Marine Renewables Industry

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the allocation of time for this important and, as we head towards allocation round 7, timely debate. I hope that we will be able to influence some of the Minister’s thinking. It is good to welcome him to his place in the Chamber.

It is also good to welcome you to the Chair for the first time, Ms Jardine. You and I have known each other for many years, and I anticipate—I might yet be shown to be horribly wrong about this—that the next few hours may witness the longest I have ever been able to speak in your presence without interruption. [Laughter.] I should also place on the record that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) is celebrating a significant birthday today. What better way to celebrate the acquisition of a bus pass than an afternoon spent in Westminster Hall?

This debate is particularly timely. As well as coming in the run-up to AR7, we anticipate in the next few weeks the publication of a fairly comprehensive piece of work by one of Scotland’s finest universities, the University of Edinburgh. Its school of engineering is about to publish a report on the future economic potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland. I will not spike the release of the report, but it is an enormously significant piece of work, which will significantly progress the debate as we head towards AR7.

Among the headlines from that report may be an indication of the potential of tidal stream and wave energy in Scotland and across the whole United Kingdom. Marine energy could contribute £37 billion gross value added to Scotland’s economy by 2050, and £28 billion of that, most significantly, is from exports. When the Minister speaks to colleagues in Government about the opportunities to grow our manufacturing base, contribute to the economic growth to which we are all committed and, as a consequence, improve export performance, this is the direction in which he might want to point them. Marine energy has the potential to create 62,400 jobs—to put that in context, the wind industry currently supports in the region of 20,000 jobs—and we have the potential in Scottish waters alone to deploy 9 GW of tidal stream and wave energy by 2050.

The opportunities for tidal stream generation come from the fact that as a brand-new industry—how often do we get to say that?—we can shape the supply chain and then export the expertise and products from that supply chain around the world. Tidal stream is not unique to Scotland or the United Kingdom; when we show that it can be done here, others will want to do it in other parts of the world. Devices that are currently in the water have produced a UK supply chain input in the region of 80%. Not many technologies are in a position to make that boast.

The vibe in the industry, if I can put it like that, is fairly positive and upbeat: there are opportunities coming down the road. However, this “overnight success” has been at least 20 years in the making. It has been a long march, and progress is never linear. We have had false dawns and disappointments, but in the last few years it has been demonstrated beyond any measure of doubt that obvious and visible demonstrations of Government support make a real difference in getting this industry towards the point of commercialisation and the opportunities that that will bring.

At the time of the fourth allocation round, the then Government committed to the first ringfenced pot for tidal stream generation. That had a massive impact, not just as a consequence of the opportunity that it provided, but as a signal that the technology was taken seriously by Government and was being given opportunity and support from Government. It is to that series of signals that we now need to look, because although we have made significant progress, we are not yet at the point of commercialisation. We do need to do a little bit more in order to get there happily.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to give leadership and clarity to the tidal sector, including by explaining whether the criteria for well developed tidal range proposals published by the last Government are being taken forward by the current Government, so that projects like the Wyre tidal barrage in my constituency will be better informed when going forward with their proposals?

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree. I suspect that I do not have as much expertise as the hon. Lady in tidal barrage—or whatever we are calling it these days. Most of the interest I have developed over the years is in tidal stream, but there is never going to be a single technology or a single silver bullet here; there has to be an opportunity for all the different technologies to contribute. The USP of tidal energy, however we capture it, is of course its predictability, so it can contribute to baseload. I will discuss later how the industry is able to engage with Government, because there are parallels to be drawn with what has been done in the past for the oil and gas industry, which might now be done for renewables, particularly marine renewables.

I shall first dwell briefly on the progress we have made thus far. Orbital Marine Power, for example, now deploys the world’s most powerful tidal turbine—in Orkney, obviously. It is estimated that that device, manufactured in Dundee, has on its own created something in the region of 80 full-time equivalent jobs across the United Kingdom. Since its incorporation, Orbital has raised and deployed £84 million of capital. It won two contracts for difference in round 5, totalling £7.2 million, on top of the £7.4 million that it had been awarded in AR4. It is expected that the first power from these contracts will be collected in 2026. These are serious companies doing serious business. This is no longer a sort of aspirational, slightly hippy niche subject; these are serious businesses that require serious attention from Government and regulators.

