Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I can. What the sector does not need, of course, as OEUK has itself set out, is the tens of thousands of job losses that would be driven by the ideological and climate-damaging obsession of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) with ending new UK oil and gas licensing.

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

T7. The last published Government estimate for Sizewell C is £20 billion, but Hinkley Point C, the supposed prototype for Sizewell C, is now estimated to cost £48 billion. When will the Government admit that the actual cost of Sizewell C will be a colossal £50 billion noose around bill payers’ necks?

Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 18th July 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The regulations were laid before the House on 12 June. The draft instrument seeks to make technical changes to the capacity market scheme, the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of supply in Great Britain.

As set out in the “Powering Up Britain” paper, which was announced in the House on 30 March, we have bold new commitments to super-charge clean energy and accelerate renewable deployment. In the shorter term, while the future geopolitical context is still uncertain, we recognise that the world is likely to face continued challenges this winter around security of supply, considering Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

What does the draft instrument do? To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation, based on our day-to-day experience of operating the scheme. In that context, the draft instrument makes changes to three electricity capacity regulations to deliver technical improvements that support the functioning of the capacity market.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress first. The capacity market is now well established, with capacity auctions held every year since its inception in 2014. The draft instrument aims to reduce the administrative burden associated with the process, as we believe that it is more appropriate instead to notify the market when the intention is for an auction not to be held, rather than having to announce each year that it will be. The change will not impact the nature of participation in the scheme or announcements regarding the targets for the capacity auction. It simply seeks to change the way in which the announcement is made that confirms whether auctions will be held.

We have also been made aware that the existing transfer route that enables capacity agreements to be terminated in order to participate in the contracts for difference scheme cannot be used in practice, due to interactions between the definitions used in the regulations and the delivery timeframes. The draft instrument seeks to amend the definition of the contracts for difference transfer notice to enable the transfer route to be used. The draft instrument seeks to improve administrative arrangements by extending the timescales associated with the settlement body’s calculation of penalties and issuing of associated invoices for non-delivery.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that nuclear can form part of the capacity market. Will he explain how nuclear can bid in? We keep getting told that the great thing about nuclear is that it provides baseloads. How does that work in the capacity market auction?

[Graham Stuart]

As happy as I would be to engage in a wider discussion about nuclear this morning, I think it might be best if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to set out those specific concerns.

Turning to the Government consultation, the changes in the draft instrument were consulted on at the start of the year and were broadly supported by respondents. We also consulted on a wider range of changes, including to the capacity market rules that set out the detailed provisions for the delivery of the scheme.

As was signalled in the Government response to the consultation, we intend to follow a two-phased approach to reforms to the capacity market. First, we will proceed with technical changes to strengthen the security of supply and ensure better value for money. In the second phase, we intend to undertake further analysis and development before taking a final decision on implementation.

The capacity market continues to support low-carbon technologies, with growing participation of demand-side response and storage technologies. In line with the broad support for greater alignment of the capacity market with net zero, the Government remain committed to introducing an emissions limit reduction for new build and refurbishing plants into the capacity market and exploring options to address barriers to low-carbon technologies to help drive the transition to a net zero power system by 2035, subject to security of supply. Further analysis is required to understand the impact that the proposals will have on energy security.

Through developments to the capacity market and the review of the electricity market arrangements programme, we are confident that the right market signals will be in place to ensure that we meet our 2035 decarbonisation target, subject to security of supply. As has been highlighted, we have also made a number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which were laid before the House on 12 July. Rule changes will be introduced to reduce administrative burdens for prospective capacity providers and clarify how auctions are operated for the benefit of participants.

In conclusion, the draft instrument introduces a number of technical provisions necessary to enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can continue to deliver on its objectives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Road Fuel Prices

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister says he will not stand for motorists’ being ripped off, but that is exactly what Ministers have done. The Government have been complacent the whole time, following the 5p fuel duty cut.

Why has it taken the CMA so long to establish that motorists are being gouged by 6p per litre compared with 2019? It reported that diesel prices are an astonishing 13p per litre higher this year alone than they should have been. That is symptomatic of the “cost of greed” crisis. Asda received a fine for not complying with the CMA investigation. That shows an astonishing level of arrogance on the part of supermarkets that are ripping off their own customers. It is estimated that we are paying nearly £l billion a year in additional fuel costs due to the lack of competition. How does imposing an initial fine of £30,000 on Asda work as a deterrent when it is making so much money?

