Oil and Gas

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I would thank the hon. Lady, but I do not think it takes much effort to read out a Whip’s question. The question she needs to answer is why she is supporting a policy that will increase British emissions. She is supporting a policy that means we are importing goods with higher emissions.

I have laid out five bad arguments that have been thoroughly disproved by people outside this Chamber whom the Government supposedly respect. Those five bad arguments spun by the Secretary of State should be consigned to history. What the North sea can give us is what it has been doing all along: stronger energy security, a stronger environment and a stronger economy. Are those not things that we want the next generation to have? The question that the Government need to answer is this: what reason do RenewableUK or their very own chair of Great British Energy have to back the North sea if it does not give us those very things? Maybe—just maybe—it is time for the Government to admit that their Secretary of State has approached his role with a dangerous, blinkered ideology, rather than being interested in the national interest. Perhaps even they realise that they are once more being marched up the hill on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of public opinion, when we all know that there will be an inevitable U-turn from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in a few weeks’ time.

It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources. The idea that one should ban industry if it does not change prices in this country is, let us be clear, an argument to shut down all business in this country. There are benefits to making things in Britain: jobs, tax revenue and self-reliance. The Labour party used to understand that.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

On that point about security and growing energy at home, I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern that in the push for renewables, we are entirely reliant on the processing being done in China on the other side of the world. The Government talk about not being reliant on petrochemical dictators, but they seem perfectly happy to be reliant on renewable dictators.

[Claire Coutinho]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In the trade wars that we saw last year, China limited the export of several rare earth minerals that are critical components in the renewable supply chain. An energy system that is dominated by renewables is one that is completely reliant on China, and that is why we think it is the wrong approach. It is mad at the best of times not to want to make the most of our own resources, but in the middle of a supply crisis, it is completely unforgivable. Yet that is exactly what Labour MPs will vote for today. They are on the wrong side of history on this one. They should put their disastrous Secretary of State’s zealotry to one side, fast-track Rosebank and Jackdaw, reverse their disastrous bans and taxes, and put our energy resilience over their narrow political interests by backing the North sea.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I can confirm that the Liberal Democrat position is not to support new fields for exploration in the North sea. Rather, we should accelerate our own home-grown clean energy, the price of which we control. Otherwise, our constituents will forever be at the mercy of a deteriorating world order.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Pippa Heylings]

Let me turn to jobs, which matter deeply. Those working in the North sea are skilled workers. They have kept our lights on, and must be at the heart of any transition. A just transition recognises that, although we will need oil and gas for decades to come, the North sea is a mature basin, and oil and gas workers, as well as supply chains, need support to transition. Even though the Conservatives supported new North sea drilling, the number of jobs in the oil and gas industry fell by 70,000 when they were in government, but without this level of outcry or support.

I grew up in Hull—a city that knew the devastation of unmanaged transition. I saw, through my father’s work as a GP, the human cost of industries collapsing without a plan. Dockers, trawlermen and entire communities were left behind and lost pride. We must not repeat those mistakes. Yet in Hull today, we also see what success can look like. With investment in offshore wind, companies such as Siemens are creating skilled, well-paid jobs for the future building wind turbine blades—that means jobs and pride.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

rose—

[Pippa Heylings]

Let me turn to climate change. Although fossil fuels are driving skyrocketing costs, they also drive the costs of the unabated climate change that is already hitting our farmers and our communities, through crippling flooding and droughts. Approving Rosebank alone would add nearly 250 million tonnes of emissions, pushing us beyond our climate targets and further out of line with the Paris agreement, which aims to protect us all. Opening new fields would worsen the climate crisis without cutting bills or improving energy security. It would exacerbate climate breakdown, which is a national security threat that drives instability, displacement and economic shocks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who follows in a tradition of Government Back Benchers standing up and trying to make the case for the utterly insane, the truly crazy and the utterly groundless. I feel more sorry for the hon. Lady than I do for the Ministers on the Front Bench, because we know that this impossible position cannot be maintained.

I do not know whether the Government are on U-turn No. 13, 14, 15 or 16—who can count them?—but I guarantee that it is impossible to maintain the current position; it rests on a number of fallacies. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said it as passionately as any of the Government Members, did she not? They say, “Oh, it is outrageous! The Conservatives are suggesting that our producing more oil and gas in the North sea will change the global price.” Well, I went back to the motion, and nowhere does it say that. That is the case of the “crazies” on the Government Benches—I do not know if that is parliamentary or not—and I include the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), in that. This is lunacy made flesh.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

On the subject of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), it was a shame that she did not take my intervention, because she may have been able to answer this question. She was very keen to talk about what happened under the Conservative Government and how we need to have renewables, but does my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) find it incredulous that at no moment did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mention that it was Nick Clegg who cancelled all the nuclear power stations? He said that he was not going to invest in something that would not come along until 2022.

[Pippa Heylings]

rose—

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

You can’t intervene on an intervention!

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is right. I was incredulous when listening to the incredible things that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said.

Let me go back to this big, passionate attack. That production will not change the global oil price, but it will help to employ 200,000 people in this country, with all the engineering expertise and the deep supply chain in this country, in oil and gas. It will help to provide gas, nearly all of which—practically 100% of the gas produced in the North sea—comes into the UK grid. Nearly all of it is consumed here. Some of it goes through interconnectors in either direction the other way, but the idea that it does not directly contribute to our energy security is for the birds.

I return to the point about price, because Labour colleagues put so much effort into saying, “How dare they suggest that it will change the price?” There are localised prices, so it is also not true to say that oil and gas have a global price and we have to take that price regardless. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) interjected earlier, in the United States, the price of gas is between a third and a quarter of the price that it is here. Getting supply and demand in the right balance does make a difference. Relying on LNG means that we have to liquefy it, gasify it, ship it with specialist ships and put it into specialist infrastructure to bring it into the UK gas grid, which all costs money. It is even more ironic, given the attitudes of Labour Members, that according to the North Sea Transition Authority, that gas comes with four times the embedded emissions. It is environmentally insane as well as economically insane.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What is really important is not just the funding we are providing but the regulation we are introducing in the warm homes plan—promised by the last Government but never delivered—so that people who are privately renting get the decent, warm, comfortable homes they deserve.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I must raise a very important issue with the Secretary of State: there is concern about thermal runaway in batteries, especially those on prime agricultural land. Heavy metals vaporise at 900° and thermal runaway burns at over 1,000°. What research and assessment has been done on the evaporation of these heavy metals, which would poison agricultural land?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. All the evidence points to the fact that the fire risk from batteries is less than in residential homes, but we take safety incredibly seriously. I recently convened a roundtable of those involved to look at what more we might do in the regulatory space, and DEFRA is looking at environmental regulations on batteries. We obviously take fire safety incredibly seriously.

Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) not just on securing this debate, but on giving it such a wide-ranging and thoroughly comprehensive introduction. I am sure that many Members would have mentioned many of the areas he discussed in their own way. Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I are very good friends, and I know that you have been concerned about battery storage plants near the River Test and potential runaway fires that may lead to pollutants going into the river. As you are in your place, you cannot comment on that, so I thought it important to get that on the record.

