Gas Prices and Energy Suppliers

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

What I do acknowledge is that there has been a quadrupling of the gas price, and that we have an energy price cap that will protect customers from such spikes. Schemes such as the warm home discount will also protect the most vulnerable customers. That is what I acknowledge.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of this country’s structural dependency on gas, which was created by the last Labour Government’s sidelining of green technologies, such as nuclear and even hydrogen?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For example, the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing to drive nuclear power, which is a fundamental ingredient of security of energy supply.

UK Gas Market

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I totally understand where that is coming from, but I have said repeatedly that universal credit is an issue across Government and there is no way that I can commit to anything on that in the House. We are absolutely focused on protecting people in fuel poverty. All our policies have been focused on that, and I would suggest that she reads our 2019 manifesto to see the extent of our commitments to help those in fuel poverty.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Interconnectors are vital for our energy security and for reaching net zero, for both gas and electricity. In a White Paper last year, the Government aimed to get 80 GW of interconnectors in by 2030, which is three times what we have now. However, Ofgem, which is leading on this, seems to be dragging its feet. What can this Government do to get these interconnectors going and increase our energy security?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The issue of interconnectors is very important. There were clearly incidents with a couple of the interconnectors last week, so we need to guarantee that they are safe, but my hon. Friend is quite right to say that the 80 GW target is still very much something that we intend to achieve, and I am working with and speaking to Ofgem to be able to get there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the Government’s levelling- up agenda.

[Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to support the Government’s levelling- up agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I have not had a chance to look at the report, but I absolutely commit to doing so. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been doing a lot of work with local communities where there are geothermal projects, and we will continue to look at them and see how we can help to support them. It will be, as ever, one of those ongoing areas of policy; in the long term, we want to use all the renewable resources available to us as a country to ensure that we maximise their use, while, as I said earlier, ensuring that they also provide value for money for the taxpayer.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What assessment he has made of the extent of the renewable energy development required by 2030 to help deliver the Government’s sixth carbon budget.

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

Renewable electricity will be key for the decarbonisation required for carbon budget 6. Therefore, we have set an ambitious target to deliver 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030 and announced our aim to up to double the capacity of this year’s contracts for difference auction, as well as extending eligibility to a wider range of technologies.

[Alexander Stafford]

The Minister will be aware of my long-standing interest in environmental, social and governance, as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. How will her Department ensure that the Government’s sixth carbon budget is delivered with ESG at its heart, and what are the plans for engagement with Government Departments and corporations to ensure that all targets set out in the carbon budget are viewed through an ESG lens?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend’s passion for, and commitment to, this subject since he arrived in the House have been unstinting. I have been more than impressed by his determination to ensure that we do not, at any turn, miss the opportunity to raise it; he has been particularly determined to ensure that we look at the role of critical materials in renewables. They will continue to be an important part of how we are able to develop our renewables capacity. I hope that he is reassured that we continue to work across Departments to maximise those outcomes.

UK Steel Production: Greensill Capital

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me to discuss the issues around Liberty Steel and for working with me to save jobs in that great company. He knows as well as I do that good British steel—and, hopefully, Sheffield steel—is an essential component of our ongoing green industrial revolution, from electric cars to wind turbines. Will he assure my constituents that there is a place and a need for the steel industry, and for many, many steel jobs here in South Yorkshire?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am delighted to see my hon. Friend taking part in these critically important proceedings. I know how hard he has worked not only to win his seat and be an excellent, first-rate Member of Parliament, but also in his passion for green energy, renewable technologies and hydrogen; in fact, I am surprised that he did not mention hydrogen in his question. I am delighted to work with him to ensure that we have a future for the steel industry here in the UK.

UK Renewables: Critical Minerals

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, I am delighted to have secured this debate on the use of critical minerals in the UK’s renewables future. As was the case with my two hydrogen Adjournment debates, I am pleased to announce that this is the first debate in the UK Parliament dedicated to critical minerals.

Critical minerals have long been overlooked by successive Governments and by this House—the mantra of “out of sight, out of mind” is apt. Awareness of where our critical minerals come from and what they are used for is low, however. The Government are waking up to the fact that the race for critical minerals security is the new great game. Urgent action must be taken now to safeguard the future prosperity of the United Kingdom and the west in the spheres of the economy, defence and energy. With the upcoming COP26 in Glasgow and the G7 summit in Cornwall, there could not be a better time to do so.

It is vital that this House is made aware of the significant threat to our economy and our post-covid and post-Brexit recovery if we run out of the critical minerals needed to supply our low-carbon industries of the future. The UK’s 10-point economic plan makes an assumption that the international supply of these minerals is sufficient to service every country’s needs in our global race to avoid climate change. I would like to inform the House that that is clearly not the case.

What are critical minerals and what are they used for? In simple terms, these are the minerals that are vital for low-carbon industrial capabilities, but which face supply chain vulnerability. The Critical Minerals Association has split the definition of critical minerals into three subsections: critical minerals, which are important for industrial strategy and consist of minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earths; technology metals, which are bulk metals such as copper that are not susceptible to supply chain vulnerability, but are important nevertheless for the UK’s industrial objectives; and strategic minerals, which have potential defence importance. Those three groups of critical minerals are ubiquitous in their use, and that is part of the problem.

In fact, critical minerals are becoming more and more important by the day. Our renewables and telecommunications technology of the future requires an ever-increasing amount of critical minerals. Without them, our society just cannot function. With global demand at this scale, shortages present a real threat to our economy and to our society. In the past five years, we have seen the mass commercialisation of satellite and drone technology, led by British companies such as Blue Bear Systems, all of which rely on critical minerals. Likewise, advanced robotics for British manufacturing, which is crucial to my seat of Rother Valley in South Yorkshire and places across our country, require more than 40 different critical minerals.

It is incredibly important that British industry thrives in the post-Brexit and post-covid era. For that to happen, factories and plants in the Rother Valley region must stay at the cutting edge of their sector, with the best equipment and secure, efficient supply chains, thus staying competitive and retaining their reputation for the highest-quality products.