I am all for an open data fuel finder scheme, but really, is that it? I already use an app to shop around for cheaper fuel prices, so this open data will not necessarily bring competition in all areas of the UK, and reliance on an app obviously will not help those who are digitally excluded. What are the Government’s actual plans to ensure competition and reduced fuel prices, especially at motorway service stations, which are between 20p to 30p per litre more expensive? When will we see these fuel prices come down?

[Graham Stuart]

That is the closest I have ever seen the hon. Gentleman come to welcoming a Government response, so I shall take that with me. I do not mean to try your patience any more than I already do, Mr Speaker, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), whether it is major energy packages or shipbuilding, we find that doing the work first leads to better long-term outcomes.

Powering Up Britain

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I think the greenest aspect of these announcements is the level of recycling in them without the actual funding to back them up. Starting with nuclear, there is no successful European pressurised water reactor project anywhere in the world. Hinkley has almost doubled in price to £33 billion, so we know that Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. That is a huge, scandalous waste of money that could be better utilised elsewhere. On SMRs, there is not even an approved design with the regulator yet. At £2 billion a pop, SMRs are not cheap either, and it is a myth that they will lower energy bills and provide security. Nuclear is the only energy technology to get more expensive rather than cheaper over the years.

We need more storage. I keep asking about pumped storage hydro. Please will the Government agree a carbon floor mechanism so that SSE can get on with Coire Glas and Drax can get on with the Cruachan extension? While the United States has the Inflation Reduction Act, when we look at the budget for allocation round 5, funding has been cut by a third from £285 million to £205 million, while we have inflationary pressures of 30%. The reality is that it will not deliver what we need it to deliver. Has the Minister looked at the lessons from the Spanish auction, which failed miserably and did not deliver on allocations?

The Minister knows that we need a greater ringfenced pot for tidal. At the moment, tidal stream energy has a 80% to 90% UK supply chain. If the Government do not increase the ringfenced budget, we risk offshoring manufacturing again. If he is talking about being powered by Britain, he needs to increase that funding for tidal stream so that we are building the UK supply chain.

On CCS, Acorn was not even mentioned in the statement. It was promised to us in 2014, and now it is not even mentioned. Is there going to be a definitive funding allocation for Acorn and are there going to be timescales for that funding, or is it a further betrayal when the Government are taking in £60-odd billion in additional oil and gas revenues? The reality is clear: Scotland has the energy, but Westminster keeps the powers.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman’s party of course opposes nuclear, despite the opportunity it provides to this country, and it means that Scotland does not benefit as it should. He talked about pumped hydro, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that further.

We are the world leader in tidal energy, although we would be hard pushed to understand that from the hon. Gentleman. We have put a ringfenced number on that, and budgets can be changed. The budgets were set on the basis of those projects that were ready and were coming forward. As that changes through this year, as I very much hope it will, we have the flexibility to change those budgets upwards appropriately. Like him, I believe that tidal has a great future, and I love the fact that we are the global leader. There are many jobs in Scotland and around the rest of the country from it.

On carbon capture and storage, this is a major announcement today. I am delighted about the eight projects for carbon capture that have come forward as part of track 1. Today, we have launched track 2, and we have said in the papers, as the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear, that we think the Scottish cluster—and Acorn—and Viking in the Humber are the two best placed at the moment to go ahead, although there will be a competition and we are opening that now. We will be having an extension of track 1, we will be having track 2 and we are cracking on with it. I very much look forward to seeing what the Scottish cluster has to offer, because I know it is particularly well prepared, and that is why it was not a reserve, but the reserve in our track 1 process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is talking about tidal stream. I am delighted to say that we are the world leader in tidal stream, and that in allocation round 4—the last round of our CfD—tidal stream was included for the first time. We have greater deployment than any other country in the world, but I am like the hon. Gentleman: I share his enthusiasm for that technology, and hope to see even more from it in future.

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

Following on from that point about tidal stream, MeyGen in the Pentland firth is the largest consented tidal stream site in the world. To date, that site has produced 70% of global tidal stream generation, but inflation pressures have now put that project at a crossroads. It has the chance to remain the world’s leading project through a genuine scale-up, but what is required now is a £40 million ringfenced pot in AR5. Will the Government do the right thing, step up and back tidal stream, allowing Scotland to continue being a world leader?