The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) was focusing on some of the planning issues, and that is where I want to go, too. When we look at this debate overall, what we are talking about is a lack of statutory guidance. I want to get on the record immediately that this is not a debate of “Forget net zero and forget about renewables.” That is not the debate, and we are not deniers along that road, but there are serious concerns. The leader of my party has raised those concerns and immediately been accused of being anti net zero. We have to take the concerns seriously, because, as the hon. Member for Horsham outlined, there are changes, slowly but surely, in the materials being used. Nickel manganese, for example, has a vaporisation point of 900ºC. These fires can burn easily over 1,000ºC. I want to focus my attention on the fallout.

I had a meeting with some soil scientists, among others, from the University of Leeds at a research facility in my constituency. They are involved in all aspects of farming. I asked about research into potential contamination and fallout and what it could mean for soils if there was a fire. They said no such research had really been done, and I think they had a couple of PhD ideas appear from that. It showed that that work has not been done.

Where have we got to on thermal runaway? As has been outlined, such fires need a huge quantity of water. It is not just about trying to do whatever we can to stop the fire spreading. I read in the International Fire and Safety Journal about using high-pressure water mist at the starting point, monitoring the potential for thermal runaway and trying to cool the batteries before they get to that stage. Equally, if that mist is high pressure enough, it can contain the contaminants around the fire. Again, the science around this issue has to be closely managed. As the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth has outlined, acids and other things can be created. We have to be careful about the chemistry, but we do not have any statutory guidance for planning authorities. We keep speaking about what we need to do with water, so surely it should be a condition of the planning process that there is a mains water supply to where such incidents are happening.

In my constituency, planning applications for solar farms and battery storage are pouring in. They are being approved and pushed on, but there is no demand for water supply. These applications are for developments in the middle of a rural area, on farmland. Farmers are being offered a golden egg and told, “Sell us your land, and we will develop solar farms and battery storage.” Let me give the example of a planning application for Wetherby services. There were not really any objections or concerns about batteries, but Leeds city council then approved the development of hundreds of houses 600 to 700 metres away. As has been outlined, no one knows how far contamination goes.

There must be a lot more statutory undertaking for planning authorities. I recommend a pause on approving planning applications until we fully understand what mitigation could be put in place for disasters, which unfortunately do happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have come to the Chamber with a pre-prepared speech, but really everything has already been said. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) for securing this debate. I also want to thank everyone who has contributed—this sounds like a winding-up speech, but it is not. Whereas normally I would email my speech to people who have approached me on an issue, in this case I will just email the whole debate as it is published in Hansard, because so many of the concerns have been addressed, fleshed out and aired.

There are proposals in my constituency, way up in the north of Scotland, to have power lines from Spittal in Caithness to Lochbuie and Beauly in Inverness—it is massive—and there are lots of applications for battery storage systems. It does feel as if the technology is racing way ahead of the statutory authorities of the Scottish and UK Governments and that we are playing catch up. We are being left behind in a cloud of dust, and that worries me enormously. We have heard about the dangers of a battery fire—of thermal runaway. In the north of Scotland, where I represent, we are no strangers to extremely cold weather. Alnaharra in my constituency is always the coldest place in the winter. Cold temperatures can affect the batteries; they can change their lifespan and their mix.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

There is a phenomenon called dendrite, which is a form of crystallisation—especially from lithium—with a tree-like structure. We do not fully understand where it comes from. Does that play into what the hon. Gentleman is saying about trying to understand the stability of battery storage?

[Jamie Stone]

I, like others, am left in awe by the diligence of the research that has been carried out by the right hon. Member. Yes, that is absolutely correct; we just do not quite know what happens. We have heard that if one battery catches fire, it can ignite fires in other batteries, but I will not go over that again. Where possibly high-risk infrastructure is proposed for a community, we must surely have mitigation. And yes, we should have a complete consultation with the authorities and those responsible. In Caithness, we have only five fire stations, and they do not have enough personnel, let alone faintly enough water, to tackle such a fire. The authorities want to build a battery near the Castle of Mey where the King sometimes stays, but they ain’t got the troops to sort that one out, absolutely not.

I totally endorse what is being said about the Health and Safety Executive. In Scotland it should be HSE, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Fire and Rescue Service. I take great heart from what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has been saying—thank goodness that this is being taken seriously.

In conclusion, we should not simply forge ahead with this sort of stuff until we know exactly what we are doing. To be helpful, I shall namecheck one person. She is a councillor in the highlands. She is not a member of my party—Members can google her later and find out of which party she is a member. She is called Helen Crawford. She has been bravely standing up saying, “I think we need to have a way of structuring this that takes the communities with us, that does not seem that we are imposing something from on high.” She is referring to batteries, grid improvements and so on. Nobody is saying that they do not believe in getting to net zero, but let us take people with us when we do it.

I drop a little hint to the Minister and the colleagues of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in Edinburgh that there will be a meeting of a large group of community councils on 14 June in Inverness-shire. They are reasonable people, and under Scottish law, a community council is a statutory consultee on planning matters. I would be very grateful if the Minister would take a look at what comes out of that meeting, because I think it will be helpful to both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Let us have renewable energy, but let us get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues is that there is no statutory requirement on prevention methods that may stop us from getting to that disastrous situation in the first place?

[Mike Wood]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. Part of the problem is that the planning applications that come in are often very vague about exactly what lithium ion-type chemical and technology will be used, because they are often made years in advance, and therefore before the products that will be on a site have been acquired. In those circumstances, it is impossible to assess the risk properly.

When these fires run for 24 or 48 hours and millions of gallons of water are used to bring them under control, the chemical run-off has to go somewhere, and sadly many of these applications—including those in my constituency—are for sites near to our rivers and our canals. For example, in Wombourne and Lower Penn there are plans for two battery energy storage sites to be erected close to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal and the South Staffordshire railway walk.

Not only is the canal a green corridor through our beautiful countryside—an area of outstanding local beauty—but it is close to the historical Bratch locks and Bratch pumping station. It is a popular site for canal users and anglers alike. The consequences of a major fire and the chemical run-off would be devastating for fish stock and other wildlife.

The planning and regulatory systems must catch up with the realities before all the applications are approved and in use, by which time it may be too late. We need the National Fire Chiefs Council to update the guidelines, as well as their assessment of battery energy storage systems. Before that is done, however, we clearly need a minimum distance between battery sites and residential properties. We need the fire service to be made statutory consultees on planning applications for battery energy storage systems. Furthermore, the Government really must go back and make the changes needed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that local authorities and communities have a real and meaningful say on where such systems are and are not installed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We recognise that there needs to be co-ordination, but first, let me take the framework that is in place. It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. That is simply untrue. The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government are therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.

I will take each aspect of this matter in turn, beginning with the planning regime. Planning practice guidance encourages battery storage developers to engage with local fire and rescue services before submitting a planning application, so that the issues relating to siting and location that hon. Members have raised are dealt with before an application is made. I think there is scope to strengthen the process and build on it in order to address some of the issues that have been raised.

