent for the turbines was not there. That was using a few people to destroy local democracy. In fact, it was local democracy in reverse: overturning offshore wind development across the UK was imposing the view of a few people in the shires, and elsewhere in the UK, and making energy more expensive for the rest of us.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main reason people are opposed to onshore wind is that it is extremely land-intensive? Compared with the area that 10 fracking pads would take up, 725 times more land would be required for windmills, which are of course a blot on the landscape.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for proving where he is on the whole climate change denial aspect. Studies and surveys show time and again that people are in favour of onshore wind, and we know that people are against fracking, so his argument is completely at odds with what the public think, and probably what his own constituents think.

On energy security and further reducing reliance on gas, the Government need to introduce a pricing mechanism for pumped storage hydro. Dispatchable energy is one way to hit peak demand. SSE already has all the permissions in place. The funding is there to build the Coire Glas scheme in the highlands. All that is needed is a funding mechanism. The predecessor of the Secretary of State said at an evidence session of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that the Government had not agreed a pricing mechanism and were not doing anything on it because it was a predominantly Scottish technology. I urge the new Secretary of State to get over that mindset, and to realise that pumped storage hydro is for the good of the grid and the good of the UK as a whole.

[Jamie Stone]

The bit of the jigsaw that would be helpful to both the Scottish and UK Governments is floating offshore wind production. We have the skills in Scotland for all parts of fabrication, and we have some of the mightiest oil platforms ever built. Surely that is the way forward. Finally, to repeat my point, electricity generated out at sea could be taken in and lead to the generation of green hydrogen.

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman, and I recommend that he reads the report by Landfall Strategy Group, which illustrates that Scotland could have 385,000 jobs created in the future by developing a green hydrogen strategy. That would certainly benefit his constituency. I have been up to the port in Eigg, and it is fantastic to see what its plans are for the future.

There is so much more that the Government can do. Fracking is not required, and it is not the answer to reducing people’s energy bills. It certainly will not do anything to help the transition to net zero. It is opposed by the majority of the public. Seemingly just a few people in the Government are trying to force their will on the rest of Parliament, and possibly these communities.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has brought a proposal to the House. There is clearly disagreement across the House on the issue, but at least he is opening up an honest debate on a very important matter.

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of criticisms of the Government’s general energy policy. I would like to know how the SNP will balance out energy security, given that it opposes nuclear, and oil and gas exploration.

[Alan Brown]

Scotland is already a net exporter of oil and gas, and the equivalent of our domestic electricity consumption is already generated with effectively 100% renewable energy. We export electricity, so it is clear that in terms of energy Scotland can stand on its own two feet. It is time that we are able to realise the benefits of being such an energy-rich country, because right now it seems to me that the broad shoulders of the UK are preventing us from realising the benefits that we should have.

The SNP has introduced a ban on fracking. We will not issue any fracking licences in Scotland. I would like to think that the UK Government will respect that aspect of the devolution settlement and not try to overturn what we are doing in Scotland. If they do so, it will add a further few percentage points to those who believe that independence is the future for Scotland.

Energy Prices Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman’s question goes to the heart of the matter, which is that, if it were not for this intervention, those businesses would have been facing very high costs. We are committed to a review after three months, which will look at those who are least able to alter their energy use and come forward with proposals to help them in due course. That is why this is so important, but because of the costs and the impact, it needs to be time limited.

Clauses 13 to 15 will introduce powers for the Secretary of State to allow the Government to take steps, including the giving of financial assistance, to respond to the energy crisis, and to designate other bodies to take action in support of such steps. The power to give financial support is a time-limited power, at three years and six months. This is essential for the delivery of the various energy price support schemes and the administrative tying-up of them at the end part.

Clauses 16 to 18 allow the Government to break the link between high gas prices and cheap low-carbon electricity. These measures will allow the Government to take decisive action, through subsequent regulations, for a payment administrator to obtain excessive revenues from low-carbon electricity generators. This temporary measure will help more fairly to reflect the cheap costs of low-carbon generation. Clause 18, which extends the contracts for difference scheme to existing low-carbon electricity generators, will grant such generators longer-term revenue certainty.

[Alan Brown]

I apologise if I missed it, but did the Minister explain clauses 13 and 14? How does he see clause 13 working in terms of giving the Secretary of State the power to spend up to £100 million on various schemes at any one time without a resolution in the House? What kind of measures does he envisage the Secretary of State entering into with such a power?

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this legislation lays out the remit of the Secretary of State, under the powers within the Bill, to intervene to protect businesses and consumers. That is its central aim.

Clause 19 ensures that the support schemes I have mentioned reach their intended beneficiaries. The requirement to pass on energy price support will help to ensure that tenants and other end users receive the support they need. Clause 20 will make amendments to the existing price cap legislation to support the delivery of the energy price guarantee. The clause will ensure that Ofgem continues to calculate the cap level to determine what it costs an efficient energy supplier to provide a household with gas and/or electricity. In response to the points made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), this will not determine the prices that households pay, but it will enable the Government to identify what level of support is needed to deliver the prices in the energy price guarantee. So it has a different purpose, but a useful one, in delivering the EPG. Finally, clauses 21 to 23 provide the power to enable the Secretary of State to modify energy licence conditions urgently, as necessary, and give directions to support the response to the energy crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

We think that most of what is new clause 18 is unexceptionable as far as information that is required. We do not think that all this has to be or should be resolved within one month, as is proposed; getting all that information on the table about the profits and turnover of companies over the next two years is a better way to do this.

[Alan Brown]

New clause 18 is about extending support, because the Government today withdrew that support. It was supposed to be a two-year support package but as of today consumers are receiving support for only six months, not two years. Surely the hon. Gentleman should support consumers getting additional support. On the analysis of fuel poverty levels and protecting the most vulnerable, why does Labour not want to vote to protect these people and make the Government have to come to this House to report on what their policies are doing to fuel poverty?