[Graham Stuart]

I am proud of the fact that we are a world leader, and of course it is only thanks to the CfD scheme, which relies on levies across the whole of GB, that we are able to realise the renewable potential in Scotland. If the separatists had their way, we would not see the development that I hope to see in offshore wind, tidal and other technologies thanks to the whole of the UK, and Great Britain in particular, working together.

[Alan Brown]

I am really disappointed by that answer. I was hoping that the Minister would give some commitment to tidal stream going forward. If he is talking about the whole UK and how Scotland benefits, he needs to start backing the Acorn carbon capture cluster, too. Scotland could generate up to 300,000 hydrogen jobs within the just transition, and part of that relies on the Acorn cluster getting the go-ahead. Also, Acorn is required for Scotland to meet its 2030 emissions targets. Instead of blunder and bluster, when are the Government going to step up and back Acorn?

[Graham Stuart]

We are the world leader, and the largest deployment of tidal stream in the world is in Scotland. We will shortly be making more announcements about allocation round 5. We will also be making announcements in the next few weeks about hydrogen, carbon capture and the future there, and I have already committed in the House to accelerating our approach to that.

Draft Nuclear Regulated Asset Base Model (Revenue Collection) Regulations 2023

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Monday 6th February 2023 General Committees

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

The Minister said that the RAB model could be cheaper for delivering nuclear compared with a strike-rate model. Paragraph 18 of the impact assessment says it is estimated that it could save

“between £30bn and £80bn in present value terms compared with a CFD.”

Does that mean that, by default, the Government are saying that Hinkley has wasted between £30 and £80 billion —money that could have been saved on our bills?

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Hinkley was done on a different basis, with a strike price that was agreed with EDF Energy, CGN Europe Energy and others. It is completely different. I would have thought the hon. Gentleman knew that, with the close interest that he takes in knocking nuclear at every effort without ever reading the science or seeing the importance of nuclear to delivering the net zero future that we all hope for.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress, if I may.

Once the nuclear company accepts the offer and the revenue collection contract is entered into, the draft regulations will establish the mechanism for electricity suppliers to make payments to the revenue collection counterparty, so that it can pay amounts owed to the nuclear company. The revenue collection counterparty can also return money to suppliers, hold sums in reserve and cover its losses through requiring suppliers to post collateral and undergo a payment mutualisation process in the event of supplier default.

The regulations also set out arrangements for the collection of a levy from suppliers to pay for the counterparty’s operating costs. In developing the regulations, we sought to replicate the revenue mechanics under the legislative framework for contracts for difference, with differences to account for the specific features of the RAB model. This is because the revenue stream for CfDs was designed with similar considerations in mind to the nuclear RAB revenue stream—that is, incentivising private sector investment in low-carbon electricity, which I hope we all devoutly wish for. More significantly, the regulations will put in place a recognised and reliable revenue model that investors and electricity suppliers are familiar with, which we anticipate will minimise the impacts of introducing such measures on suppliers and their consumers.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give an example of where a RAB model has worked successfully for the delivery of a new nuclear power station?

[Graham Stuart]

I will wait for historic refreshment, if such there is, although I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that the RAB model is designed to ensure that, given the capital requirements and intensity, it lowers the cost of capital, thereby making the investment more desirable, which it does by sharing some of the risks. Our calculation is that it therefore leads to a lower cost to the public purse in the long term.

The draft regulations have been informed by a full public consultation—undertaken last year between 14 June and 9 August—which sought views on the proposals to replicated the CfD framework and the various differences needed for the RAB model. We received 40 responses from organisations and members of the public, who were, for the most part, supportive of the proposals.

During the passage of the Act, Members of this House and the other place raised some concerns in respect of which I hope I can offer suitable reassurance. Perhaps most important were the concerns about the potential impacts of RAB levies on consumers. Through our consultation, we sought views on the inclusion of measures to prevent suppliers from passing on the costs to vulnerable consumers. Having considered the responses, we remain of the view that it would be better to mitigate potential impacts on vulnerable consumers through holistic measures that deal with people’s overall energy bills, rather than tying actions to these regulations specifically. We do not believe this is the appropriate point in the process to bring in measures to protect vulnerable consumers.