Let me come to the crux of the regulatory regime for grid-scale batteries: the health and safety laws, overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. The fundamental principle of health and safety law is that those who create risk are best placed to control it. Operators of grid-scale battery sites are expected to assess the specific situation and implement the necessary control measures. Of particular relevance are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Together, that framework puts in place protections against some of the issues that have been raised, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised—that there is scope to think about how we bring this together in a way that is accessible and enforceable, and ensures that the underlying provision and protections that are baked into legislation are well understood by the sector.

To complement the existing health and safety framework, the Government will consult later this month, to answer the question on the timescale, on whether to include batteries in the environmental permitting regulations, to provide further safeguards and assurances. Environmental permitting will provide for the ongoing inspection of battery sites, giving additional assurance that appropriate mitigations are maintained throughout the project’s life cycle. Critically, the environmental permitting regulations make it an offence to operate a regulated facility without a permit, or in breach of the conditions of that permit. We will consult on the principle and then work with industry, local government and key stakeholders in order to develop the detail. If we get it right, that should go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that have been raised.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

When the Government do the research on mitigation that the Minister talks about, I gently suggest that they lay down in statute the minimum mitigation facilities that will be expected to be satisfied in planning applications. At the moment, there is no statutory outline for what mitigation must be put in place. Inspections are great, but we are not actually inspecting anything from a statutory point of view. I encourage her to ensure that the result of the research is that applicants have it laid out for them what mitigation needs to be in place.

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We will consult, and work with a host of parties to ensure that we get this right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said, we have an interest in ensuring that the public feel complete confidence as we put forward this technology, and as we agree sites across the country.

Let me respond to the specific point that was raised by a number of hon. Members on the proximity to residential areas. It is true that there is no mandated minimum distance between BESS sites and occupied buildings, but the National Fire Chiefs Council guidance recommends a distance of at least 25 metres. We can look at how we can build on that going forward.

The one thing that I hope everyone takes away is that the Government understand the concerns that have been raised, and that Members’ constituents are raising. We believe that there is a clear health and safety framework in place that we can build on, and we are intent on building on it. We will continue to work to strengthen the guidance and processes that are in place so that we can ensure that we have the confidence of the public. We believe that this is a crucial part of how we get to net zero, but as hon. Members have said, we must do it in a way that ensures the safety of the public. That is a priority for us, as it is for all Members of this House.

Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend has been a real champion for Grimsby, and I was glad to see her returned at the recent election, so that she can carry on championing all the potential that Grimsby has to offer, not least in the wind sector. It is important that we link up skills and capacity—that is one of the obstacles. We talk often about how grid capacity and planning issues can hold up the roll-out of clean power, but we have to have the skills base as well. We are working with the Department for Education on how we can train and develop capacity within the existing workforce through things like the growth and skills levy to work on these exciting new projects.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The Minister speaks about being reliant on the petrochemical states and dictatorships that supplied the fuel needed for our energy system, and yet the vast majority of the processed materials needed—whether we construct things here or not—come from China. We recognise that some of those countries are dictatorships, but will the Minister confirm at the Dispatch Box that a country that uses slave labour, has carried out the most horrendous crimes against the Uyghur population and has sanctioned our own parliamentarians is as much a dictatorship as the countries that she says we want to no longer be reliant on?

[Kerry McCarthy]

If we followed the approach suggested by the Opposition Front Bench, we would be firmly back in the hands of the petrostates and the dictators. As for our relationship with China, as I have said, we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to and absolutely challenge if we must. We have been clear that no company in the UK should have forced labour in its supply chain. That is why we have set up the solar taskforce and are going through robust processes ahead of the decision that we are talking about. I will take no lessons from the right hon. Member because we have had 14 years of being exposed to a volatile energy market, and we are trying to recreate our energy security through this investment.

Gas Storage Levels

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

Let me repeat what I said a moment ago: even if we were to take much more gas from our continental shelf, it would still be traded on the international market. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine still face a cost of living crisis is our exposure to petrostates and dictators around the world. He would clearly like to expose us to them even more, and I think that the Conservatives would support him in that, but we want to get ourselves off the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels and deliver a clean power system that is cheaper in the long run and delivers energy security. That is what is best for consumers, and for all our constituents.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The Minister has several times mentioned energy security, and has said that the drive to net zero will make us more energy-secure, but now that Europe has learned the lesson of taking fossil fuels from Russia, we will take our renewable resources from China, which manufactures and processes the vast of majority of the materials needed. What contingency plans has the Minister made in case China decides to get into a trade war with the UK on renewables, or to cut off supply? The threats that could come from China are exactly the same as those that came from Russia about fossil fuels.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, our approach to China is that we will co-operate when it is in our interest to do so, and will challenge when necessary. That is the point that the Chancellor is making. Secondly, the way to ensure that what he describes does not happen, and that we build as much as possible in this country, is to build an industrial base in this country and to bring clean power jobs to the UK. The last Government failed to do that. We are driving forward an industrial strategy that will ensure that the jobs that arise from the clean power plan that we designed are in this country. The Opposition can either support that or oppose it.

Draft Strategy and Policy Statement for Energy Policy in Great Britain

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 General Committees

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Members of the Committee will know that I am not a member, so I will not have any view on the consideration at the end. However, I will say that today, unusually for Government procedures, this statement is on the Order Paper for it to go through tonight without any further debate after this Committee has debated it. That is why this is one of the most important debates in which I will participate in this entire Parliament, and why I am here today.

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. She will be well aware of many of the local issues. Very kindly, she met me before an Adjournment debate that I was due to have until I got laryngitis and could not do the debate. She will be conscious, in relation to east Suffolk Coastal, that stretch of the coast, that it is quite possible that within about 15 years that small, 5-square-mile area will be responsible for the generation and transmission, via interconnectors, into this country, for the UK electricity network, of 30% to 33% of the UK’s entire use of electricity. As a consequence, local people are understandably concerned about the scale of the development that is happening in an area that already has significant environmental protections. That is why in many ways I welcome parts of this policy statement. Some bits are missing from it, and I would like the Minister to reflect on that. I will say this now, so that the Whips can message the powers that be. I do want the Government to consider not moving the motion tonight and to take the opportunity to reflect on what has been said not only in this Committee but elsewhere, in debates, and indeed in the other House.

Thanks to the Act under which we are discussing this statement, an affirmative resolution is required in both Houses. That is welcome. Unfortunately, the national policy statements that happened recently were not debated in this House and also have significant consequences. That is in contrast to the previous national policy statements that were made and debated in 2011. The particular policies to which I am referring rely on the Government to timetable that debate, and that is under the auspices of the Planning Act 2008, so I am pleased that under the more recent Act, under which we are debating this statement, we certainly get the opportunity to debate.

I know that this document replaces the social and environmental guidance of 2011, but I have a few questions of procedure that I would just like to understand. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that I left Government in November 2023. I have been part of collective responsibility, collective agreement. That does not mean to say that in all my time in office I have not been pursuing some of the wider principles that concern me about the development of infrastructure in that regard. Indeed, in relation to the industrial strategy, talking about offshore wind, I made sure that it was included that both onshore and offshore impacts of transmission were to be considered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in considering the environmental impact that was happening. I am pleased to see that this document does, vaguely, refer to the environment, but I would like to understand from the Minister—in terms of the rules that were passed thanks to the Environment Act 2021 and, due to my time in office, the environmental principles policy statement—what assessment has been made by Ministers specifically in regard to this development of this policy.