The most visible everyday examples of the importance of critical minerals are mobile phones and electric cars. Our ultra-modern smartphones, boasting touchscreens, cameras and 5G, use a huge number of critical minerals, including potassium, tin, copper, tungsten and advanced aluminium. Electric vehicles are often hailed as the future of renewable transport, but they are key users of critical minerals. Each car on average uses 100 kg of copper, rare earth for the magnets and lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite for the batteries. Many people are surprised to learn that a solar panel relies on 16 different minerals and metals.

An equally important part of the UK’s renewables future is the wind turbine, with the Prime Minister boldly envisioning that we shall become the

“Saudi Arabia of wind power”.

I share his enthusiasm for the role that wind can play in powering the UK and in reducing our carbon emissions, but to meet the Prime Minister’s objective of having every home in the UK powered by wind turbines by 2030, experts indicate that we will need to increase our output of energy from 10 GW to 40 GW by 2030. That will require building a new wind turbine every single day until 2030. To achieve that, we need more than 26,000 tonnes of rare earths and more than 4 tonnes of copper. The UK Government must acknowledge that the construction of renewable energy technology is inextricably linked to the supply of critical minerals. We must take action accordingly to protect our energy sector and the generation of power.

Importantly, seven points in the Government’s 10-point plan for the green recovery are dependent on a secure green supply of critical minerals. Herein lies the challenge for the United Kingdom. We are facing a two-pronged threat. The first threat is that as demand rockets for the use of critical minerals in the technology of the future, there is a global shortage, which would affect our economy and livelihoods, our energy supply, our environmental agenda, our security and defence, and basically the way we live our lives.

The second threat is that our current suppliers of critical minerals are not dependable or sustainable. I shall name two countries in our critical minerals supply chain in order to demonstrate that fact. The first is involved in the mining of critical minerals, and the second in the midstream processing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a dependable source of minerals for the UK to rely on. It is politically unstable, and Chinese influence is concerningly strong in mining areas. It is not a sustainable source of minerals either, with the DRC home to low environmental standards and frequent human rights violations against local people and children. In fact, there is currently a class action lawsuit against the big technology companies, including Apple, Google, Dell, Microsoft, and Tesla, which stand accused of operating supply chains that use cobalt mined by children.

The second country in our critical minerals supply chain is the People’s Republic of China, and it is in the midstream, where the communist PRC dominates, that we face our greatest threat. Clearly, we are totally dependent on China’s good will, from processing and refining to beneficiation. For instance, China mines only 1% of the world’s cobalt, but refines 65% of it. It mines 12% of the world’s manganese but refines 97% of it, as well 89% of the world’s graphite. China’s absolute control of the critical mineral midstream is so strong that graphite from the UK is sent to China for beneficiation, and then bought back from China at the component section of the supply chain. That is absurd. Of the 172 gigafactories being built in the world at this moment, 130 are in China.

It is estimated that by 2030 the world’s demand for lithium will mean that global production is 1.4 million tonnes a year in deficit. Graphite will be 8 million tonnes in deficit, cobalt 800,000 tonnes in deficit, and nickel 400,000 tonnes in deficit. If China controls the midstream of those minerals, and is building over three times more gigafactories than the rest of the world put together, it is only logical that China will serve its industrial requirements before the rest of the world, and before the United Kingdom.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We talk about industrial strategy, but would my hon. Friend enlighten the House about his views on whether this is also a national security threat?

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and of course it is a national security issue. This is one of the biggest national security issues facing us over the next 10 years or so, and we need to have control of it.

Let me give more examples of why this is such an important matter. More than 75% of the world’s lithium-ion component manufacturers are located in China, resulting in more than 72% of lithium-ion batteries, and 45% of all global electric vehicles, already being produced in China. In December 2020—only a few months ago—the Chinese legislature passed a law on export control, allowing the Government to ban exports of strategic materials and advanced technology to specific foreign companies. A Chinese Government spokesman said:

“China may take countermeasures against any country or region that abuses export-control measures and poses a threat to China’s national security and interests”.

This year alone, China has openly discussed the potential of cutting off the supply of rare earths or rare-earth components to the United States. Those are necessary for the US defence sector and, to put that into context, more than 400 kg of rare earths are needed for a single F-35 fighter.

Let me return to the example I often cite, which is the coronavirus pandemic. Last year, the UK imported most of its personal protective equipment from China, with only 1% of it made in the UK. When we needed it most, however, at the height of the pandemic, China decided to not fulfil its obligations, by sending us defective PPE, or by not even sending it to us at all. We now manufacture 70% of PPE domestically. It is a similar situation with critical minerals. When we take that together with China’s actions over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and its treatment of the Uyghurs, it is clear that we cannot, and should not, depend on the PRC for the future of our economy, energy, and defence sectors.

For the economy, the consequences of such supply chain instability for the United Kingdom are stark. Let me take the automotive sector as an example of the consequences. Some 70% of the value of an electric car is realised in its battery and motor. If those components cannot be manufactured in the UK because we do not have the minerals coming into the country, the consequences for the automotive sector alone are bleak: it could cost up to 500,000 jobs by 2030. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government must take immediate and assertive action to avert this potential disaster, which may strike just as we set out our post-covid-19 recovery.

The Government must adopt a two-fold approach, the first arm of which is to focus on relocating as much of the critical minerals supply chain as we can to the UK, thereby boosting the UK economy and creating jobs and opportunities. The second arm is to take a leading role in creating a Five Eyes critical minerals alliance to co-ordinate an overarching strategy to secure a stable network of interdependence.

On building a critical minerals industry in the UK, we already have some world-leading companies and research institutions in the sector, doing vital work. Of course, Britain has long been a pioneer in industrial innovation. If we look through history, we see that we have been at the forefront of industrial revolutions and part of revolutions in power supply, from early agrarian methods to steam to oil. What differentiates today’s power revolution is that we are not only looking for more powerful or cheaper sources of energy but developing renewable energy sources that meet our social objective of being less damaging to the environment. It is inescapable that critical minerals are the building blocks of this new economy, and the renewable energy sector will need them. The reality is that our future economy and green energy desires rely on a steady, secure and vertically integrated supply of critical minerals for the UK.