[Graham Stuart]

Like the hon. Gentleman, when I hear the word holistic it tends to get my nose twitching. To use other language, the point is that this is not the appropriate moment to address that. However, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, we are consulting and will come forward with a new system to protect vulnerable consumers from April 2024 onwards. We feel that it is elsewhere in the overall energy system that we are best able to intervene to protect vulnerable customers from such costs, or indeed other costs in the system, whereas to come in specifically at each structure we set up to encourage generation would create a system that is over-complex and might, through that complexity, not deliver in the way that both he and I would wish to protect the most vulnerable.

Relevant measures include those recently announced in the November autumn statement—this is where I fill out the hon. Gentleman’s holistic insight—such as the cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits and for pensioners, not to mention the £37 billion of Government support for the cost of living previously announced in 2022. I hope this is getting more and more holistic for the hon. Gentleman.

Members should be reassured that the likely impact on household bills because of the nuclear RAB would be low. We have estimated that for a generic project approved in this Parliament, it would cost each typical household dual-fuel bill approximately £1 a month on average during the construction phase. I believe, given the scale of this project, that that is proportionate, given the benefits nuclear offers for our electricity mix. Ultimately, by having nuclear power we will deliver a lower-cost system for consumers than if we relied on intermittent, low-carbon power sources alone.

To touch briefly on scope, the regulations will not apply to suppliers in Northern Ireland.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I will give the hon. Gentleman one more opportunity to justify his clearly unreasonable opposition to nuclear, even when it offers a clean, net zero-compliant future and lower bills for people up and down the country, including in Scotland.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way. If he bides his time, I will give him plenty more about my opposition to nuclear. He was talking about estimating the impact on bills of the RAB construction period, and he obviously estimated that that would not cost billpayers much. Is it not the case that the Government do not even know how much a new nuclear power station will cost? In the documents accompanying the regulations, it says they have commissioned a consultant to provide up-to-date estimates of the true cost of nuclear.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have shared with the Committee, we expect that the cost would be around that level of £1. That should provide reassurance. For those who have an ideological opposition to nuclear, there are no numbers that would provide reassurance. We have those who are on the side of science on the one side and those on the side of ideology on the other, and it is quite clear where the hon. Gentleman sits.

The regulations provide the Government with a unique opportunity to deliver a number of benefits, helping us to create a resilient, low-carbon energy system, delivering value for money for consumers and creating thousands of well-paid jobs across the country. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun for their contributions.

It is clear that our electricity system must be resilient and affordable as well as low-carbon, and that means that we need nuclear power. The regulations are required fully to establish the RAB model and enable sufficiently advanced nuclear projects to benefit from this new funding model, which can support our ambition to reach final investment decision on new projects, subject to relevant approvals, and to secure a low-carbon, low-cost and resilient electricity system to ensure our energy security and prosperity.

Let me reply to some of the numerous questions that have been asked. On the issue of investment in Sizewell C, we know from conversations with multiple investors that there is a strong interest in supporting infrastructure that delivers energy security and net zero. The importance of nuclear has been made even clearer by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and we are not exactly alone in holding that view. Among others, the Climate Change Committee, the International Energy Agency and the UN Economic Commission for Europe have all highlighted the role for new nuclear electricity-generating capacity. The UN Economic Commission was particularly clear—perhaps the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will take it up with them—that

“the world’s climate objectives will not be met if nuclear technologies are excluded”

from decarbonisation policy solutions. His ideological opposition to nuclear flies in the face of the science, global opinion and the UN, among others.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised the issue of the LCCC’s running costs. A robust internal governance and approvals process was completed before finalising the operational cost levy rates that are included in the draft revenue regulations, which are intended to meet their operating costs. We consulted on the levy, and the total annual impact of the levy on household electricity bills over financial year 2022-23 to 2023-24 was estimated to be negligible. If LCCC expenditure is less than income from the levy, any surplus would be refunded to suppliers and then on to consumers, which is how that system works.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked about the impact assessment. Hinkley Point C was the right deal, struck at the right time, to support the UK’s first nuclear power station in a generation, using a new reactor technology, as he rightly said. The National Audit Office has identified that risk-sharing models such as RAB could deliver better value than contracts for difference, and Hinkley Point C is delivering multiple benefits, including 15,000 job opportunities and £4 billion spent with companies in the south-west alone. Many Scottish consumers will wish that the ideology of the Scottish nationalists did not get in the way of them also having such opportunities.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I will move on.