[Dr Whitehead]

We want to get everything on the table that will be germane to decisions that may have to be made after six months about what to do, particularly about windfall levies and various other such things. That is what new clause 8 concentrates on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am largely supportive of the Bill, as there is an urgent need for assistance to be delivered at speed to hard-pressed families and businesses, but it is important to avoid any unintended negative consequences for other key Government objectives, in particular energy security, the transition to net zero and the full deployment of renewables and low-carbon forms of energy production.

My constituents urgently need the support that the Bill will provide, but to regenerate the local economy and create long-term, well-paid jobs, we need investment in offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen. There are exciting opportunities in the sector throughout east Anglia, and specifically Waveney and Lowestoft, although certain clauses in the Bill raise worries that such investment could be imperilled. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay that unease. The Government are not pursuing a windfall tax on renewables and nuclear generators because they are worried that it would deter investment. Some of the mechanisms proposed in the Bill could have a similar negative impact, and it is important that further clarification is provided quickly. I will briefly outline three specific concerns.

Clause 16, along with schedule 6, introduces the cost-plus revenue limit, which is a cap on the revenue of low-carbon energy generation. There is a worry that this mechanism could penalise investment in clean, cheap and low-carbon generation. To avoid that, there is a need for a reinvestment allowance to channel investment into low-carbon projects, which are needed to meet our net zero and energy security targets, and which will also provide the long-term route map out of the cost of living crisis.

Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to modify the licences under which energy companies operate. Currently, the regulator Ofgem determines licence conditions. This is an arrangement that works well and has the confidence of investors. Further clarification is required as to the Government’s intentions, and consideration should be given to providing a definitive timeframe through a sunset clause for how long this provision will be in place.

Clause 19 sets out the arrangements for passing on the energy price support from generators to end users. There is a concern that the Bill as drafted does not properly take into account the fact that generators do not all operate in the same way and that they incur differing operational costs.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister can allay these concerns. I urge the Government to liaise and consult with all relevant stakeholders, including energy companies and civil society organisations, to avoid these unintended consequences, which could imperil energy security, decarbonisation and economic regeneration in coastal communities such as Waveney.

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). I very much expect that the Minister will not listen too much to my suggestions, but I hope he will listen to at least some of hon. Gentleman’s suggestions for making sure that we do not disincentivise investment in renewables and for amending some of these overreaching powers.

I would like to put on record my thanks to the Chairman of Ways and Means for selecting our manuscript amendment, new clause 18, which was obviously tabled in response to the Chancellor’s shock announcement this morning at 11 am that the UK Government’s flagship energy price guarantee policy, which we were told would last for two years, will now end in April 2023. People are already worried about the cost of living and the cost of the energy crisis, even with the support currently pledged, so many millions more will now be even more worried.

When the Chancellor gave his statement to the House later, he committed to at least some form of Treasury review in a modified scheme to protect the most vulnerable, but that in no way negates the merit of new clause 18. Given the mistakes and the recent track record of this shambles of a Government, it is surely in the House’s interest to set the parameters of a review and the considerations required for a new scheme post April 2023. The shadow Minister said that 28 days is too short a timeframe. I would argue that it is more than time enough for a Secretary of State to report back to Parliament and try to give households some certainty going forward.

[David Linden]

We can normally get through a Chancellor in 28 days, so it is ample enough time for the Government to come forward with a review.

[Alan Brown]

It is a fair point and, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier, Labour Members also have a new clause, which they want to push, calling for a report to Parliament in 28 days, so it seems to be a timeframe that we can all agree on.

New clause 18(2) would mandate the Government to assess what average household bills will look like when the pledged support scheme ends next April. I appreciate that estimating future energy bill increases is not an exact science, but the Government should be able to come up with an indicative price range, which should also give a look-ahead at the supposedly two-year support period of the so-called energy price guarantee. This is an important exercise, because it was the Prime Minister who told us that the two-year policy would stop average bills hitting £6,000 a year. As I said earlier, the explanatory notes for the Bill state that these mitigations will prevent so-called average bills of £2,500 from rising to £4,200. That means that, without further support, average household energy bills will, on the evidence before us and according to this Government, rise to something like £4,200 to £6,000 per annum. How on earth is that affordable? Clarity is required urgently.

New clause 18(2)(b) is all about analysing fuel poverty statistics. Now, when I mention fuel poverty statistics, we need to remember that these are not statistics but real people we are talking about—people who cannot afford to heat their homes; people who might not even be able to turn on their cooker and heat their food; parents skipping meals; people with health conditions that are made worse because they are having to live in a damp house; terminally ill people who are having to move out of their homes and are unable to die in dignity in their homes because they cannot afford to heat them; people on prepayment meters who are building up their standing charge debt because they cannot afford to put money in them. That is the reality of fuel poverty. That is why I want the Government to assess and report on the reality of their policy decisions during this cost of energy crisis.

Fuel poverty statistics lag behind real time: it takes time to analyse the statistics and then bring them through. The cost of energy has gone up so quickly that past fuel poverty statistics are effectively meaningless. National Energy Action estimates that, even with a £2,500 average bill put in place, some 6.7 million households will end up in fuel poverty. We need to understand how much worse that will get across the United Kingdom. I suggest that if the Government wish to make an informed decision about what future support packages will look like and how they will actually support the most vulnerable, they should be the ones to undertake the assessment.

That feeds directly into subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d), which are about, first, assessing the merit of extending the universal scheme as it was originally intended and, secondly, looking at a more targeted approach. The key to subsection (c) is ensuring that we have no further increases in fuel poverty. Given that we are still saying that 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, that is an extremely tame target. The real target should be the eradication of fuel poverty, which is why I am willing to support many other amendments on the Order Paper, particularly from other parties, on energy-efficient installations and the upgrading of homes to EPC band C, which is a UK Government target. There should be greater investment in energy efficiency measures, and truly upgrading homes will reduce bills, reduce the energy demand and of course create additional green jobs.

Given how damaging fuel poverty is, and that the Government have not made clear what future support will look like, I cannot believe that the Labour party is not willing to support manuscript new clause 18 and try to force the Government’s hand to provide information to Parliament so that we know the real impact of the cost of energy crisis.