The UK has a particularly long history of mining stretching over 2,000 years and more. Everyone in Britain is only too aware of the legend that Jesus himself visited our green and pleasant land more than two millennia ago precisely because of our mining heritage—his relative Joseph of Arimathea was a tin trader—as memorialised in the song “Jerusalem”. Our bulk mining capacity has been depleted because of decreased ore grades, but we are now seeing a growth in domestic critical mineral potential. Although this will never meet our entire critical mineral needs, the shortening of supply chains and production of feedstock domestically is the first step towards reducing vulnerability and tapping into the £7 billion-per-year industry.

We know of UK critical minerals deposits in the south-west of England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Cornish lithium is key to UK critical mineral potential, securing battery-grade lithium from geothermal brine. Elsewhere in the region, Tungsten West is reopening a globally significant tungsten deposit in Devon and Cornwall, and Cornish Metals has the potential to supply industrial levels of tin for the British economy. Not only are such projects significant to our industrial objectives, but they provide an alternative year-round economy to Cornwall and the south-west, where the community has rich mining heritage. In Northern Ireland, Dalradian Gold has the potential to deliver significant copper for the UK economy. Such companies require support to unlock the potential in our regions and secure critical minerals sourced from home.

Domestic mining is just one small part of the greater picture. It is important to note that no one expects us to repatriate all upstream mining to Britain—quite simply, we do not have the geology to support that. It is key that we relocate to the UK other steps in the supply chain, particularly in the midstream. Crucially, by shortening our supply chain we can reduce our embedded carbon footprint, which is vital to the delivery of our green economy and to meeting our net zero target. The domestication of the critical mineral stream and investment in the circular economy is crucial. We are lucky to have in the sector leading British companies such as the Materials Processing Institute, Less Common Metals, TechMet and Technical Critical Minerals.

Let me turn to the second arm of the two-fold approach that I urge the Government to adopt. It is evident that the act of mining is determined by the geology in a nation. If we are to meet the UK’s industrial needs, we will need to secure sufficient critical minerals from other countries. It so happens that our Five Eyes partners are blessed with critical minerals in abundance, as are our Commonwealth friends.

I am a firm believer that the UK is a force of good in the world. In stable partner nations such as Malawi, Tanzania, and Zambia the multiplier effect of a responsibly-run mine is somewhere between 10 and 25. In respect of Five Eyes, collaboration is vital for the mutual benefit of us all. We largely share the same economic and security objectives and we face the same global threats. Closer collaboration with our partner nations, especially Australia and Canada, will be vital to our upstream overseas critical mineral supply chain. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for critical minerals, it was an honour to host the Australian high commissioner this morning to hear about Australia’s recently launched critical mineral strategy and how Australia seeks greater co-operation with the UK in this vital sector.

The high commissioner reiterated that neither country will get to net zero by 2050 through the development and deployment of low-emission technologies without a secure supply chain of critical minerals. His Excellency confirmed that the UK is at the front of the queue for critical minerals co-operation due to our shared environmental and ethical standards and commitment to a market that is diverse, robust, secure, and underpinned by good governance and environmental, social and corporate governance practice, driven by innovation, free market forces and co-operation.

Together, we can diversify the supply chain and complement each other to protect our economies and societies. However, we must secure a UK-Australia free trade agreement. I am pleased that we are already working to establish a working group on critical minerals with Australia. I urge my colleagues to study closely Australia’s critical minerals strategy as it is very much what we should doing in the UK, and the creation of a critical minerals facilitation office should be explored too.

The UK has an opportunity to take the lead on developing an overarching Five Eyes strategy that will safeguard our prosperity and security for decades to come. It is quite possible that we can work with our mining counterparts to host the midstream and downstream parts of the supply chain, creating a supply chain balance across the Five Eyes alliance. Quotas, too, are particularly important in ensuring that our respective needs are met and that we do not face any shortages. One territory that Five Eyes must pay particular attention to is Greenland. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Greenland, I welcome the timely publication of the Greenland critical minerals report, which outlines the crucial role the UK has to play in leading the Five Eyes critical minerals alliance, and I urge the Government to enter into an enhanced partnership with Greenland for critical minerals and to prioritise a bilateral UK-Greenland trade agreement.

I now turn to the benefits of adopting my new strategy on critical minerals for the whole United Kingdom. We are at a crossroads, looking to a future dominated by the green renewables transition and the levelling up agenda. We have left the European Union and we are looking to turbocharge the economy post covid, as well as hosting the G7 and COP26 this year. The building of a critical minerals supply chain will spread huge opportunity to every corner of our country.

I have already spoken about the critical mineral potential of left-behind areas. I know from my own work on locating a hydrogen hub in my constituency of Rother Valley that the domino effect of such supply chains in a region is transformative. For example, Sheffield’s hydrogen giga-factory could be used as part of the electric vehicles and critical minerals supply chain, creating efficiencies and synergies between our burgeoning hydrogen economy and our critical minerals economy. That will not only safeguard existing jobs but create thousands more jobs, providing well-paid employment in the region for generations to come and injecting much needed investment into our high streets in industrial towns such as Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft and Swallownest.

As more companies and educational institutions are attracted by that industrial cluster of critical minerals, steelmaking and hydrogen plants, prosperity is sure to follow. Repatriating the critical minerals supply chain is a vital part of our levelling up agenda, upskilling the local population and supporting our green programme. The more steps in the chain located in the UK, the more we control environmental standards, labour standards and ESG matters.

A circular economy underpinned by the expansion of industries such as recycling, repair and remanufacturing could also create over half a million jobs across the UK. Most of these would be in remanufacturing and most would not be in London or the south-east. It would be particularly important to give a second life to machinery that will enable a low-carbon future.