Future new nuclear projects will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis and be subject to value-for-money tests. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun—I hope I am doing him justice; I am trying to anyway, as I always would—asked whether RAB had already been tried and had failed in the US. There are multiple important differences between the projects in the US, which used early cost recovery models, and our proposals for RAB in the UK. We assessed those US projects, to ensure that we learned the lessons, along with other international approaches to nuclear project financing when developing our policy for the RAB model for nuclear.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test asked about the holistic approach. Notwithstanding his dislike of the nomenclature, I set out how we are supporting constituents in various ways going forward.

On decommissioning, details of the costs for Sizewell C are subject to ongoing development and are commercially sensitive. Both the FDP and the full value-for-money assessment will—or would—be published at the point of a final investment decision, if indeed that is reached, as we hope that it will be.

A further question was asked about design costs and whether the charge could come then. On average, for the entire construction period, it will be about £1 per week for a dual-fuel household, as I set out earlier. That is not when operational, when producing energy, but in those early stages.

[Alan Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

Design costs will be agreed with developers in negotiations. Published non-statutory guidance on how Government will assess day one RAB costs, including design costs, will be developed—[Interruption.] I should have said £1 per month, not £1 per week—I have been corrected and suitably refreshed. On that basis, I am delighted to commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Energy Bills: Self-disconnection

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Come April, 8.4 million households will be in fuel poverty—that is almost a third of all households—and talk of capping average bills at £2,500 or £3,000 a year means nothing to people who cannot afford to pay their bill or top up their meter. People on prepayment meters are penalised with higher standing charges, so those who either choose or are forced into not using energy build up debt from these standing charges. Imagine getting into debt despite not using energy.

These people are more likely to have disabilities or suffer ill health. They are more likely to die prematurely and to have mental health issues due to the struggles of daily life. I do not know what their life is like, and I know for a fact that the Government cannot claim to understand what their life is like. We now need a proper social tariff and a further energy bill support package as a priority.

Much more needs to be done to ensure the vouchers are redeemed, rather than the Government just asking the companies to publish data and urging them to do more. The Government need to put in place a temporary ban on the forced installation of prepayment meters. Is it not a disgrace that energy-rich Scotland’s Union dividend is people who are unable to turn on their gas when Scotland is a net exporter of gas?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman said this support has absolutely no meaning, or something close to it. The meaning for those on benefits has been £800 of additional cost of living support, on top of the £400 EBSS support and the £900 of support organised through the Treasury. This is real support. The cheap rhetoric we have heard from the Scottish nationalists might be typical, but even so it is disappointing.

The hon. Gentleman says we need to do more than just urging suppliers to do more and to publish data. There is an application. People have to take up their vouchers, and they have to use them. I am all ears to any contribution he would like to make on how to build that up, because the whole of society—families, community groups, MPs and political parties—has to get the message out to people about these vouchers. I am confident that they are being sent out by the suppliers, so we have to encourage people to cash them in at a time when they need them most. There is always a danger that the people who need it most—we do not have the data—may be the ones least likely to use it. [Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) can make cheap points and shout at me from a sedentary position, or he can engage seriously and properly by trying to do everything possible to get a system that makes sure people get the help they deserve. That is what I want. If he thinks there are any practical steps that we should be delivering immediately, he should say so.

We have said that we will look at a social tariff and at how vulnerable people are looked after, but we have to look at it in a considered manner. I am proud of the support that the Government have put in place, and I believe it stands up internationally. We are determined to support people, particularly the most vulnerable, so that they do not suffer at a time of extreme energy stress.

Electric Vehicle Battery Production

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I express sympathy with all those affected by the job losses, but this is an abject failure of the mythical levelling-up agenda. Unfortunately, that should not come as a surprise. It has always irritated me that the Tories claim that they are the ones to level up communities—the very communities that they devastated in the first place.

Just over a year ago, the former, former Prime Minister was boasting about the construction of Britishvolt’s gigafactory. He said that it would create 3,000 direct jobs and 5,000 supply-chain jobs, and support the production of 300,000 batteries for car production. That meant putting our faith in a company with no pedigree, no assets except a field and no products to deliver a £4 billion factory—and that with one owner with a conviction for fraud. We know that the Government do not care about paying taxes, but that is akin to awarding a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. When did the Government do due diligence? When did they realise that there was a problem and what actions did they take? When will we see a coherent strategy for battery production, EV manufacturing, the roll-out of charging points across the UK and, importantly, hydrogen vehicle manufacturing and green hydrogen production?