Amendment 16 is about support for off-grid homes. Earlier, I highlighted that a one-off payment of £100 for alternatively fuelled properties is insufficient. Liquid fuels have increased in price from 30p a litre to more than £1 a litre, which is three times more expensive. People cannot afford to fill their fuel tanks. They have to lay out a minimum of £500 to £600 for a delivery. If they do not have that cash, they do not get it—they do not get credit. Filling a tank costs about £1,200 once VAT is included. Why do the Government think that a one-off £100 payment is sufficient?

One of my constituents lives in an off-gas grid property. He rightly observed that the energy price guarantee is being paid for by the general taxpayer, because it comes out of borrowing or taxpayers’ money. That means that off-grid customers are effectively subsidising people on the gas grid who are getting a bigger support package. Four million households are effectively subsidising 28 million households, which actually have cheaper fuel bills. It is an incoherent policy, which is why we brought forward amendment 16, but I would also support any other proposals that would make the Government support those who live in off-gas grid properties.

I wrote to a previous energy Minister about regulation of off-grid fuels for properties. The answer I got was that we do not need regulation; the market will take care of itself. That in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is like for people in rural properties who cannot shop around. Generally, there is only one supplier in the area, so it gets to set the terms and conditions and the prices of the fuel that people buy. The Government need to look at regulation of those fuels as well.

Amendments 10, 11, 14 and 15 are about giving Parliament a greater level of scrutiny and approval. It is about ensuring that proposals are implemented under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which puts all the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. I tried to point this out to the Secretary of State who, as a Back Bencher, was all about Parliament sovereignty, but now that he is in the Cabinet he is yet another hypocrite who is quite happy to take Henry VIII powers and other unparalleled powers for himself. [Interruption.] I said hypocrite, yes.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Who were you referring to?

[Alan Brown]

The Secretary of State.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

No.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Okay, I withdraw my remark about the Secretary of State being a hypocrite, but he has certainly changed his mind about parliamentary sovereignty. I will try to make sure that I do not stray again, Mr Evans.

Given the wide-scale nature of these measures and the criticality of support measures—measures that, as we have heard today, the Government have already reneged on—it is critical that Parliament has its say on proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I addressed new clause 1 in my remarks at the beginning of the Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but if he was, he should have paid attention, and if he was not, I suggest he should have been.

I turn to amendments 16, 6 and 9 and new clauses 12 and 10 regarding consumers who are off the gas grid. Amendment 16 seeks to establish a domestic fuel reduction scheme in Great Britain for off-gas grid homes. The Government are providing a set payment to such homes through the alternative fuel payment scheme. There has been a lot of attention on off-grid homes.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman has just shown why no one in the Chamber wished me to give way to him, other than himself.

The Government have committed to delivery of the payment this winter. Requiring that payment to be made directly to consumer bank accounts would significantly slow this down. Similarly, new clause 10 would require the Government to implement a heating oil voucher scheme for households in Northern Ireland. Again, that would significantly slow down delivery, so one of the challenges that we have had in engineering the various programmes is to make sure—

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

In the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman is succinct and will be welcomed by the Committee, I give way to him briefly.

[Alan Brown]

I am grateful. Our amendment 16 echoed the language that is in the clauses on the electricity and gas support mechanism by stating:

“The Secretary of State may establish a domestic fuel reduction scheme…for off gas grid”

properties. It does not compel the Government to do anything; it just gives them the power to do that. Why will the Minister not accept that simple amendment, which states that the Secretary of State “may establish” that scheme?

[Graham Stuart]

There are many statutes that include the word “may” from which we can take it that the Government will do what is set out. I am pleased to say that it is absolutely our intention to ensure that those off grid are treated comparably to those on grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Obviously, we did not vote against the Bill and we will not do so on Third Reading either. We recognise that people need support, but the Government need to recognise that people need even more support after today as the Chancellor has pulled what was meant to be a two-year support package. We should bear in mind that the Prime Minister said that the £2,500 average bill support package was supposed to stop energy bills for households rising to £6,000 a year. By default, today’s decision by the Chancellor means that if there is no further support the average household bill will, according to the Prime Minister, rise to £6,000. That is unsustainable and that is why we tabled new clause 18. It is imperative that the Government come back with a support package and clear analysis that shows that they understand the gravity of the situation.

I would be happy to work with the Government, but although the Secretary of State was kind enough to thank everybody for their contributions I did not hear many takeaways for improvements to the Bill, to be honest, but I hope that that will change as we go forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Energy Prices Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I will come to that, but the intention is that the support should be equivalent to that for people on the grid.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Talking about an average household bill of £2,500, the Prime Minister said that the measures would stop people paying £6,000 on average, but the explanatory notes to the Bill estimate that the measures will save people from bills reaching £4,200. Given that the support will end in April, what can people who, after April, will not be receiving any support expect to pay for an average household bill?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Bill is setting the immediate support, which will run until April. The Government are reviewing how to ensure that support is more targeted in future, but there is no question that there will be support, and the Bill provides the powers for that. It is important to emphasise that bills will still depend on usage. That is why I am grateful for the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who has emphasised the advantages of a prudent use of energy benefiting all users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Obviously everybody in the House welcomes any measures that will help people with the cost of energy crisis, but it beggars belief that this emergency legislation is being rushed through Parliament today, yet at 11 o’clock this morning the Chancellor pulled the rug from under it by saying that the support package will be not for two years, but for only six months.

It was only last week that the Prime Minister’s robotic response to any question put to her was “Energy price guarantee for two years.” She stated that her measures would prevent households from paying more than £6,000 in energy costs in future. If the energy support package is to be pulled in April, what will the average future household bill look like? The Government say that they will bring in support to help the most vulnerable, but people need to know what their bills will look like. This is scaring millions of people, and the Government need to get a grip. When will we know what their support for the most vulnerable will look like? Will they give proper consideration to alternatives such as social tariffs?

The Secretary of State was very clear in spelling out that the so-called guarantee is just a price cap per unit of energy, and that £2,500 is just an estimate for an average household. It is just a pity that the Prime Minister did not understand that: when she was doing media rounds for the Tory party conference, she kept saying that households would not pay more than £2,500. Her rhetoric was dangerous and misleading. Unfortunately, some families might have the wrong impression of the household bills they will pay, because the Prime Minister did not understand her so-called flagship policy.