We are, of course, in a race for these manifold benefits. Our industrial objectives are the same as those of Europe and their companies are looking for the same critical minerals we are. The threat is that we will not secure the supply chain as the EU and other nations advance their strategies before we can. Companies looking to take advantage of the new industrial revolution are thinking regionally to maximise profits against the relatively high capital expenditure needed to start these businesses. As such, we find ourselves in a race against friends to secure a supply chain of critical minerals and secure the domestication of component manufacturers to deliver the industrial objectives.

The Minister will not be surprised that I have some policy asks of the Government. The first is to support the development of potential critical minerals by supporting upstream mining capability throughout the UK. The second is the development of a critical mineral midstream. The global supply chain bottleneck is at the midstream section. When the rest of the world focused on bulk mining, China looked to the future of the industry and cornered the market for the minerals we need now. It is a monopolised sector and therefore free market forces do not work. As a Government, we must find innovative ways to fund the right projects to ensure we overcome this global bottleneck. Our regional competitor for critical minerals, the EU, has already started a finance programme looking to raise £16 billion off the back of an institutional £6 billion investment. Unless we find a way to compete, companies will be attracted to where the investment exists.

The third ask is that we work with our international partners to produce a Five Eyes critical minerals strategy. I strongly believe that working with our cousins in Australia and Canada is the key to building that.

The fourth request is that the Government support university programmes, such as the Camborne School of Mines, to make sure that they look at critical minerals. The final ask is that the Government release a critical minerals strategy at the earliest opportunity, to give investors and industry certainty and to allow Members of this House to scrutinise the economic, environmental and societal benefits.

I believe firmly in our 10-point plan for a green recovery and our net zero target, and I am a staunch supporter of the levelling up agenda. The UK has all the necessary skills and talent to be a world leader in the sector, working with our Five Eyes and Commonwealth friends. We just need the Government’s support, direction, and investment to unleash this potential, creating opportunity across Britain, boosting our green economy, and protecting our energy and defence interests. The critical minerals great game has begun. With the Government behind us, I know that the UK will be the winner.

Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Battery Manufacturing Strategy

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I pay tribute particularly to the hard work of her constituents to make the Vivaro vehicles; they have ensured that the Vauxhall plant in Luton has been a great success. It is exactly because of that, among other reasons, that we are keenly committed to making sure that Ellesmere Port enjoys equal support and success.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) [V]]

This Government have shown a welcome commitment to bringing electric vehicle production to the UK, with all the benefits to the economy and the environment that that entails, and I hope that we will have that in Rother Valley.

However, electric vehicle components are different from those of petrol and diesel cars and include rare minerals, such as cobalt, that are mined overseas. What discussions has the Secretary of State held about developing a strategy for sourcing rare minerals in an environmentally sustainable and ethical way, particularly by supporting domestic extraction and imports from our safe, reliable, democratic allies?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I commend my hon. Friend for that question, which is of great importance. As I have said in earlier answers, we are absolutely committed to exploring and developing lithium mining here in the UK. We fully understand the threats, or dangers, to the supply chain.

My hon. Friend will also appreciate that the Faraday battery challenge, which we have mentioned a number of times, is funding research to reduce our dependency on raw mineral supply and make better use of global resources. That obviously will involve looking at how we can reduce and replace critical raw materials.

UK Hydrogen Economy

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK hydrogen economy.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Members will be aware that only three weeks ago, I sponsored the UK Parliament’s very first stand-alone debate on hydrogen, which was about hydrogen transport. I believe that it was a great success and I welcome the Minister’s proactive and helpful response. It is incredibly exciting that straight off the back of that debate, I have the opportunity to broaden the scope of the conversation today to encompass the UK’s hydrogen economy. It is right that I should touch on hydrogen transport, but I am keen to emphasise hydrogen’s important role in home heating, the gas network and industry, and its wider economic benefits for the UK.

I have been clear that we need a multifaceted approach to decarbonising our economy and meeting our net zero goal. One technology alone will simply not be enough. Instead, we must move to a model where we use the best renewable fuel or technology for the job at hand. By advocating for our hydrogen future, I am in no way detracting from electric vehicles, biofuels or carbon capture and storage, among other central aspects of the matter. I believe that those must be used in conjunction with hydrogen to ensure that we do not have any gaps or holes in our decarbonisation efforts. Hydrogen, however, presents a unique opportunity for us to corner the market and become a world leader in hydrogen use and production, in a way that we simply do not with electric vehicle batteries or in the wind farm supply chain.

The UK is the perfect place to be a hydrogen power, because of expertise, home-grown companies, North sea assets and our developed infrastructure. Our wind farms provide clean renewable energy to produce hydrogen, and underwater pipelines can in theory ferry that hydrogen to and from the continent. I have reiterated time and again that a strong UK hydrogen industry will create thousands of jobs across the country, cut our carbon emissions dramatically and boost our post-covid and post-Brexit economy.

In my speech on hydrogen transport a few weeks ago, I spoke at length about the flexibility and freedom offered by hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles, which are practically free of CO₂ emissions. Energy is stored as compressed hydrogen fuel in hydrogen vehicles, which means that they can drive up to 700 km without refuelling, and just like a conventional car they take only a few minutes to refuel. The deployment of hydrogen is likely in vehicles that travel long distances or that have high utilisation, such as buses and heavy goods vehicles: those are less suited to electrification, and the consumers demand rapid refuelling.

I am particularly impressed by Wrightbus, which is building 3,000 hydrogen buses in the UK for use across the country by 2024—the equivalent of taking 107,000 cars off the road. I have highlighted that if the 4,000 zero-emission buses announced in February had been hydrogen buses, the economies of scale would have revolutionised the transport sector, helping to achieve cost parity between hydrogen and diesel buses. We need that to happen as soon as possible.