I would also be grateful to understand which Cabinet Committee cleared the final document that we are debating today. Was it Domestic and Economic Affairs, or was it Home Affairs? I am conscious that in my time in Government I had back-and-forth with the then Energy Secretary about the national policy statements, which I accept that we are not debating today. Hon. Members may know that I do not have perfect memory any more, after an illness—I had a brain abscess six years ago—but I do not recall specifically going through that, so I would be grateful to understand which Cabinet Committee cleared the legislation to come forward.

One of the aspects of why the environmental principles policy statement matters is that it is designed to ensure that we protect and enhance our environment and protect England’s unique natural assets. The part of the country that I represent is generally as flat as a pancake, yet it is about to have multiple energy converter sheds that are about four times the size of the outer edges of Parliament Square and the Treasury. There is not just one shed; there are multiple. I cannot see in any part of this statement, apart from at a generic top level, that in some way the new ESO will be required to even consider that in any level of detail.

I should be grateful if the Minister would publish any assessment made with regard to the environmental principles policy statement for transparency, so that it can be open to consideration by my constituents and others. Indeed, I am conscious that other Members of the House, from Lincolnshire and Scotland, including one of the Energy Ministers, are concerned about the development of such infrastructure. Certainly, the precautionary principle in the environmental principles policy statement is designed so that when evidence or consideration are given, aspects can be postponed, and I believe that that requires some substance to be added.

One of the historical elements of Ofgem is that it has always been driven simply by price or value, which is a challenge at times. I appreciate that that has an impact potentially on energy bills in the future. However, there is a risk at times that people know the price of something and the value of nothing. That is what we need to be concerned about as we take forward this holistic, whole-system approach, and that is why I generally support the statement before us. For the first time, it is taking us into a situation in which we will have that sort of spatial energy plan, However, at the moment it does not feel like the ESO is taking that into account in any way, nor has it taken it into account in some of its decision making so far. It is not covered in the policy statement in terms of sections 164(1)(c) and 164(1)(d) of part 5 of the Energy Act 2023. It does not seem to consider

“the whole-system impact of a relevant activity”

nor

“the desirability of facilitating innovation in relation to the carrying out of relevant activities.”

I know that my constituents, and constituents elsewhere across the country, have been promoting for a long time the idea of an offshore grid. I have also pushed that in the past to what was Suffolk Coastal Council—it is now East Suffolk Council—and worked with right hon. and hon. Members from East Anglia in particular on that. I am also concerned that despite all that and the past work that we have done, the Government and the ESO, as it will be constituted—it is the independent element of the National Grid today—will simply plough on. I am conscious that the substation being placed in a village called Friston at the moment offers connections to Sea Link, LionLink, Nautilus and various offshore wind farms. I cannot quite remember how many; I think there are about four or five. It has just announced— except that it does not announce; it has quietly put it on its spreadsheet, but at least there is some transparency —a further two solar farms of 249.9 MW each. Once again, there is a brand-new addition, and the place has not yet even been built. That is the frustration.

Members of the Committee may just think that I am being a nimby; I am not. This has nothing to do with pylons in my constituency, but I appreciate that it does in the constituencies of other hon. Members. We already have pylons. Under the proposals so far, there is no plan to have any more pylons, although I appreciate that there may a risk of them in the future. My constituency is the home of Sizewell C, which is referred to in the policy statement regarding nuclear. That is about how important it is, and the investment that the Government are putting into it. They recognise the need for energy security and generation so that we are not reliant on the likes of Putin, so that we try to become more resistant to the energy shocks that we have experienced in the last year or two, and so that we recognise the impact that it has on consumers and the security of what we are trying to do.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned Sizewell C. A huge environmental impact study was believed to have put back the planning process. Does she have any insight into what that may do to the ability to bring nuclear reactors online in the planned timeframe?

[Dr Coffey]

I am conscious that the planning timeframe is one of the reasons for creating the process that we are going through. I can honestly say that EDF spent a lot of time going through it and planning ahead, and I give credit for that. I have constituents who always have and always will oppose nuclear, and more have done so recognising the impact it will have. However, I was assured by our regulators, the Environment Agency and Natural England that the mitigations put in place and the modifications along the way would be sufficient to recognise the area of outstanding natural beauty and all the designations that we have, while accepting that there might be some disruption. I am conscious that the issue is of concern. Candidly, I think there is more concern about the Sea Link project, not only in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), which, as it stands, would struggle to get any environmental clearance at all.

We have a combination of factors. I agree that we need a whole energy plan in the future, and the Government are, rightly, in order to achieve net zero, trying to accelerate this strategy. However, what worries me is that they are accelerating it without necessarily having done the work. I give credit to the Government for making this strategic change, which was absolutely necessary as we move away from gas and coal. Inland, we had a hub and spokes approach. We are now bringing in most of our energy from the coast and abroad, so we do need to work through the impacts of that. What I am concerned about is the acceleration that is being proposed in a different way. Communities want certainty. What they do not want is a botched job along the way, which is the risk of aspects of what we are being asked to endorse today.

I will turn to the policy summary of responses. I will not be brief; I apologise to hon. Members, but I have told them that this one of the most important debates I will speak in. In question 1, 60% of the people who expressed an interest said that they felt the strategy and policy statement identified the most strategic policies and outcomes for Government in formulating policy. However, in question 2 on the role of Ofgem in achieving that, only 40% agreed, and on the role of the future system operator, which is being rebranded as the National Energy System Operator, only 46% agreed.

I want to ask the Minister how the responses to the consultation have been taken into account, and what changes have been made as a result of the feedback. I am conscious that people think that consultation is just a rubber stamp, and to some extent it is. However, the Government are supposed to show that they have considered the views that people have put forward and justify why they have rejected them, which is why responding to consultations takes so long. I want to get an understanding of that.

In the summary of responses, the Government talk about the establishment of the national ESO. My understanding is that it is supposed to be established by the summer of 2024. I have been in Government long enough to know that summer can actually mean up until December. However, if it really is being established within the next three months—by the summer recess —why do we need to decide this matter now? I appreciate that it has already taken a considerable amount of time, but we should ensure that we get it right, so that we do not have to go through another consultation within the next 12 months. I think that would be helpful.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test has already mentioned the timing. I think I understand; I think it is fair to say that, since the Energy Act that created this new body was only created by the Government in 2023, it is sensible that this has been done now, but it is still somewhat incomplete.

One aspect I would like to understand further is the automatic element of offering connections. In December 2023, the Government responded to the transmission acceleration action plan, which they had rightly been considering. It has been the practice that someone can just say, “I want to connect,” and National Grid or the new NESO has basically had to say yes, and has had to cobble together where that can go. That leads to a really inefficient situation. Once a connection is done, we can pretty much guarantee that almost any big shed can be built in that area without anticipating any normal planning process. I appreciate that the policy of nationally significant infrastructure projects —the NSIPs—is a democratic way of operating, but it does not feel like that when the connection is already offered several years in advance; it comes across as a fait accompli. That is really frustrating for local communities. That is true in my own constituency and right along the east coast, and I expect more Members in Lincolnshire will start to feel the same.