Even as we talk about limiting average bills to £2,500, we need to remember that just a year and a half ago the cap was set at £1,100, so energy bills for everybody are more than doubling. That is really difficult for people to deal with, and other costs are going up as well. Although the Government talk about an average bill of £2,500, it has been estimated that in Scotland the average household will pay £3,300, which is really difficult for people to manage. In Argyll and Bute, one of the most rural communities, the average dual fuel bill will be £4,400. Families are really struggling. National Energy Action estimates that 6.7 million households in Great Britain will be in fuel poverty even with the support package that the Government have announced, so we have really big concerns about what fuel poverty will look like when the package is lifted in April.

Off-grid homes in rural Scotland and in rural Great Britain will suffer even more and will have to pay much higher costs, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out in his intervention. The Secretary of State says that he will provide workings for the one-off £100 payment, but no matter what workings he provides, £100 will not be enough for people to deal with the increased cost of filling their oil or liquefied petroleum gas tanks.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know what calculations have been done in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland the regulator has estimated that to give equivalence, there would have to be a payment of £500 per consumer. There needs to be greater transparency about that.

[Alan Brown]

I have not seen that figure, but I agree that it seems more realistic. The reality is that the minimum delivery for a fuel tank costs £500 to £600, and completely filling a fuel tank costs £1,200. The cost per litre has gone up from about 30p to more than £1. It is a crippling cost, and there is no way that £100 will do anything to help people in the circumstances.

It is fair to say that it is effectively Scotland that is paying for the support packages. First, the oil and gas windfall tax was clearly about the revenues from the North sea, and now the new measures are being charged to Scotland’s renewables sector. At the time, we challenged the Government to consider that in investment tax write-offs for the oil and gas sector, investment in renewables should be part of the deductible policy. That was ignored.

Unless the detail of the cap revenue mechanism is examined properly, there is a risk that future investment in renewables will be put in jeopardy. Bizarrely, as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), said, we will incentivise people to invest in fossil fuels rather than renewables, which is certainly not the way to bring down bills. Another disparity between the Bill and the oil and gas profits levy is the time specified in the sunset clause: for the oil and gas profits levy, it is only two years. We need to ensure that we do not disincentivise investment in renewables.

The Bill gives too much power to Ministers, with not enough parliamentary scrutiny. At one time the Secretary of State was a so-called champion of parliamentary scrutiny, but now that he is in the Cabinet he seems quite happy to take on parallel powers for himself, including the ability to spend sums of up to £100 million without any approval from the House. Even beyond £100 million, if he feels that it is too difficult to get a resolution of the House, he can still justify spending that much. That is hardly parliamentary sovereignty.

We need to know much more about how the revenue caps will be set. What assessment has the Secretary of State made in respect of hedging? He touched on the fact that a lot of energy has been sold forward. How will the Government deal with that? How will they deal with multiple ownership structures? What discussions has he had with the sector?

We welcome support for consumers, but given the Chancellor’s announcements today, there is clearly not enough. There is too much uncertainty for business. There is too much power in the Secretary of State’s hands. I would like to think that he will agree to amendments in Committee that would return a bit of power to Parliament and to this House, because we know he really believes in that. However, this shambles shows yet again that to go forward, what the people of Scotland really need is independence, proper utilisation of oil and gas revenues, and investment in a truly green future.

Energy Update

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The only aspect of this rehashed statement to welcome is the acknowledgment from the Minister that the current proposals are insufficient to avoid a catastrophe. What we should be getting today is a proper updated statement on energy security and a net zero update that would reflect additional investment in renewables such as pumped storage hydro, Peterhead carbon capture and storage, what is happening with the Rough gas storage facility, the decoupling of renewables from gas, and grid upgrades.

The reality at the moment is that 6.5 million households are in fuel poverty, and if the energy cap increase goes ahead as planned, then 9 million households will be in fuel poverty. What is the Minister’s red line for the acceptable number of households that will be left in fuel poverty? What does he say to the businesses that have had no support to date? Does he agree with Make UK, which says that 60% of manufacturing businesses are now at risk? What assessment has he made of the impact on agriculture and the food and drink industry, and does he agree that the tax cuts proposed by the incoming Prime Minister will adversely help the rich and do nothing for the lowest-paid workers? The incoming Prime Minister has talked of scrapping the green levy. Has he explained to the incoming Prime Minister that there is no single green levy, and that doing so would not actually be a solution for reducing household bills?

On nuclear, will the Minister confirm that Hinkley Point C is now nearly 50% over budget and is years late, and that EDF now wants a delay to the payment start dates? For Sizewell C, will he confirm that the upper estimate for construction and finance is £63 billion? That is £63 billion to be added to bill payers’ bills, and it will not actually reduce energy bills in the future. In 2019, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s estimate for the nuclear clean-up cost was £131 billion. When will we get an updated figure? Surely that in itself indicates that we need to end this nuclear folly and madness.

Finally, does the Minister agree that his Government need to introduce a freeze in the energy cap and urgent support for businesses, and to review budget allocations to councils and devolved Governments, so that energy cost pressures on schools, the NHS, transport and care services can be properly funded during this time of emergency?

[Greg Hands]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his ability to squeeze in so many questions. On additional investment in renewables, the Government are moving to annual allocation rounds on our renewable options. That is a strong achievement. The Government have invested a huge amount in renewables, particularly through the contracts for difference system, which I would urge him to support. He will know that we made an announcement recently on where we are with Centrica and Rough gas storage, and that continues to proceed.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that fuel poverty is a devolved matter, so he may wish to have a word with the Scottish Government, which I have reason to believe he may be close to. He also mentioned businesses, and I remind him that the cost of energy for businesses is right at the top of the in-tray of our new Prime Minister. He mentioned the food and drink sector, and I am sure that is also the case for that sector. He asked about tax, and that will be a matter for the Treasury and for future announcements.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned nuclear budgets, and I am getting a bit fed up with the SNP’s obsessive anti-nuclear behaviour. It is exactly that kind of no-saying that got us into the problem of not having enough nuclear power in this country. Thankfully, earlier this year the Prime Minister rectified that with the British energy security strategy, making sure that we get to 24GW of nuclear power by 2050. As for the cost of Hinkley Point C, the hon. Gentleman will find that the strike price, which was negotiated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and by me, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, compares very favourably with energy prices today.