Nova Innovation, which operates in Shetland, as it happens—I am told other island groups are available—installed the world’s first offshore tidal array in Bluemull sound between Yell and Unst in Shetland. It has six two-bladed horizontal axis tidal stream turbines and is the largest array yet deployed. In AR6 Nova secured three 15-year contracts totalling 6 MW of tidal energy capacity. As a consequence of the last allocation round, the UK is on track to have in excess of 130 MW deployed by 2029. Nova is also involved in floating solar developments, and it is estimated that floating solar has the potential to produce 9.343 TWh in the future. That is the scale of the opportunity that presents itself.

The real catalyst of this serious and determined progress was the setting up in 2003 of the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, a body that had its roots in a report of the Science and Technology Committee of this House, which was taken up and driven by Highlands and Islands Enterprise and then the Scottish Executive. I pay tribute to my predecessor in this House, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who as Deputy First Minister of Scotland saw the opportunity, got the resource and the political drive behind it, and set up EMEC, which is the facility for demonstrating and testing wave and tidal devices.

EMEC’s operations since 2003 have contributed £370 million GVA to the UK economy. EMEC’s success is due in no small measure to Neil Kermode, its director since 2005. I am not going to turn around because he is in the Gallery and I know that he will be staring daggers at me for singling him out, but Neil’s contribution to the success of that institution must not be underestimated, as it shows the difference that one person in the right place at the right time can make.

Another significant driver of progress in Orkney is Heriot-Watt University’s campus there, the International Centre for Island Technology. In recent years, its postgraduate taught courses in renewables have grown a skills base at postgraduate level which has been an important part of driving the progress we have seen. We cannot make progress without skilled people; we can get in all the investment we like, but it will only take us so far if we do not have people who are capable of using and developing it. Despite that, in 2019, the Scottish Funding Council grant scheme that had supported the tuition for these postgraduate taught courses ended. That has precipitated a fall in student numbers.

Although this issue is principally within the Scottish Government’s remit, I want to put it on the Minister’s radar, because if achieving development and deployment goals is part of UK Government policy, there must be a means of finding UK Government money for these courses. Whether it is done by sponsorship of places or some other means, the cost of 20 students a year at £9,200 each would be £920,000 over a five-year period. Think about that in the context of the numbers that I have spoken about—the potential that the sector adds to the UK economy. If we do not make this investment now, we will be penny wise but pound foolish.

I have some key asks of the Government as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, in consultation with the Marine Energy Council, Scottish Renewables and RenewableUK. The most important thing, as we head towards allocation round 7, is an increase in the ringfenced budget for marine energy. The last three consecutive ringfences for tidal stream through contracts for difference have delivered an unprecedented deployment pipeline, but the last round saw a fall in the contracted amount at a point where we really needed to build momentum for the sector. I am told by those in the industry that there is sufficient eligible capacity to ensure that there would be competition for a ringfence set at that level. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should set a £30 million ringfence for tidal and a £5 million ringfence for wave energy in this year’s round—a round, incidentally, that they described to me as “crucial”.

We also look to the Government to enable support for marine energy through GB Energy and the national wealth fund. High capital costs and unconventional risk profiles are hindering some of the progress in securing adequate finance for a move towards large-scale commercial construction. GB Energy and the national wealth fund could accelerate deployment of and embed UK content in marine energy projects. They could provide finance under commercial terms for viable projects that have secured a CfD. That is not asking them to make a particularly risky investment, but it would allow them to bring to final investment decision, and thus construction, some of those projects in this parliamentary term.