A major step in achieving cost parity would be the reform of the renewable transport fuel obligation. I have written to the Government this week to stress the need to reform the RTFO so that electricity from any renewable resource can be considered eligible. I intend that that increased hydrogen production will encourage more councils to buy hydrogen buses and boost UK manufacturing, and that the resulting stable hydrogen supply will speed up the process of cutting carbon from heavy transport sectors.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly indicates that we should encourage the purchase of British vehicles. Should not the Department for Transport now, particularly as it will be free of supposed EU regulations after 1 January, prescribe that the moneys it provides for more environmentally-friendly vehicles ensure they are built in the UK, and not in China or elsewhere?

[Alexander Stafford]

I agree that we should always buy British and build British where we can. That is why I am excited about hydrogen. It presents so many opportunities for seats such as mine to create jobs and upskill our manufacturing sector.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

Very briefly.

[John Spellar]

We have a long while. Quite simply, should there not be real pressure, and a commitment from the Minister, that that is what the Department for Transport must—not should—do? It must commit to doing that.

[Alexander Stafford]

I welcome that follow-up. I always say that we should, where we can, buy British and buy the best, but one of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that we can have our pick and choice of the world. I want the best to be built in Britain.

Let us turn back to the RTFO, which I know the Minister is terribly interested to hear about. A reformed RTFO will prevent taxpayers’ money from going to battery manufacturers in the People’s Republic of China. Such a simple amendment could ensure that we incentivise the manufacture of hydrogen buses by British firms, and establish ourselves as a major player in the sector. I am sure that that allays some of the concerns of the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar).

Hydrogen holds much promise beyond buses and HGVs, with important developments in the rail, shipping and aviation sectors. Only this week, I met virtually with the team at Hybrid Air Vehicles, a wonderful British company that is looking to revolutionise short-haul regional air travel, direct city-to-city connectivity and air tourism by way of building a practical and economical hydrogen plane. They have a working prototype and, if all goes well, will be the first to be issued Civil Aviation Authority approval post-Brexit.

Hybrid Air Vehicles is not the only British-based company in this space. ZeroAvia, a UK-US enterprise, has secured £12.3 million of UK Government funding for a certifiable 19-seat market-ready aeroplane capable of flying passengers to the UK from 2023, with letters of intent in place already with operators. That HyFlyer project is a great leap in realising the Government’s jet zero ambitions. Only last Saturday, British Airways announced that it was partnering with ZeroAvia to explore how hydrogen can power the future of its fleets. Elsewhere, Aeristech boasts market-leading hydrogen fuel cell compressors, with its 25 kW fuel compressor making it possible to deliver the power output needed for even the heaviest industry vehicles, including in aerospace.

Across the transport sector, the UK is at the forefront of innovation, from large companies to small enterprises. At one end, there is the diminutive but mighty Riversimple Movement, a hydrogen car manufacturer based in Wales, which has ambitions to build up to five small factories around the UK, creating thousands of jobs. We move up to the scale of Johnson Matthey, a British firm that is a global leader in fuel cell development, with its technology ending up in roughly a third of fuel cells globally. If the UK can maintain that advantage, we can steal a march on hydrogen, as China did on batteries.

I have been very active in discussing the hydrogen transport sector, but I am also greatly enthused by hydrogen’s potential across the UK economy. Home heating currently accounts for around 23% of national emissions, with the UK well known for having the oldest and least energy efficient homes in Europe. It has become clear to industry, and to parliamentarians, that decarbonising our gas grid is of the utmost importance if we are to meet our net zero target. Hydrogen in the gas grid will play a key role in reducing the cost of the decarbonisation of heat. Its high energy density enables it to be stored cost-effectively at scale, providing system resilience. Furthermore, hydrogen heating can be implemented at minimal disruption to the consumer, and the UK holds world-class advantages in hydrogen production, distribution and application.

Hydrogen behaves in much the same way as natural gas, and is therefore ideally placed to be utilised in existing gas pipe infrastructure. The UK is different from most European countries in terms of the number of properties connected to the gas grid and the readiness of our distribution network. In fact, 85% of homes in the UK are connected to the gas grid. Therefore, repurposing the gas grid to run off green gases has to be a vital part of the solution as we decarbonise our existing buildings.

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alexander Stafford]

I will give way very briefly. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking later.

[John Spellar]

Is there not a problem at the moment that needs to be resolved, which is that hydrogen makes the metal parts of the gas grid more brittle more rapidly? Also, it is easier for hydrogen to escape from them, which is a constraint that we need to address.

[Alexander Stafford]

Of course, we need to restrain all sorts of leaks in our systems, whether from our gas pipes or our water pipes. I know that there are water pipe leaks as well, and I agree that we will need to upgrade certain elements of pipe. If we want to push at the very start, hydrogen will work very quickly, but of course with all technologies we need to maintain the infrastructure, which I know the Government will do very well.

In the boiler sector, Worcester Bosch and Baxi are leading the way in producing the world’s first hydrogen-ready boilers, which can run off either pure hydrogen gas or natural gas, including natural gas blended with up to 20% hydrogen—a mixture that all boilers can utilise, so we are ready to go with that mix. Hydrogen boilers have a distinct advantage over heat pumps, which are another solution, in that they are many thousands of pounds cheaper, costing about the same as a gas boiler. It is estimated that a hydrogen boiler will cost £2,500, whereas a heat pump for a house will cost between £6,000 and £18,000. That is important in terms of fuel poverty, as the cost of heat pumps is potentially unaffordable for some families.

Furthermore, a hydrogen boiler does not take up much space and takes a matter of hours to install. In contrast, an average of three days is needed to fit a large and unwieldy heat pump. It is also worth bearing in mind that the electricity grid has five times less capacity than gas, and relies on gas in the winter to prop it up, making the gas network the obvious choice for resilience purposes.

If there are subsidies for heat pumps, why are there not considerable subsidies for the production of hydrogen? There should be, as that would also help to bolster more jobs. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) raised with me the need to train up more boiler installers so that we have those skills. The Government should be supporting that.

I am pleased to note that the Government have helped initiate a number of projects that have demonstrated the technical and economic viability of hydrogen as a pathway to decarbonising the gas grid. I have been privileged to learn about many of them since my election, although hon. Members will agree that the preference for similar-sounding names is quite the tongue twister. They include the Hy4Heat programme, the HyDeploy project run by ITM Power, Cadent and the Northern Gas Networks, the H21 project led by the Northern Gas Networks, National Grid’s HyNTS Hy Street experiment, and SGN’s H100 Fife project.