Finally, I think I heard a complaint from the hon. Gentleman about budget allocations to councils, which was extraordinary, coming from the SNP. It is the party that has been hammering council budgets in Scotland, and then expecting them to collect the rubbish with vastly decreased levels of budgetary contribution. I again urge him to have a word with his friends in Edinburgh who are running the Scottish Government, to see whether they might be able to do something to improve the budget allocations for Scottish councils.

Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. This year, we have witnessed an extraordinary and global increase in the cost of energy. The Government recognise that millions of households across the UK need further support with the cost of living this year, which is why we announced additional support worth over £37 billion, including targeted help for those on the lowest incomes.

In that context, the energy company obligation, or ECO, scheme remains key to tackling fuel poverty and helping low-income households with their energy bills. In the sustainable warmth strategy 2021, the Government committed to extending, expanding and reforming the scheme in line with our statutory fuel poverty target. Since 2013, the ECO scheme has ensured much-needed support for low-income households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Over the last decade, since it began, it has delivered over 3.5 million energy efficiency and heating measures to around 2.4 million households.

The draft order provides for that expanded and reformed energy company obligation scheme in Great Britain until March 2026, and therefore succeeds the previous energy company obligation order in Great Britain. Its main provisions are, first, the scheme’s extension by four years, to 2026, and expansion from around £640 million to around £1 billion per annum. Secondly, there is an increased focus on support for low income and vulnerable households in the least efficient homes. Thirdly, mandatory minimum energy efficiency improvements will be required. Under the scheme, those in energy performance certificate bands F and G—the least energy efficient homes—will be improved to a minimum band D. B and D and E homes, in turn, will be improved to a minimum band C.

Fourthly, the introduction of a new minimum requirement will see at least 150,000 energy performance certificate band E, F and G private-tenure homes upgraded. Fifthly, the solid wall minimum requirement will ensure that solid wall insulation is installed in at least 90,000 homes. The draft order introduces minimum insulation requirements for all homes receiving any heating measure, subject to certain exceptions, to encourage a fabric-first approach. Broken boiler replacements will continue to be limited but available under the scheme, capped at 20,000 homes, to encourage the transition to renewable heating and align with the Government’s long-term plan for reaching net zero.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I understand what the Minister says about capping the number of gas boiler replacements, which will transition us away from reliance on fossil fuels, but what happens if that cap is reached? How will costs and alternative solutions be managed for other customers who have broken-down gas boiler systems?

[Greg Hands]

If I understood the hon. Gentleman’s question correctly, it is about dealing with people who have no choice but to have a new gas boiler, and what the cost of that might be. We recognise that some homes will not be suitable to be upgraded to something like a heat pump. That is one of the reasons that we are putting these measures in place: to ensure that funds are available to help those who need a boiler upgrade. However, we are saying that ensuring that that is available is not the priority of the Government going forward. The priority is to align with our net zero requirements and make sure that people can be upgraded to heat pumps wherever possible.

[Alan Brown]

What is to prevent companies taking the easy option of the gas boiler replacement to get up to the 20,000 threshold? I am trying to see what checks and measures are in place to make sure that gas boilers are installed only when they are really required and other options have been exhausted.

[Greg Hands]

It would be a matter for the supplier to make sure that the energy efficiency upgrade is carried out in accordance with the scheme and Government policy. It will ultimately be a matter for the supplier under the ECO4 regulations. The Government will of course speak with suppliers to ensure that they are delivering according to the Government requirements. What we are saying is that we are not encouraging gas boiler upgrades, but that if there is no other available source of heat and a consumer is vulnerable, there should be the possibility of upgrading the gas boiler.

The scheme’s eligibility criteria are reformed, placing greater focus on households on the lowest incomes. Households in receipt of means-tested benefits will continue to be eligible. The proportion of a supplier’s obligation that can be delivered under the flexible eligibility element of the scheme will increase to 50%. Under that, multiple options are introduced to encourage improved targeting of low-income and vulnerable households that may not be in receipt of benefits. Those flexible eligibility provisions will enable local authorities, energy suppliers, Citizens Advice and the NHS to work together to identify households vulnerable to the effects of living in a cold home.

A new scoring framework will apply to incentivise multiple measure delivery, along with a series of score uplifts to steer measures and delivery where they are needed most. Installation quality will be governed under the Government-endorsed TrustMark compliance and certification framework. As part of that, the quality of installations, alongside a whole assessment of the property, will continue to rely on independent industry standards, the publicly available specifications PAS 2030 and PAS 2035.

The impacts will be as follows. Thanks to the reforms, we estimate that some 800,000 measures will be installed in around 450,000 homes. Of those 450,000 homes, around 360,000 will be upgraded to EPC bands B and C, removing those households from fuel poverty. We will continue the Government’s excellent record of improving the energy efficiency of people’s homes. The percentage of homes in Great Britain in energy efficiency bands A to C has risen under this Government from 10% to 46% of the total housing stock. That is a quadrupling of the number of homes in the most energy-efficient categories.

Those measures are expected to save £300 on average over the lifetime of the measures and up to £1,600 for those living in the least energy-efficient homes. However, those savings could average around £600 next winter, given future prices—or prices according to the futures market, I should say. That will provide crucial, long-term help when it is needed most this coming winter. To help deal with what might seem to be a gap between the ECO schemes—between the end of the ECO3 at the end of March this year and the start of the ECO4—the order permits measures installed since 1 April to count toward the suppliers’ obligation target.