NESO is intended to be independent. One of the key elements here is energy security—it is a key policy that NESO, with Ofgem, has to effectively deliver. There is no indication in the policy statement of how that energy security is translated, if those bodies are supposed to be independent. I hope the Minister can reassure me that NESO and Ofgem will have sufficient knowledge of pretty secret stuff that the Government discuss in the National Security Council on the security of energy.

One of the things I know we have to be mindful of are foreign actors who regularly try to intervene in the cabling between the UK and the continent. How will NESO and Ofgem have access to that sort of knowledge?

I understand that one of the developers, LionLink, is deliberately trying to bring its cables in at Southwold or Walberswick in my constituency, because it would need to cross 13 or 14 other cables to connect further south. I am concerned that we already have on our seabeds what feels like a version of the M25 on steroids. We need to be mindful of that when we consider any further connections.

There is another aspect where this needs some revision or improvement. The Government should ultimately be in charge of the strategic spatial energy plan—the SSEP —and it should not be delegated to the NESO. It is ultimately for Ministers to make decisions. We should be mindful of trying to hold to account those officials who do things on our behalf, but I do not think it works for communities for the answer to be, “It is not my decision.” It is only not their decision because they have decided to give it away. There are challenges there. In its evidence to the Select Committee, National Grid suggested that the SSEP should ultimately be owned by the Government. It went further, in saying that it should be absorbed into national and local planning guidance in order to accelerate decisions for the transmission needed. The policy statement needs to make it very clear that, ultimately, the Secretary of State should sign off the SSEP in the future.

I am conscious that an interim SSEP is supposed to be being prepared. Could the Minister tell us where we are in that process?

This statement is, I believe, intended to help facilitate efficiency in the queue-based system. But what happens when the developer changes its mind? In the south North sea, ScottishPower Renewables set about creating part of the East Anglia array. We worked with the company locally to plan for the future, so that we did not have multiple or mass disruptions. The intention was for direct current to be transmitted and pulled in from the wind farm and to go straight through cabling to the principal energy converter at Bramford. A substantial amount of design and work was done, and there was engagement with communities, because again it involved significant disruption; to give the Committee a sense, when they lay a cable, they dig out a patch with a width about the length of this Committee room. The intention was to bring in more cables, so it would be a much bigger size and then they could pull through the cables as and when they were needed. Instead of having three different routes, we would end up with just one route, but it would be bigger. We could think of it as the M25 compared with the A12—or perhaps the A1 is a better analogy for the hon. Members here.

In the contracts for difference auction, ScottishPower did not get the price it was looking for, so it decided to say, “Oh, we’ll rip that up”—bearing in mind that it had already been through the NSIP—“and go to AC, because that is less money for us.” It still causes the big disruption, because the construction had already started; but as a consequence, the company needed to create new connections for the rest of the windfarm. That has led to us ending up with the converter station in Friston.

That is the problem. I do not understand what direction is being given to the ESO, or indeed to Ofgem, in this policy statement about what happens when, after a community has gone through all that, a change is made to the NSIP. Basically the developers can change their mind and hold the Government to ransom, because otherwise they would not have proceeded with the project at all, and we know we need to get to net zero. That is an example where co-ordinating and planning was done—years ahead of where we are today—and yet we were screwed over by ScottishPower Renewables. That is why there is a lack of trust in what is happening in the acceleration of this plan.

Turning to the document itself, I want to raise a few issues. I am conscious that Ofgem says what developers can and cannot do—there is a famous story about Chris Huhne creating a “pretty pylon” competition about a decade ago. EDF put forward the cost of using the pretty pylons rather than the ugly pylons, and I do not know exactly what happened, but Ofgem would not allow EDF to raise bills to pay for the pretty pylons, so that felt like a waste of time.

On page 11, the statement talks about the need to

“secure that all reasonable demands for electricity and gas are met;”

and I think that is the sensible part. The National Energy System Operator, as set out in the Energy Act, will be required to

“carry out its functions in the way that it considers is best calculated to promote the objective of ensuring security of gas and electricity supply”—

which is absolutely right—

“meeting our statutory decarbonisation targets and promoting coordinated, efficient and economical systems”.

That is where it starts to get tricky. There is no mention of the environment in there, or of how, if at all, NESO may be instructed to do the environmental principles policy statements.

The statement goes on to say:

“NESO will be a public corporation…independent from other commercial energy interests”—

again, that was one of the key points in the Energy Act. My constituents seem to think that BlackRock is making a lot of these decisions, solely on the basis that BlackRock is one of the key owners of National Grid, but that has always been separate. However, it also says:

“The government will be sole shareholder of NESO, and thus retain ultimate responsibility, however it will not exercise control over NESO’s operations. NESO will be licensed and regulated by Ofgem”.

That is where I have more difficulty. We do a lot of planning permission, setting out a variety of elements and other rules on how independent organisations are supposed to operate. I do not expect the Secretary of State to have to sign off the location of every single pylon, but it concerns me that at the moment I cannot see a specific role in this statement for how the Secretary of State will be involved in the strategic spatial plan. Ultimately, we need to be able to hold the policy to account in Parliament, and I am worried that that is simply not happening and that it is being pushed away.

Page 13 of the statement mentions

“a Centralised Strategic Network Plan…for electricity transmission onshore and offshore, building on ESO’s current role in delivering the Holistic Network Design”.

In the 2022 leadership contest, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) basically said that we should move to undergrounding everything—no pylons—and that is certainly one approach. The present Prime Minister, however, suggested that he would re-consult on innovative and alternative solutions to the scheme that National Grid had put forward. I am not aware that that has happened. He also committed to various groups that he would do all he could to reduce the amount of infrastructure required onshore. That has certainly not happened, nor has it taken into account section 164(1)(c) of the Act on innovation.

This is not trying to construct something from scratch; the offshore grid connection is already happening in other countries in the European Union. The statement does not take account of our wider approach to development of trying to promote brownfield development over greenfield. At the moment, the approach of the NESO is whatever is cheapest for the developer, not thinking about wider energy transmission loss that happens once DC is converted to AC.

Instead, the NESO should be thinking about taking electricity into Tilbury, Isle of Grain and even Bradwell, where existing transmission network needs to be upgraded. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is keen to see small modular reactors there in future, but the point here is the existing brownfield sites. In my constituency, this is all greenfield development and all about taking out farming land. Some farmers have been prepared to sell, and I understand that, but others will be blocked from doing what they love and cherish on that family farm that has been passed on from generation to generation. Compulsory purchase plan orders are already being submitted and that is soul-destroying for farmers in Suffolk Coastal.

Consideration of where the connections should go seems, as I say, to be in the interests of developers, rather than those of the country as a whole, but another aspect—back on page 13—makes me wonder what consideration has been given to food security in the development of this policy. Have the whole-system impacts been thought through? Nothing has been developed so far about the offshore grid, and that is really missing. We should not be thinking just about the next five years.