[Graham Stuart]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the opportunities that come from net zero. That is why we are moving so hard on nuclear, which of course anybody who is not a prisoner of some ideological opposition and is genuinely committed to green energy would support. We are supporting that across the piece. I do not think that Conservative Members will take lessons on industrial intervention from Scottish nationalists after their shipbuilding enterprises in the north.

Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Monday 9th January 2023 General Committees

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted to confirm that the guidance has been published. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured by that.

[Alan Brown]

What is the anticipated timeframe for the compliance notices to be issued? How long will companies be given to comply with the notice before the risk of a fine actually being imposed on them?

[Graham Stuart]

I am not aware of the precise timings, but as I say, I hope that the Committee will be assured that a process will be gone through. I am pleased that heat networks have been providing the information. Before we laid the regulations, we reached out and had a meeting with 200 heat networks. We reached out through various organisations to ensure that that was as well known as possible.

[Alan Brown]

So that we get exact information, will the Minister at least write to the Committee to advise us what the timeframes will be, what the process is for issuing compliance notices, and what the timescales are for complying?

[Graham Stuart]

Whether they are absolutely set or an administrative choice in part, I do not know. If we have further information that it is useful to share with the Committee, I will certainly do so.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of Northern Ireland versus Great Britain. The energy markets in GB are very different from those in Northern Ireland. We have had to design bespoke measures at pace for each. Northern Ireland is a diverse market with a higher percentage of customers on alternative fuels. Other factors mean that it is most efficient to do things in that way there. I am pleased to reassure him, however, that most of those who are eligible for the alternative fuel payment in Scotland, for example, will receive it automatically, though some will necessarily need to apply. We have a system of automatic payment to some, but in addition others need a portal application with phone support.

With that, I hope that we have done more than adequate justice to this fairly simple set of legislative changes to ensure that we have the information needed in the right hands so that we make sure people are protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Energy Bill Relief Scheme Pass-through Requirement (Heat Suppliers) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (S.I., 2022, No. 1280).

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

Monday 7th November 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2022.

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

The UK emissions trading scheme, the UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to encourage cost-effective emissions reductions, contributing to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme replaced the UK’s participation in the European Union ETS, and the 2020 order applied existing rules on the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions, with modifications to ensure that they work for the UK ETS. The purpose of this order is to amend the 2020 order to enable the inclusion of flights from Great Britain to Switzerland within the scope of the UK ETS.

The UK ETS currently covers domestic flights, flights from the UK to the European economic area, and flights between the UK and Gibraltar.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. When did the Government realise there was an omission and a lack of agreement with Switzerland? Are there other countries that the UK should have agreements with that have dropped off since we left the EU?

[Graham Stuart]

That is an excellent question. We seek to find the right partners and optimise the system going forward. We always keep that under review. If I have further information, when suitably refreshed I will happily share it with the hon. Gentleman.

[Alan Brown]

Is the Minister willing to write with the relevant information on the question I raised?

[Graham Stuart]

I am indeed; I will be delighted to do so.

Since our departure from the European Union, flights between the UK and Switzerland are not covered in either the UK or the Swiss emissions trading systems, creating a gap in ETS coverage. The Government consulted on the policy in this draft instrument between May and July 2019 as part of a consultation called “The future of UK carbon pricing”. In the 2020 Government response to the consultation, we committed to include UK-to-Switzerland flights in the scope of the UK ETS if an agreement could be reached with Switzerland. The agreement has been reached, and Switzerland has amended the relevant domestic legislation to ensure that flights from Switzerland to the UK are included in the Swiss ETS from 2023. This instrument amends the 2020 order to include flights from Great Britain to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS for the start of the 2023 scheme year.

In 2019, UK-to-Switzerland flights amounted to approximately a quarter of a megatonne of CO₂—less than 0.2% of the UK ETS cap for the 2023 scheme year. The policy intent is to include flights from across the UK to Switzerland in the scope of the UK ETS. As the Northern Ireland Assembly was not able to consider affirmative legislation at the time this instrument began the legislative process, this legislation only brings GB to Switzerland flights within scope of the UK ETS.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Alan Brown and Graham Stuart

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 ---

[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?

--- 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.