Those measures are split into two elements. First, there is interim delivery for measures installed between 1 April and 30 June—so over the last three months—to slightly amended ECO3 rules. Secondly, there is early delivery for measures installed to the new rules. Nearly 33,000 measures have already been installed since 1 April. The fact that there might appear to be an interregnum between the ECO3 and ECO4 schemes is no cause for concern. The 33,000 measures have been introduced in those three months will be accounted for either in the ECO3 scheme for the interim delivery or early delivery under ECO4 in that seamless process.

The Government held a consultation on the reforms last summer and published a response in April. The majority of consultation responses supported extending and expanding the scheme as well as the proposals for reform. Government are proceeding with the main proposals, with some key changes in the light of the response received and the final impact assessment. One change is that we have increased the minimum requirement for bands E, F and G from 100,000 to 150,000 private tenure homes.

More of the least energy-efficient properties must be upgraded, focusing more help on those with the highest energy bills. We are providing extra incentives for the installation of measures in rural off gas grid areas in Scotland and Wales, which will be of particular interest to Members representing rural parts of Scotland and Wales. Wales has the largest percentage of homes off the gas grid, and that is the subject of frequent questions to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) and for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams). They are specific measures in place to help rural homes that are off the gas grid in Scotland and Wales.

England has the separate home upgrade grant, so is covered by an existing scheme. That will account for the extra costs of delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Greg Hands]

I know that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, on behalf of every person in rural Scotland, is about to stand up and welcome the extension for rural homes off the gas grid in Scotland.

[Alan Brown]

I welcome the uplift and the recognition that Scotland and Wales have more homes off the gas grid. How does that impact on the overall budget allocated to Scotland and Wales? By their very nature, they have a greater need, which is recognised. Has the overall budget envelope increased for Scotland and Wales, or is it still done on a per capita basis?

[Greg Hands]

The scheme is Great Britain-wide. One of the key responses from the consultation was to ensure that, wherever possible, the rules across Great Britain are made the same. Exceptionally, Northern Ireland has its own electricity market. On the extra incentives for the installation of measures in rural areas off the gas grid, I will find out for the hon. Gentleman if there is a specific budget allocation—[Interruption.] There is no specific budget allocation set per nation. He will see that the policy is designed to help. We recognise that rural Scotland and Wales are off the gas grid and not eligible for the home upgrade grant—there ought to be devolved equivalents in Scotland and Wales for that. That is why we have taken the action that we have.

The repair of efficient or inefficient oil and liquefied petroleum gas heating systems will be allowed as a last resort in homes that are off gas grid and where it is not possible to install low-carbon heating measures. That will help to ensure that people are not left without a functioning heating system.

The energy company obligation scheme remains important to support low income and vulnerable households to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and help reduce the energy bills of an estimated 450,000 households. The Government can take great pride that we are providing real help and energy efficiency measures for low-income and vulnerable households, as we have for the last nine years and will for the next four. The order extends and expands the scheme, focusing on the lowest-income households living in the least energy efficient homes. The scheme remains a key contributor to meeting our fuel poverty and carbon reduction goals and is consistent with the heat and buildings strategy and the transition to net zero. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I broadly welcome ECO4. With that welcome however, and as is my wont, I do have a few “buts”. Picking up on the shadow Minister’s theme, what has been the reason for the delay in the Government in bringing this forward? They knew years in advance that ECO3 was going to finish. The design of the ECO4 scheme was welcomed by industry, so why was it not brought forward quicker?

Paragraph 3.1 of the explanatory memorandum confirms how critical the timeframe now is: the instrument comes into force the day after it is made. That shows that it is a good job that there are not going to be any votes forced that could cause further delay. However, what discussions did the Minister have with retail energy companies about the impact on supply chains of the delay of ECO4 and paired regulations coming forward? It was absolutely critical that legislation come in pre-recess—that is now being done—but my understanding is that supply chains and the ability of companies to place orders were starting to be impacted. Hopefully the Minister can address that.

Looking ahead at the ECO4 period, what are the Government doing to ensure that companies fulfil their renewable obligation payments? At a previous Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee evidence session about retail energy companies starting to collapse, the Secretary of State said that it is known that some companies go bust when their renewable obligations levies were due to be paid. Since that tacit admission that the Government accepted that some companies would default in their RO payments, what has been done to ensure that that does not happen and that the payments are protected, and will the Minister respond to calls for the payments to be more regular so that the money comes forward?

Can the Minister advise what the value of the RO defaults for ECO3 was, and how many homes missed out as a consequence? On that basis, have the Government made any allowances for defaults in ECO4, and how will that be managed if companies go bust owing to the renewable obligations? What discussions has he had with the Treasury about match funding the welcome £1 billion commitment from ECO4? Industry and charities have been saying that now is the time for greater investment. If the Treasury match funded the £1 billion, think how much more could be done over the next period. Has the Minister considered that, or had any discussions with the Treasury on that basis?

The impact assessment gives a net present social value of £810 million. For business net present value, there is a huge negative figure of minus £3.8 billion. Can the Minister explain how that negative NPV came about? If it is to do with the benefits from the scheme, that would justify further investing more money. Paragraph 36 of the impact assessment states that 1.2 million “eligible private tenure homes” that are rated E, F or G in their energy performance certification will be eligible for the scheme. Given that paragraph 7.6, as the Minister confirmed, committed to 150,000 homes to be upgraded, what is the plan for the remaining 1 million-plus homes that will be left with an E, F or G rating in their energy performance certification?

The Government’s overall target is for all homes to be EPC band C by 2030, yet homes can be exempted where it is not practical, cost-effective or affordable. What does that exemption mean in real terms? That was something else the Secretary of State could not justify to me. How that exemption is assessed and monitored is critical to how many homes are ultimately upgraded to EPC band C.

Paragraph 3.2 of the explanatory notes confirms that energy suppliers have until March 2026 to deliver the outcomes, so obviously this is a four-year programme. What steps will be taken to ensure and assess that the programmes are on track right through that period? What steps will be taken to ensure that companies are not allowed to back end and therefore risk missing the 2026 deadlines for delivery?

Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory notes states that:

“Market failures…are known to reduce the take up of cost-effective energy efficiency measures.”