The Net Zero Teesside and HyNet large-scale projects are crucial to stimulate the mass production of hydrogen so that we can move from theory to reality when it comes to home heating. Those projects are a firm demonstration of the Government’s interest in and commitment to hydrogen as a technology to help us achieve net zero. They have also provided evidence of the technical and economic viability of hydrogen as a pathway to low-carbon heat, and have helped us address some of the inherent challenges of rolling out technology. In addition, the geographical spread of the projects across the United Kingdom—many are in left-behind areas—shows that hydrogen can play an important part in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

The success of those projects shows that the distribution, transmission and production of hydrogen must be a priority for the UK. However, the UK is at risk of being overtaken by other countries that have more aggressive and developed approaches to hydrogen. For example, Germany has earmarked €9 billion for the expansion of hydrogen capacity, targeting 5 GW by 2030 and a further 5 GW by 2040. Japan established its hydrogen strategy in 2017, which has given industry the confidence to invest.

To date, the UK has lacked the clear policy framework that exists in Japan, and Government investment has been lower than in countries such as Germany. That is precisely why the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan was so welcome, and why the forthcoming hydrogen strategy must be ambitious, wide-reaching and published as soon as possible.

Having addressed hydrogen transport and home heating, I now turn to hydrogen’s potential for use in industry. That is of great importance to constituencies in the former red wall such as mine, Rother Valley. Traditionally, my area has relied on energy-intensive industrial processes. Sheffield is, of course, famous for steel making. It is vital that we decarbonise our industry and provide our factories with renewable energy that is powerful, in ready supply and affordable. Rother Valley bore the brunt of British coal’s lost competitiveness compared with cheaper foreign imports, and the high cost of energy and the struggling industry has been the narrative ever since. We now have a chance to ensure energy sustainability for generations. In doing so, we will turbocharge our national industries in the post-Brexit world.

In the light of that, I warmly welcome National Grid’s ambitions to build a hydrogen transmission backbone consisting of pipelines connecting major industrial hubs across the UK. Such hubs exist in Humberside, Teesside, south Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, Merseyside and the Isle of Grain in Kent. The concept is that significant volumes of hydrogen will enable the build-out of 100% hydrogen pipelines to decarbonise early adopters in industry and transport. Cadent is planning a similar idea of piping 100% hydrogen by Pilkington’s glassworks in Ellesmere Port so that the factory can reduce its costs and stay open to save jobs.

Members will know that I am always keen to focus on my region of Yorkshire and the Humber in this House, which is why Zero Carbon Humber is of such relevance to me and to industry in and around my constituency. Humberside is currently the UK’s largest carbon emitting industrial area, but Zero Carbon Humber aims to make it the world’s first net zero carbon industrial cluster. It is a wonderful example of the Government working hand in hand with the private sector to fund an ambitious endeavour. It is a staggering statistic that H2H Saltend in Zero Carbon Humber can produce more than half the Government’s planned 1 GW of hydrogen by 2025, and is one of the few places in the world where hydrogen, carbon capture and offshore wind congregate to create a “super place”. The towns and villages around Zero Carbon Humber offer opportunities for hydrogen neighbourhood heating trials, essential for decarbonising the heat networks I spoke about earlier.

Around my constituency, steelmaking is a huge carbon emitter, but it is also a huge employer, as it is across the UK. On Humberside, hydrogen can be injected into blast furnaces in the steelmaking process, displacing fossil gasses and producing steam as a by-product rather than carbon dioxide, although any CO₂ is captured and stored. We need that technology in Rother Valley and South Yorkshire to protect our plants and factories and to give British steel the boost it so badly deserves.

I envisage the Zero Carbon Humber project being recreated in Rother Valley, tying in with my plans for a hydrogen valley in my constituency. My hydrogen valley will create high-skilled jobs for my constituents, attract investment and new industries to the area, and decarbonise the towns and cities of South Yorkshire.

ITM has already acted, building the world’s largest electrolyser factory on the border of my constituency and expressing its desire to build large hydrogen refuelling stations across our nation. In that vein, the Government must encourage the development of net zero industrial clusters across the UK. That is a crucial way to revitalise left-behind areas, protect and create jobs, decarbonise polluting industry and help our manufacturers adapt, to ensure that they not only avoid closure but thrive in our green future.

I have so far addressed the UK’s hydrogen economy by sector, demonstrating that we can use hydrogen to decarbonise transport, the gas network and industry. What are the benefits to the British economy of such a hydrogen economy? The Hydrogen Taskforce believes that hydrogen can add up to £18 billion in gross value added by 2035 and support 75,000 additional jobs in every part of the United Kingdom, many of them in the north of England.

Industry, offshore wind and CO₂ storage assets are currently concentrated in the north, meaning that investment in hydrogen production is likely to create and protect more jobs in areas that have been hit hardest by the covid-19 crisis. The existing pipeline of hydrogen production projects has a strong regional spread and will support the Government’s levelling-up agenda. More immediately, the business community has told the Treasury that is has £3 billion of shovel-ready private investment hydrogen projects and is merely awaiting the right policy framework and commitment from the Government.

As the UK looks to bounce back from the covid-19 crisis, investors in hydrogen offer sustainable economic growth opportunities that will kick-start the green recovery. Speeding up hydrogen solutions will allow the UK to build on existing areas of expertise and global leadership. With a value chain that spans production, storage, transmission and distribution, along with downstream appliances, this growing global market can support thousands of jobs in the UK for decades to come.

With the benefits of the UK’s hydrogen economy ringing loudly in their ears, the Government must act decisively and boldly, to steal a march on our competitors and cement Britain’s place as the hydrogen nation. I have already mentioned the absolute necessity of the prompt publication of the forthcoming hydrogen strategy. In addition to that, I have several policy asks of the Minister.