I know that the acceleration is all about trying to get to 2030, and I appreciate—I say this frankly to the Opposition—that since the Conservatives came into Government in 2010, we have generated 99% of the amount of renewable energy that has been created, as opposed to what had happened previously. However, I am also conscious that as we hurtle towards that date, we are not taking into account the whole-system impact or the lifetime understanding of the value for the future.

On page 14, under the heading “Cross-cutting”, the document states:

“The purpose of this is to enable government and Ofgem to draw on the specific expertise of NESO and allow policy decisions to be based on robust evidence, with NESO’s independent consideration of whole system network impacts”.

In response to what the Minister or one of her colleagues asked for, a comparison grid was mentioned. It has been well documented that undersea cabling from wind farms in Scotland down to Lincolnshire, to Humberside, is happening. We were trying to understand collectively, as a group of MPs in East Anglia, why no consideration seems to have been given to what is happening in East Anglia. That has happened but it is odd that as part of that approach, NESO is basically saying, “Yeah, we are doing this, but it won’t make any difference.” Again, that frustrates the local community, and is more evidence to suggest that we were right all along.

I am conscious that there will not be one solution that pleases everybody. I get that, and we must have those wider considerations, but it does feel that my constituents are being shafted in this proposal. As I said, I am not being a nimby; we have Sizewell C. I am concerned that some of the short-term elements do not include a longer term cost or environmental impact, and that needs to change in this policy statement.

On page 16 and the appropriate use of competition, I would love to hear from the Minister what happens to those developers who simply pull out when it does not suit them. What are we doing to ensure that they do not pull out and ruin people’s lives? Going on to page 18, I agree with the strategic approach, for creating a more efficient system. Surely, it would be more efficient to have the energy brought into London and parts of the south-east much closer, because the energy drop-off in transmission is not efficient. We should get that connection much closer.

I have already asked a question about when the interim SSEP will be published. On page 24, I support the elements on supporting nuclear. As I said, the environmental regulators were content for that to go ahead. I am very supportive of the hydrogen strategy on page 21. I was surprised recently, however, by a change of view from National Grid and NESO about whether hydrogen can play any meaningful role, which concerns me. I am conscious of developments that need to happen as part of Freeport East, but I think that change has sent the industry rather cold. I am worried that we are cutting off hydrogen too early. I appreciate that the road map that the Minister has in her policy overall is important to try to deliver a low-carbon, hydrogen-heating neighbourhood trial by 2024 but, more broadly, I hope the Government will continue to press, to ensure that hydrogen is a part of our future.

In Section Two on page 26, I am conscious of some of the energy tariffs. Do not get me wrong: I am not seeking to inflate energy prices massively, simply because of constituents concerned about developments in Friston, Saxmundham, Southwold, Walberswick and Aldeburgh. People who visit those places know how flat and beautiful the area is, and how important to nature. I am doing this because I want a whole-system approach that would take that longer-term assessment.

I am sure the Committee will be thrilled to know that I intend to wind up. I want to ask the Minister please not to move the motion on today’s paper. Even if colleagues are just reflecting on some of the comments made today, and perhaps the incomplete response to the consultation, this matter should not be rushed. Once we have laid this, this will not happen for some time. I am conscious that there is a lot of work going on. In the short term, I would like the Minister to direct National Grid and NESO not to offer any more connections until the interim spatial strategy energy plan is granted.

That is really critical. It is important that we do not just keep ploughing on making the same mistakes that so many elements of the policy statement are due to correct. Why keep adding things, which I already think are in error, that could quickly undermine the success of the spatial strategy?

I am grateful for the patience of the Committee. This might not be a No. 1 topic in Members’ constituencies, but it is a most important one in Suffolk Coastal. I am grateful to be able to speak today and set out clearly why I believe that more needs to be done to the policy statement and with the attitude of the ESO and Ofgem so that we can go forward together and have a brilliant energy system for the future. The Department and every hon. Member here wants to see that, but we need to make sure it is done right.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

On the hon. Member’s first point, absolutely, we remain committed to delivering, developing and rolling out heat pumps across the country, and we remain committed to the targets we have set out. On the community energy fund, there is already an equivalent Scottish community energy fund up and running and delivering for communities across Scotland. That is a competency of the Scottish Government at Holyrood. I would be delighted to direct any questions that he or his constituent have on that to the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. [Interruption.] He makes the case from a sedentary position that energy is reserved. Yes, but the Scottish Government have their own community energy fund. We will base a lot of what we are doing on that fund as it is rolled out in Scotland.

With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take some time to explain the not insubstantial number of Government amendments to the House. I turn first to Government amendment 148 and the subsequent consequential amendments. I think it is fair to say that considerable concern was raised about the initial proposals for a hydrogen levy. The Government have carefully considered those concerns. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for his amendments on the issue, and indeed the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) for his amendments relating to those clauses. It is right that we take these considerations seriously and, where appropriate, seek to make changes.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I would be delighted.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for reflecting on what I said in Committee and for the commitments given to me by the Government to bring about an amendment to the Bill? I thank him for listening to Back Benchers’ concerns in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Whitehead]

No, I will not give way again.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has a particularly interesting new clause on tidal range. With the right effort and the right investment, a huge acceleration of build-out can be achieved. Indeed, we have set out our plans on how to do that over the next period. What we need is for that ambition and those plans to be in legislation and in the Bill now.

The Minister did not give any indication in his contribution of whether the Government will move towards any of these amendments, but we hope to press some of them to a vote this afternoon. However, I have to say that we do so within the general setting that we are supportive of the Bill. We want it to succeed, but we want it to succeed with our bits added on, not least because this is the Bill that we will inherit when we are in government shortly. We will then have to do all the work that the Government have set out in the Bill.

Finally, let me say to those hon. Members who are thinking of voting against our amendments that they contain the Government’s own ambitions. What we are trying to do is to put the Government’s own ambition into legislation and provide ways by which it can be achieved. If hon. Members decide to vote against these changes this afternoon, they will, at least in some measure, be voting against their own Government. I hope that they will have sufficient sense to make sure that they do not do so as far as this Bill is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It has been a pleasure to speak on the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) that it is a great pity we cannot have a long debate on Report or Third Reading, to expand on issues further.

One of the issues that I wanted to expand on is about some of the alternatives. We keep talking about electric vehicles moving down, but hydrogen combustion vehicles offer a real opportunity to move forward. We also talk about net zero, but this has now moved to zero-emission vehicles. That rules out hydrogen combustion, so again, we are going down a rabbit hole of just having electric vehicles, but an electric vehicle is not a zero-emission vehicle. If it was, the underground would have the cleanest air in London, and it does not, because there are a lot of particulates around it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) makes it clear through new clause 47 that we have to look at the sources, and new clause 37 relates to where batteries go. We keep talking about the rare earth metals that are needed. Indeed, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) talked about being able to maintain baseload by using various aspects of energy storage. We keep coming back to the need for rare earth metals and materials to enable that, and they come from areas of the world that we do not have an influence over. In the past 18 months, there has been a huge debate about the fact that we cannot be reliant on Russian energy, and yet few Members in today’s debate have recognised the fact that we are wholeheartedly moving towards becoming reliant on China to supply our energy needs.