I have to say, it is not market failure that has had an impact, but the Government’s failed policies. We had the failure of the green deal scheme, which included the Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Systems mis-selling scandal. When will the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy resolve the appeals backlog for the HELMS green deal mis-selling scandal? Why are more green deal plans not being cancelled outright? In recent times, we have had the failure of the green homes improvement voucher scheme. While we welcome ECO4, there need to be more rounded, coherent Government policies to go along with that. The UK Government should treat energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project, in the way the Scottish Government do.

While we welcome the increase in the budget to £1 billion, paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory memorandum confirms that that is based on 2021 prices. What recent assessment has been made of the impact of current inflation on that? We know that it is more difficult to get materials; the costs of materials have increased as well as labour costs. What assessment has been made of the validity of the £1 billion now and the impact that inflation is having on that?

I would like to put on the record that I welcome the confirmation in paragraph 7.5 about disability benefits eligibility and the fact that households in receipt of such benefits will still be eligible for upgrades in ECO4.

Paragraph 7.13 rules out biofuels. Can the Minister clarify why we would rule out biofuels? They could provide a useful transition between outright fossil fuel and getting to complete renewable energies. I cannot really get my head around that, so hopefully the Minister can explain it.

As I said in my intervention, I welcome the uplift for off-gas grid homes in Scotland and Wales. However, again, I would press the Minister on the fact that that needs to feed through in budgets and considerations in the wider spending envelope. Paragraph 7.24 also sets out an innovation uplift, which again is welcome. What measures will be put in place to assess the long-term performance of any measures installed that are deemed to be innovative? By virtue of the very term “innovation”, that will refer to technology that does not have a long, proven track record. What will be done to ensure that those new measures installed under the innovation uplift actually do what is required in the long term?

Paragraph 7.24 also highlights building fabric issues such as dampness, cracks and different faults that can be remedied and repaired. What will be done to ensure that it is not an easy uplift measure for companies to take advantage of? What will be done to ensure that it does not let private and social landlords off the hook in their responsibilities regarding the upkeep of the fabric of the buildings?

Paragraph 7.26 talks about incentivising delivery on time, but what does that look like? Does “on time” mean for the entire programme, for a sub-programme or for individual measures that are installed?

Turning back to the impact assessment, paragraph 49 states that the modelling is based on the English housing survey. What has been done to get a more representative understanding of the housing stock right across the UK, instead of trying just to extrapolate from an English survey of houses?

The shadow Minister asked about the impact on bills. From reading paragraph 94 of the impact assessment, it seems to me that the impact will be £37 per annum on duel fuel customers to pay for ECO4. Is that correct? How sustainable is it for bill payers to pay £37 with bills continuing to increase without putting more people into fuel poverty?

On the measures to address solid walls, I say to the Minister that we need to work with industry to find a solution for solid-wall homes, tenements and flats in the likes of Glasgow and Edinburgh, because they are particularly difficult to upgrade. That really needs a whole-building approach, or, as was suggested in an earlier intervention, a street by street approach. We really need to look at that and look to the future to be able to address these.

It is getting more difficult now to upgrade houses cost-effectively because the low-hanging fruit, as it were, has already been picked. What work has been done to identify the overall cost of upgrading the remaining stock? What work has been done to have a real forward look-ahead to meet the 2030 target?

I am sure everybody will be delighted that I am now going to sit down—and wipe the sweat from my face as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

The Minister spoke about solar and how the renewables obligation will be protected. Does he know how the renewables obligation will work for Bulb Energy, which is obviously in a special administration regime but still supplying a large number of customers? Will it be eligible to pay RO and will that just be an additional burden that is picked up with the administration costs?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question. Obviously, that will be a matter for the Bulb Energy administrators. I am happy to write to him with more detail on how they might look at that in terms of ECO4.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is a consistent champion for his York constituents, and I assure him that we remain committed to delivering on the fastest sustained uplift in research and development funding, reaching £20 billion per annum in just two years’ time, from £15 billion today. That is a huge uplift, and of course we are going to make sure that all parts of the UK benefit from it. I am sure that part of that will be in and around York.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T5. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State about support for pumped storage hydro, and he let the cat out of the bag when he responded: “It should be stressed that this is a very specific technology to Scotland.”That was a disgraceful comment. It probably explains why Scotland has been overlooked for carbon capture and storage and excluded from the hydrogen village trials. But we do have the highest grid charges in the whole of Europe and we have contributed £400 billion in oil and gas revenue. Scotland is getting exploited, not supported. Is not that the case?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is absolute nonsense. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question was that pumped storage hydro was something that was particular in Scotland—it was something that happened in Scotland. But as for this general remark about us not supporting Scottish energy, the SNP is the party that has turned its back on Scottish nuclear, which employs huge numbers of people. The SNP has completely abandoned nuclear, it does not care about the jobs, and it does not care about industry in its own country.

Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 General Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I take the view that the terms of the statutory instrument are quite benign. To be honest, I thought it was quite logical to extend the supply chain plan to the development of offshore floating wind. As the shadow Minister just said, the findings of the lighter touch questionnaire are also important to the development of floating offshore wind.

To me, it is critical that the supply chain plans are used to develop supply chains in the United Kingdom, and it cannot only be a tick-box exercise. The reference to UK content must mean exactly that and ensure that. In the past, the debate about offshore wind generation has centred on how the 60% content was measured, and whether companies were circumventing that requirement depending on where items were manufactured versus where they were fabricated. We must ensure that the proposals develop UK supply chain. The Government must work with companies to ensure that. If that means slightly higher CfD rates, I would argue that that is a price well worth paying if that means that UK supply chains are developed and expertise built up.