The third ask is to provide a voice for marine energy with a marine energy taskforce, which brings me back to my answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). In addition to supporting investment, both the Scottish and UK Governments have an important role to play in bringing key stakeholders together. Again, it is about sending signals. Scottish Renewables and the Marine Energy Council believe that the UK Government should establish that energy taskforce to develop a strategic road map, to tackle barriers to deployment, to secure investment, to increase innovation funding and to deliver value for money.

When I was in Government, we set up a body for the oil and gas industry called PILOT. It was essentially the forum in which all the various majors, and those with any production interests in the UK continental shelf, could sit down and inform Government on the progress of their industry, and on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. That was a formal body, so that there was a degree of transparency associated with it. If PILOT could be set up for the oil and gas industry in the past, a similar body for marine renewables would be a particularly positive development. Again, it is about sending signals to the markets to give them the confidence to make the necessary investment.

We are looking for the Scottish Government—this is obviously not a point for the Minister—to prioritise marine energy in their energy strategy; for the Minister to speak to his colleagues in other Departments as we get the industrial strategy; and for both Governments to set bolder targets, which we believe would boost investor confidence. These asks do not come with particularly large price tags attached. The CfD levels would of course be a significant increase, but that is money that is already there and accounted for. Everything else is essentially about sending signals. We saw at the time of the creation of the first ringfence, at AR4, that sending these signals can be an enormously significant catalyst for investment.

There are a couple of issues that I want to put on the Minister’s radar. They do not necessarily fall under his portfolio, but I know that Ministers talk to each other. First, as the deployment of marine renewables and offshore wind continues to develop apace, there has to be some mechanism for holding the ring between renewables and other users of the sea and the seabed. The Minister knows that I have big concerns about the role that has been given to the Crown Estate Commission as owners of the seabed. I would like to think that the commission would be a body that could hold the ring, as it owns and licenses the use of the seabed, but experience tells me that it does not always work out like that. If we give the powers to the Crown Estate Commission that are anticipated in the Crown Estate Bill, which is going through the House, while retaining the obligation on it as a primary duty to maximise return to the estate, then there could be an issue. To be successful, we have to be able to bring island and coastal communities along with us, otherwise this becomes another thing that is done to those communities, rather than something in which they feel they have a role.

Finally, if we are going to deploy more resource at sea—and obviously, I think we should—we have to take the question of cable security seriously. We have to look at what happened just before Christmas, when the Russian so-called ghost fleet cut the cable going into the south of Finland. We know that Russia has had some activity, which we believe to be malign, in the UK continental shelf, so let us get ahead of the game and take that seriously.

The placing of cables on the seabed will only become more significant. I recently met Xlinks, which is bringing a significant amount of solar energy from Morocco to the United Kingdom via a subsea cable, which it is burying as it goes. It is at these points that we realise that with every opportunity there is a threat, and we must take the threats seriously. That is not within the Minister’s purview, but at the end of the day it has to be part of the way that we approach the outcomes.

Thank you for the opportunity to bring these concerns to the House, Ms Jardine. I am thankful that a good number of colleagues have stayed here on a Thursday afternoon. I appreciate their commitment, and I hope it will bear fruit.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have quickly written this speech while others were speaking, so if it is a bit general, it will be because of haste. I have just read it twice, and I thank the Lord I should be able to decipher my writing.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I have said it before, but I really do mean it: he brings many issues to Westminster Hall and the Chamber, and always with calmness, which is quite a talent. He also makes sure they are subject matter that all of us from the Gaelic nations—Northern Ireland, in my case—are right away interested in.

I have a big interest in this subject. Since I became an MP, way back in 2010, I have always been aware that Strangford lough, which is in the constituency I represent, has the potential for tidal green energy provision. There was a pilot scheme so many years ago. That was probably the wrong time, simply because the energy generated was too expensive. Things have moved on, and what was not possible way back then is possible now. That is why I wanted to speak on this issue.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned fishing, and I also want to reflect on that. I am a great believer that, when we move forward, as much as possible we have to bring everybody with us, although that is not always possible in this world.