This is a huge Bill. It is a fundamental Bill that we have brought forward as we look to the future, but it is far too big, with far too many aspects to it. It has become a bit of a hodgepodge, saying, “We want electric vehicles. We want electric heating in homes. We want to have arc blast furnaces rather than coal furnaces, so we will ban new coalmines.” I promise this House that if we move to just arc furnaces, we will destroy steel manufacturing in this country, because we do not have the ability now to produce the electricity that is needed. We are not going to switch off the lights in people’s homes before we switch off an arc furnace, and once it has been switched off, we cannot switch it back on.

That is the big mismatch in the Bill, which is why I regret that we will not have a Third Reading debate to discuss these issues on a slightly wider basis. The rush to renewables is happening quicker than the timeline for making sure we have enough turbines, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) made very important points as well. Although the aims are there, and I think we all want to follow those aims—not being reliant on foreign energy is highly important—at the moment there does not appear to be a connection between these things as they come online. As such, although the aims of the Bill are good, we have to make sure that we implement them over a consistent timeframe so that we take the public with us.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The beautiful food-producing farmland in my constituency is a particular target for industrial-scale solar farms, often backed by prospectors who have no personal connection to our area. This raises huge concerns among my constituents about the scale of the projects and the lack of thorough consultation. With the imperative of food security on our minds, we must explore alternatives to covering vast expanses of our productive land with solar panels.

Many people do not appreciate the scale of the issue, so to illustrate the magnitude of this challenge, I will highlight one proposal for a solar farm in my constituency. It aims to engulf a staggering 587 hectares of land, just under half of which is grade 1 to grade 3A farmland—the very best and most versatile agricultural land, the best land for food production. In fact, almost 10,000 acres of my constituency are currently open to planning for solar farms. Those farms will dwarf villages such as Witham St Hughs, Thorpe on the Hill, Bassingham and Holdingham, and will almost encircle villages such as Scopwick, Digby and Ashby de la Launde.

I do not stand against solar panels in principle; I have previously spoken about the unexplored potential of utilising industrial roof spaces for them. However, I do not believe that covering our farmland in solar panels is the right thing to do, and I vehemently object to the lack of food security it could produce. I therefore support new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), which seeks to solve this injustice and put an end to these large-scale projects. Furthermore, I appreciate that that clause also encourages future developments on brownfield sites, which are far better suited to such endeavours. Let us work together to protect our precious farmland, maintain our food security, heed the concerns of our constituents, and chart a more sustainable path for our energy future.

I was also shocked to hear that more than 90% of solar panels may be made by, or have elements that come from, slave labour. As we discuss the slavery of the past, let us do all we can to prevent the slavery of the here and now. I therefore also support new clause 47, which should be pushed to a Division later.

Lincolnshire as a whole produces a vast amount of this country’s food, yet 22,500 acres—1.3% of its land area—are currently open to applications for solar panels. As such, I ask the Minister to answer two questions in his summing up. First, what will we eat when our best and most versatile farmland is covered by solar panels? Secondly, what is his assessment of the impact on the environment of growing energy from solar panels instead of food, then importing food from elsewhere?

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourteenth sitting)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to make quite a few comments on the clauses, but I hope we are more than halfway through the debate, given how long we spent on it on Tuesday. You were not here then, Mr Gray, but the Labour Front Benchers shared their contributions, which is a luxury that I do not have as the only SNP Front Bencher. I warn the Committee to buckle up for what is now going to be an Alan monologue for a wee while, so be prepared!

First, I want to make some comments about Tuesday’s discussion of the merits of clause 270, which was inserted by the Lords. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ribble is not in her place; I would rather be saying this with her directly opposite—

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

Shortly; I will make the point first. On Labour and the SNP being against opening coal mines, the hon. Member for South Ribble said:

“This is one of the most jaw-dropping moments I have ever had in my parliamentary career. The Scottish National party and the Labour party are arguing against domestic jobs, our proud coalmining heritage and energy security for this country. Is that not flabbergasting?”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 356.]

That was a week in which the former Prime Minister resigned and was proven by the Privileges Committee—with a Tory majority—to be a serial liar, and in which Parliament voted to effectively sanction what would have been a 90-day suspension. I find that a bit more jaw-dropping than ourselves and Labour opposing new coal mines.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

To help the hon. Gentleman, I merely say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is unfortunately detained in the Chamber because a huge bomb factory was found in her constituency this morning and she needs to raise that on the Floor of the House. I know that my hon. Friend will be here later.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was not casting any aspersions about the hon. Member not being here; I was just saying that it was unfortunate when I am addressing her comments. I note how important that issue in her constituency is and hope it gets resolved.

On coalmining heritage—I do not think I need to point this out, but I will anyway, as an obvious history lesson—the coalmines were shut down as a result of Maggie Thatcher putting her anti-union ideology ahead of the coalmining industry. At that time she was more than happy to import coal from the likes of Poland and bring it in from overseas while shutting the coalmines here. That is a fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Excitement is sometimes quite tempting, Mr Gray, but I will try my best. I am trying to draw together the history of the coalmines and the issue of whether we should go forward with more. On the intervention, it is not usually for me to agree with Barney Crockett, but Labour’s energy policy is certainly all over the place.

We are debating opening new coalmines, but the reality is that there are now not too many people, even of working age, who have actually worked in coalmines—that is how long ago they were shut down—so there is not even a skillset out there that would be able to operate much of the mines. I realise that technology has moved on—the proposed mine at Whitehaven will use modern technology—but skilled labour will still be hard to get and the Government’s immigration policies will prohibit skilled miners coming from elsewhere.

Labour and the SNP are against coalmines, but we need to look at the wider context and consider the comments of the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who was commissioned by the Tory Government to undertake a net zero review. His report was supported and commended by Members on both sides of the House, who agreed with its recommendations. Before the decision on the Whitehaven mine, he said:

“Opening a new coal mine in the UK would send the wrong signal across the world. We are international leaders when it comes to tackling climate change. To act differently, having pledged the ending of coal, would be to surrender that leadership.”

After the decision to grant planning permission for the coalmine, the right hon. Gentleman stated that if the recommendations in his report, such as on net zero tests, were part of the process, the coalmine would have been refused. He added:

“I obviously personally believe the coal mine decision is a mistake.”

A senior Tory parliamentarian is saying the same things as us. He is against the opening of new coalmines, and by default therefore supports clause 270. On international leadership, he effectively said that by opening new coalmines, the UK can no longer claim to be world leading on climate change.

I understand the importance of the jobs that go along with coalmines. My constituency needs new jobs, but we cannot use the phrase “local jobs” to justify bad decisions. Prioritising jobs above everything else leads to a race to the bottom. We could create jobs by chopping down all the trees in the UK and burning them, but that is a ludicrous proposition, so we cannot use new jobs as a justification.