Scotland is already leading the world in the development of floating offshore generation, and the regulations and the target increase to 5 GW generation by 2030 are a great opportunity. That said, the 5 GW generation target for floating offshore by 2030, and the 50 GW target for total offshore generation, will need a lot more in terms of supply chain plans and development. We must look at grid charging in the round and anticipatory grid investment. We need an upgraded grid that is suitable for taking the planned 50 GW of electricity generation. That is key. We must look at the bigger picture, but I am largely in support of the SI, which seems logical to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I am glad that we are in alignment on the need for supply chain plans. It is key to note that in its first phases, floating offshore wind will typically consist of significantly smaller projects. Therefore setting a different limit at which the supply chain must be submitted makes perfect sense if we are to capture floating offshore wind projects and make sure that there is taxpayer value for money. That is in all of our interests, not just the Government’s. We must make sure that we able to develop and cement our advantage in the UK. We have a fantastic technological advantage when it comes to wind. To start with, we have a fantastic geographic advantage, and making sure that we can cement our world leader position will depend upon making sure that there are good supply chains for those projects, which are necessarily smaller than fixed-bottom offshore projects. That is the reason for the different threshold.

Floating offshore wind is a technology on the verge of significant commercialisation and deployment within the next five years. Being at a key juncture in terms of its deployment means that certain emerging technologies, like floating offshore wind, have the potential to play a really important role in helping us to meet net zero. Bringing those projects into the supply chain process will allow BEIS to support the development of the associated supply chain at the earliest stage, by encouraging the industry to invest in competitive supply chains and accelerate cost reduction.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about engagement with the Crown Estate. I engage with it all the time, probably on a weekly or almost a fortnightly basis. I am happy to consider his specific point about the Celtic sea. That sea will be very important for us. At the moment, offshore wind has been a huge success for this country, but it has been predominantly an east coast and Irish sea phenomenon. It is very strong in Scotland, the north-east of England, Yorkshire, Humberside, East Anglia, the Irish sea, and north Wales gets a piece of the action. But the developments in the Celtic sea enable us to bring extra places around the United Kingdom, most importantly south Wales and the west country of England, into the offshore wind industry. Our position as the world leader, and as Europe’s largest installed capacity for offshore wind, is one of this country’s really great success stories of the past 10 years. To bring the Celtic sea into that development will help to level up and make this an all-UK effort.

[Alan Brown]

I do not have a problem with the development of the Celtic sea, but obviously we cannot forget about the North sea. For the record, there has been a discussion about the Crown Estate of England and Wales allowing for the generation of 4 GW, and there is also Crown Estate Scotland and the ScotWind leasing round. That latter round had bids for 25 GW of offshore energy, but National Grid ESO is only allowing for 10 GW of that in its forward planning, so that is a real disconnect. Will the Minister allow for the full deployment of that 25 GW of ScotWind leasing?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; BEIS and the UK Government put a lot of effort and support into the ScotWind process. Of course offshore wind off Scotland is incredibly important to the country as a whole, and floating offshore wind will be a big part of that. On Crown Estate Scotland, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was involved in a lot of the legislation for the devolution of the Crown Estate to Scotland under the Scotland Act 2016. I am familiar with a lot of the issues in relation to Crown Estate Scotland. We have an excellent relationship with it. While recognising that Scotland has been a massive part of the delivery of our fixed-bottom offshore wind, and will be a massive part of the delivery of offshore floating wind, it is good to get all of the UK in on the action when it comes to offshore generation.

We are investing up to £160 million for new, large-scale floating offshore wind ports and manufacturing. That is a big investment of Government money to make sure that we have a great future when it comes to floating offshore wind. The funding, boosted by private sector investment, will develop port infrastructure capable of mass-producing floating offshore wind turbines and installing them out to sea, reducing the need to import from overseas. That will create thousands of new jobs in the UK’s industrial heartlands and around our coasts. We have recently announced £31 million of UK Government funding to be matched by industry for research and development in this sector.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about the light-touch regime. Again, I think it is a question of balance. For the smaller projects, and to start with it will be predominantly smaller projects, we want to look at their supply chains. That is really important to us, but, equally, we do not want to make a regime that is too onerous on those smaller projects. That is why there is a lighter touch regime and questionnaire, but a deeper down, if you like, in terms of the size of the companies that must make supply chain plans. The consultation on the new supply chain questionnaire closed on 14 June. The Government’s response detailing the new approach will be published in due course, and the updated questionnaire and guidance will be published this summer.

I think I have covered the removal of the 300 MW threshold from floating offshore wind. I think I have answered a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and I think the anticipatory grid will be a key part of the debate. The criticism is that National Grid does not currently allow for anticipation of when projects will come on and provide for the grid. Ofgem is actively looking at that, and I expect that might be a key part of future debate. There will be a big scale-up in electricity generation, especially as our electricity demand will double by 2050. We need to have more grid, more network, more transmission network and more distribution network to make that happen. To make sure that our system is fit for that will be a key part of the energy security Bill to be considered in this parliamentary Session.

I hope that my responses have provided the necessary assurances so that Members can approve the SI. The changes in the regulations are essential to ensuring that the next CfD allocation round, which will start in March 2023—the first annual round—is a really important reform to drive through more renewable energy in this country. The regulations will help to make sure that our supply chains and other parts of the process are as best supported as possible, to make sure that we support the pace of renewable deployment while continuing to ensure value for money for consumers. That is why I urge the regulations to be made now, ahead of the next CfD allocation round in next March, so that developers have certainty as to who will be eligible to take part and on what basis. I therefore urge the Committee to agree to the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation ) and Electricity Market Reform (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Earlier this year I was delighted to announce investment—£210 million as I remember—in Rolls-Royce, and the SMRs, as well as advanced nuclear reactors, represent an exciting development in new nuclear. Looking at Labour Members, I must say that it is gratifying to see nuclear power being defended, as under their watch nuclear power was denuded and derided.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Hinkley Point C is 50% over budget and running years late. The Government cannot get investment for Sizewell C, and their impact assessment states that a new nuclear power station could cost £63 billion. Is the former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), correct to say that it is utter fantasy to pretend that this Government can deliver a new nuclear reactor each year?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The strategy is committed to 24 GW, and it is about large-scale nuclear and SMRs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) referred to. It will be a balance, and we feel that we can reach that. It is rich of Scottish National party Members to deride our nuclear programme when they do not even agree with it. They think the whole thing is a complete waste of time. Where else would we find decarbonised baseload? They do not have the answer to that.