I will first reiterate my policy asks from my hydrogen transport debate, which, unsurprisingly, are still relevant three weeks later. Those were to set ambitious targets for the mass commercialisation of hydrogen technology; to stimulate supply and demand in parallel, focusing initially on regional clusters; and to ensure relevant Government Departments work collaboratively.

However, this debate has a wider scope, so there are additional specific policy asks. Generally, we must ensure that the upcoming hydrogen strategy sets out a clear road map for how the UK will create the renewable hydrogen it needs. We must institute long-term, stable and predictable policy and regulatory frameworks to reassure investors. We must ensure that the Government and Ofgem make decisions quickly and decisively. We must support hydrogen innovation by funding research and development. We should support trials of 100% hydrogen. Government industries should now invest and collaborate to ensure that technology, development and commercialisation take place in tandem.

For transport, we must aim for at least some of the 4,000 zero-emission buses to be hydrogen buses. Most importantly, we must reform the RTFO to allow renewable energy from all sources to be eligible. We must introduce changes to the bus service operators grant to stop discrimination in favour of diesel vehicles, and the Department for Transport must build on the University of Birmingham’s hydrogen train success, by supporting hydrogen train fleet development. Additionally, we must support the opening of 100 hydrogen refuelling stations by 2025, to support the roll-out of hydrogen transport.

For the gas network and home heating, we must support the roll-out of hydrogen-ready boilers for existing homes by 2025 at the latest; outline in detail how the vision for hydrogen towns can be delivered; set out how the gas grid can be repurposed to enable the safe distribution of hydrogen; enable hydrogen to be blended into the gas network; and ensure that the heat and buildings decarbonisation strategy promotes a technology-neutral approach. We must also provide clarity on the business models that underpin hydrogen—for example, carbon capture and storage, pricing and demand mechanisms.

For industry, we need to lay out specific hydrogen production targets, prioritise the reskilling and upskilling of workers, and ensure that there is early decision making on permissions, business models and the role of regulators. I appreciate that this is a substantial policy list, but I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten me about his plans, both verbally during this debate and in writing at a later date.

As I draw to a close, I reiterate that I believe the hydrogen economy will be transformative for the UK. Not only can it decarbonise across all sectors, ensuring that we achieve our net zero target, but it protects industry and retools it for our green future. The hydrogen economy will create skilled jobs in left-behind areas, such as Rother Valley, revitalising parts of the UK that have suffered the grim effects of deindustrialisation.

We have a unique opportunity to corner the hydrogen market, positioning Britain as the world leader in the production and use of hydrogen. That will not only be a shot in the arm domestically as we recover from the coronavirus pandemic, but it will enable UK plc to export our technology and expertise around the world in a post-Brexit age. The hydrogen economy will improve our energy security and resilience, which are critical in light of both the devastating pandemic and hostile Chinese and Russian relations. However, in order to reap these rich rewards, I urge the Government to act now to avoid losing out, as we did with batteries and the wind farm supply chain. We have first-mover advantage, but other countries are waking up; we must be ahead of them.

In a brave new decade with many unknowns, we do know that decarbonising our economy is important for environmental, economic, security and health reasons. Hydrogen can be one part of our energy solution, used in conjunction with other technologies, if we take action now to ensure that the UK’s hydrogen economy works for everyone, and we confirm our place as the hydrogen kingdom.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Mr Stafford, could you please provide specific details of your declaration of interests for the record?

[Alexander Stafford]

Of course. It is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Until my election to this House in the general election in December last year, I worked for Shell, and Shell has worked on hydrogen; I personally did not work on hydrogen there, but I did work for Shell.

[Christina Rees (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

I do not think there is any need to impose a formal time limit, but if you each speak for about seven minutes, we should be able to get everyone in comfortably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alexander Stafford]

Very briefly, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I noticed his use of the term “the hydrogen strategy in the first half of next year”; I was under the impression that it was in the first quarter of next year. I just wonder whether it has been pushed back. I also remind him about my comment on RTFOs.

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate—there were great speeches. I completely agree with the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who talked about bringing the public on board with us. We need to explain why hydrogen is better. It is very simple to understand an electric vehicle; I think people get confused by hydrogen cars and engines. We need to explain hydrogen. The Government have a job to do on that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for talking about agriculture. That is a sector that I had not actually thought much about, but he is right—Rother Valley is 75% rural, and we can put hydrogen into our tractors and our processing equipment. It covers everything.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) talked about local companies, which I mentioned. It just shows that everyone can benefit.

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).

Climate Change Assembly UK: The Path to Net Zero

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Obviously, having been part of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s commissioned report, and given my previous background working for the World Wildlife Fund, but also a company called Shell, I have a particular interest in this sector.

Like all Members of this House, I welcome what this report has said. We have gone through how many great recommendations it contains and how good it is, but the question I want to pose to the House is this: what now? The Government have already come out with a very good 10-point plan. They are already implementing this, so what value does this report actually add? Yes, it shows that the public are on our side—the side of lowering carbon—and I completely agree with them, but we knew this before. Did we need a report to help us formulate these ideas? The Government have already moved forward with quite a lot of them.

To me, the assembly’s report missed a slight opportunity, because although we have talked about quite a lot of the measures involved—increased wind power, road pricing, electrification, and hydrogen, which Members know I am a big fan of—they lack some sense of ambition, and of bringing the public forwards. Dealing with our carbon emissions is not only something we need to do for the good of our planet and of our health, but a huge economic benefit for this country. It is the new technologies that I am very excited about. A warmer home—a better-insulated home—is not only better for a person’s carbon emissions, but it is better to live in. An electric car is not only good when it comes to emissions: it is a better thing to drive. These new technologies that are helping us deal with the climate crisis are giving us a better standard of living, and although I appreciate that this report was looking at how we reduce our carbon emissions, I fear it could have been so much more, to help show the public that lowering our emissions is a good thing for everyone. Regardless of the carbon side of it, dealing with our emissions is going to lead to better homes and more jobs, and I very much believe that if we get it right, we are going to see a huge economic boom for this country.