If we want to talk about jaw-dropping comments, I was surprised to find that the hon. Member for South Ribble was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), so it is worth while to look at what he said about the proposals for opening new coalmines. He said:

“Over the past three years the UK has sought to persuade other nations to consign coal to history, because we are fighting to limit global warming to 1.5C and coal is the most polluting energy source…A decision to open a new coalmine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal. This proposed new mine will have no impact on reducing energy bills or ensuring our energy security.”

Our comments were deemed jaw-dropping, but I assume that those of the COP26 President, who led the worldwide negotiations on emissions reduction, and those of the chair of the net zero review should not be regarded as jaw-dropping and should be respected.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman said the proposals will not improve our energy security, but will he comment on what will happen to the steel industry if we are not able to produce the electricity needed to move to arc furnaces in the timeframe outlined by the clause? As I said at the end of the previous sitting, we keep identifying areas that will be powered by electricity, but we do not seem to have the ability to catch up with that. On energy security, will he comment on what will happen if we are unable to generate the electricity that the steel industry needs?

[Alan Brown]

I am happy to comment on energy security, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those were not my words but the words of the former COP26 President. He said that the proposed new mine will not deliver energy security. I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman respects the President of COP26 and believes that he did a good job.

This argument about supplying coke and coal to the steel industry has already been debunked: 85% of the coal from the new coalmine will go abroad, so it will not provide energy security by supporting the steel industry in the UK. That is a bogus argument.

[Alan Brown]

I want to debunk the hon. Gentleman’s debunking of the debunking. Let me come to the comments of the chair of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben, who the last time I checked is a Tory and was a Tory Minister.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

On that very point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

I am trying to answer the other point first.

[Alan Brown]

This is an important point. The chair of the Climate Change Committee condemned the opening of the new coalmine and said that opening it would mean the UK emitting 400,000 tonnes of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He also pointed out that 85% of the coal will be exported because it is high in sulphur and therefore not suitable for the UK steel industry. A former chief executive of British Steel, Ron Deelen, said:

“This is a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry”.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous with his time. He said that exporting 85% of the coal does not add to our energy security, but does he accept that if we have energy at home and do not have to import it, that is energy security by definition?

[Alan Brown]

I agree, which is why I want to see more renewables deployed. That is why I keep arguing for pumped-storage hydro, but the Government have fought that. It would give us storage and additional security and resilience. Obviously, I want the UK to become a net exporter of energy overall—that is the ideal place to get to—but renewables and storage are the answer.

Plenty of other senior Tory voices are saying that we should not open coalmines, so I do not see why the SNP and Labour should not be on the side of science and of such otherwise-respected senior Tory parliamentarians. It is also ludicrous that we are still effectively banning onshore wind in England but the Government will not accept a ban on opening up new coalmines and burning fossil fuels. When we talk about trying to lead the world on energy change, that is rank hypocrisy.

I realise the reality is that the transition will use some carbon fossil fuels. We need to understand that. That is why I believe in a just transition and have tabled a new clause that asks the UK Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government by setting up a just transition commission. I have also tabled a new clause about net zero impact assessments. That in itself should underline Government policy and make the decision-making process transparent, so that we fully understand the impacts of policy decisions on net zero.

The Minister said it was important we ensure that industries that rely on coal can rely on domestic sources of coal, but that is a vacuous comment, because any coal mined in the UK goes on the open market and to whoever pays the most money for it. Having a new UK coalmine does not mean that that coalmine will automatically supply UK-based steel makers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I do not know, but what I do know is physics. The physics says that we have to maintain a baseload. If we are unable to maintain that baseload, other options may have to be looked at, as Germany has done.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Twelfth sitting)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

I will start with the good news and first speak to clause 271 and Government new clause 52. The Government have maintained the view that Ofgem’s principal objective makes its role in achieving the net zero target clear. However, we have carefully considered the effect of clause 271 with Ofgem and sought legal advice to ensure that the Lords amendments would not impact the hierarchy and intended effect of Ofgem’s duties. We are therefore content to clarify Ofgem’s duties by making specific reference to the net zero target in the Climate Change Act 2008.

The Government new clause is equivalent in substance to clause 271, but includes some minor drafting changes to ensure that the duty works in practice. First, it clarifies the authority’s role in supporting, rather than enabling, the Government to meet their net zero target. Secondly, it clarifies the net zero targets and carbon budgets specific to sections 1 and 4 of the 2008 Act. The new clause does not change the intention of clause 271. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the recommendation in his report entitled “Mission Zero”, Baroness Hayman in the other place and the energy industry for working constructively with the Government to bring forward this significant change.

I now turn to clause 270, which was also added to the Bill in the Lords on Report. The clause would prohibit the opening of new coalmines and extensions to existing coalmining in Great Britain. After carefully considering this addition, I tabled my intention to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill on 17 May. The Government are committed to ensuring that unabated coal has no part to play in future power generation, which is why we are phasing it out of our electricity production by 2024. Coal’s share of our electricity generation has already declined significantly in recent years—from almost 40% in 2012 to around 2% in 2021.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that although, as he rightly says, electricity production by coal has been as little as 1% and huge amounts of work can be done to reduce that carbon dioxide output, it is vital, with electricity generation, to maintain a baseload? As we saw recently when a gas turbine power station was turned off and we were relying on wind power, the baseload could not be maintained and the system tripped out for a large area of the country. Does the Minister agree with me that the objectives are fine, but physics and reality come in at some point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Is the Minister saying that we should have access to those supplies in order to back the system up? And by the way, I do not think that tripping out, which came up a little while ago, was just about coal.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It was a gas turbine.

[Dr Whitehead]

It was a gas turbine that tripped out. It was not about coal, as far as I understand.

Is the Minister saying that we should have access to those supplies until, but not after, 2024? We will not have anywhere to burn them after 2024 because the intention is to have phased out coal by then. What exactly is the Minister saying? By the way, coal is unlikely to be burned in a UK power establishment in the future, if such establishments survive.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting)

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

That is significant because, first, all smart meters have “kill switches”—remote switches that can be used to disconnect homes from the national grid—and, secondly, as I said, smart meters routinely transmit a host of data that is of use in aggregate to the development of UK energy markets. I do not in any way wish to promote the Daily Mail view of smart meters as the spy under the stairs—in general, they are not, and their use is well regulated—

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I apologise to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I want to make this point of order before the sitting concludes. We will shortly move on to discuss energy performance certificates and insulation of privately rented properties. In the past, I have been advised that I did not have to register the fact that my wife has a rental property and that her family have rental properties, but I seek your advice, Mr Gray, for the next sitting: will I have to make some sort of declaration before I comment on those areas of the Bill? I wanted to get that in now, so that a ruling can be made for this afternoon.

[The Chair]

If the interests are declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the right hon. Gentleman believes that they are relevant to the debate, it would be prudent for him to call the Committee’s attention to the register. That is not enforced entirely, but the question is whether there might be a perception of bias. Therefore, if the Member has interests that he believes might be of importance, it is probably worth his calling them to the attention of the Committee before he speaks.

Dr Whitehead, will you be concluding in the next 20 seconds?