Some people have already mentioned hydrogen. I was a bit disappointed with the assembly’s report when it comes to the hydrogen elements for transport, because although electrification of passenger vehicles is very far ahead, we have missed the boat on the economic side. With 73% of all batteries made in China, we are not going to get an economic advantage from passenger vehicles. Yes, we can deal with the carbon advantage, and I completely agree that is very important. However, we also want the economic advantage, which is why I think hydrogen transport—I have an Adjournment debate on this topic later today—can decarbonise heavy goods vehicles, trains and even planes. That is something we are not fully addressing. If we get that right ourselves, we can create jobs and have an economic boom in this country. That is what I think we should do.

So much of this discussion is about how we lower our carbon emissions. But that argument has been won. Nobody in this House has stood up and said that they disagree with the report and that we should not lower our carbon emissions. We have all said that we should. What we should be talking about now is how we get there faster and how we can create economic opportunities for this country. An Opposition Member—I cannot remember which one—talked about having a separate climate change department. I would say no to that. I would like climate change combined with the business side, because the two are interlinked. By lowering carbon, we can have an economic boom. I would rather have climate change in every single Government Department, with every single Department looking at different elements of it, rather than a stand-alone department which would be ignored. I want it embedded at the heart of the Government and I am pleased that it is embedded at the heart of the Government.

One aspect I want to briefly touch on is that I believe so much more can be done on carbon. When we talk about planning new homes, we should be mandating that every new home has an electric charge point and a heat pump. We should be building for the future, not the present.

National Security and Investment Bill

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) and also to recall the axis of evil. He mentions that things have moved on, but I challenge that and say that those countries that were part of that axis of evil are still threats today. Some of us were warning about the likes of China and Russia back in 2000, so I believe that the world is becoming a far more dangerous place. We have an increased number of threats rather than fewer, which is why this Bill is so fundamentally important. We need to have national security as our watchword. I know that this Government understand that perfectly well, so, as well as encouraging new investment into Britain, we need to increase the security and safety of British interests from hostile actors.

The Bill will give the Government new powers to block mergers and acquisitions when they are national security risks. It will also introduce an extension of screening powers to include assets and intellectual property as well as companies.

Why is this Bill so necessary? There is no doubt that foreign direct investment is vital to the UK economy. In the past 10 years, over 600,000 new jobs have been created from more than 16,000 FDI projects and $750 billion have flowed into the UK as a result of FDI. Foreign direct investment is overwhelmingly a good thing. As a Conservative, I am greatly anticipating throwing open our doors to global inward investment as we exit the Brexit transition period. I support unrestricted international trade and, for me, attracting investment into Britain is one of the most exciting things about leaving the European Union. Let me make this clear: leaving the European Union allows us to increase investment in this country, and it will be better economically for all of us.

However, we cannot be naive about the threat that certain regimes pose for the United Kingdom. They exert their influence by taking over companies in strategic areas and increasing our dependency on their products and services, limiting our independence and stifling our dissent in the process. We cannot overthrow the shackles of the European Union only for hostile powers to come over and take over the jewels in the British crown. That is not acceptable.

Members will know well that one of my political interests is the combating of the malign influence of the People’s Republic of China. The Government demonstrated strong leadership earlier this year by banning Huawei from Britain’s 5G infrastructure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who is no longer in his place, who helped the Government to come to the realisation of these malign influences. However, despite Huawei’s weak protestations of independence from the Chinese Communist party, western politicians and companies know the price of conducting business in the PRC. A mainland Chinese telecom company, founded by a former People’s Liberation Army officer, has no chance of avoiding Beijing’s meddling, especially when the company in question is playing a central role in critical western infrastructure.

The same can be said of TikTok, a Chinese-owed app, which has enjoyed explosive growth in the west among teenagers. It is not all fun and games though, with the company being accused of having close links with the Chinese regime and of gathering data on our young people. Indeed, we heard from representatives of TikTok on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee a couple of weeks ago, and we heard their protestations saying that they had no connection almost and that they were not passing over data. However, how can that be true when TikTok is owned by China—a state that is naturally hostile to human rights and many other aspects?

There are very real fears that the Chinese state is using its economic influence to weaken our Government, sow discord in our societies and extend its surveillance network in our lives. Let us be honest, it is not just in Britain that we see China act in such a way. We have seen it act across the middle east and into Africa as well. We are not the only country over which China is trying to extend its influence and it is great that this Bill will go some way to stop that influence and protect our national infrastructure. I am pleased that the Bill takes such a strong stance.

Huawei and TikTok should act as a cautionary tale to us for the future. The PRC’s unforgivable actions in Hong Kong, an autonomous territory, against the Uyghurs, a distinct and proud people, and against the Christians in China show us that Beijing cannot play by the rules and we cannot rely on them to look after our best interests.

However, the PRC is not the only regime about which we must worry. I do not need to remind Members of the threat posed by Russia and Iran and other despotic dictatorships. My priority is the protection of the British national interest and the safety of UK citizens. As the UK’s current powers to oversee foreign investment date from legislation in 2002, new primary legislation is needed to bring the UK Government’s powers up to date. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said, much has changed over the past 20 years and therefore these new powers must take into account new threats and technological, economic and geopolitical changes. The Government must have powers to intervene effectively and efficiently to protect the UK. Furthermore, to be an effective and trustworthy ally to our friends and partners around the world, we must bring our powers into line with theirs. Australia, Japan and the United States have already taken action in this area, and we must not be left behind, because if we are, our businesses and our infrastructure will be ripe for the picking for these malign regimes.

This Bill means that we can continue to work on bringing investment to our shores, boosting GDP and creating jobs as we recover from the coronavirus while defending ourselves against those who threaten the safety of the British people and the UK’s sensitive assets. I expect Members in all parts of the House to support this crucial piece of legislation, which will ensure that we are prepared for the challenges and the threats of the future, because the world is not a safe place and there are many countries and regimes that want to do us down. We will always stand with the British people and with British business to protect our interests.