I want to mention a Queen’s University Belfast marine development scheme in Portaferry. Exciting stuff is happening there, and it reinforces the ideas advanced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. Strangford is being used as a test site for a groundbreaking marine energy project. That is something that I hoped to bring forward many years ago—for the record, I have not brought it forward, but I have supported bringing it forward. It has been great to see it, and to tell people about it.

Ocean Renewable Power Company Ireland and Queen’s University have announced the successful deployment and commencement of the testing of a new generation of marine hydrokinetic turbines on the Strangford lough tidal test site. This is groundbreaking and visionary, and I am particularly pleased to see it. It is a significant milestone for ORPC, because it is the first time that the company has generated electricity from one of its turbines outside of North America—that is where the innovation and excitement comes from—after 17 previous deployments in America and the USA. We are on the frontline.

The deployment in Strangford lough is the company’s first in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is part of the deployment of the X-flow project, which is led by Queen’s University. The project includes Applied Renewables Research and the Shell Technology marine renewable programme as industry partners, and is supported by the green innovation challenge fund. That fund is led by the Centre for Advanced Sustainable Energy, and is delivered in partnership—again, partnership is how it all works—with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is another initiative that I pushed in my time as an Assembly Member, but more so as an MP here, working in conjunction with the Assembly back home.

The purpose of the deployment in Strangford lough is to collect data on turbine performance in a real tidal environment, building on laboratory testing undertaken earlier this year in another project—it never sounds great when I speak Italian, so I will not try to pronounce this; an Ulster Scot speaking Italian is a real challenge. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, I am definitely not doing it; it would be embarrassing. Suffice it to say that the company comes from Rome, in Italy—I will leave it at that. The European Commission funded the project, which is called CRIMSON—commercialisation of a recyclable and innovative manufacturing solution for an optimised novel marine turbine project. It is no secret that I am a Brexiteer, but Europe does some good things, and we have to acknowledge that this is one of them.

Carwyn Frost, who is senior lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast, says that the marine laboratory tidal test site at Strangford lough

“is a unique facility providing developers the opportunity to deploy and monitor their technology in real tidal flows.”

I have had the opportunity to experience that a few times as an MP, as well as when I was at the Assembly. At one time, people swam across Strangford lough for charity; I always wondered how anybody could swim across Strangford lough, because the tidal flows are so extreme that swimmers can start in Portaferry and end up well round the tip of the peninsula. Mr Frost went on:

“The X-Flow project will provide unique insight on the impact of turbulent flow conditions on the control of the crossflow turbine and its blade loading. The fully instrumented turbine by ORPC will provide vital data for assessing the impact of turbulent flow conditions on performance, blade loading and control.”

I want to put that on the record because I believe that the project, which is happening right on my doorstep, is incredibly exciting. I have lived in the Ards peninsula for all but four years of my life, so I feel great pride about this.

The work will facilitate condition monitoring by the Queen’s University marine team, which is committed to working in collaboration with partners. That is how it works: big business along with universities and local government. It is great to see Queen’s University leading the way, and I look forward to the conclusion of some of that research. The way forward is to energise the tidal flows at Strangford lough so that we can all gain—homes and businesses across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, who are crying out for it.

I am conscious that others want to speak. I should have said, Ms Jardine, that I welcome you to the Chair. I apologise; I should have done that right away. It is lovely to see you in your place, and it is well deserved.

As an island nation with a rich history of maritime culture, we must recognise the incredible wealth of life beneath the waves and the imperative to protect it. The hon. Member for South Devon referred to fishing; I want to say a quick word about how important fishing is for my constituency of Strangford. Ours is an inland shore fleet, by and large, based in Portavogie in my constituency and further down in Ardglass and Kilkeel. Marine ecosystems, essential for not only biodiversity but the economy, are facing mounting pressures that demand urgent action. Fishermen depend on the sea for their livelihoods, and I want to support those who fish in Strangford lough and out on the Irish sea.

Northern Ireland has a close connection with the sea. We have 650 km of coastline. The sea is home to an amazing variety of marine life, some of which is found nowhere else in the world. Isn’t that great to say? It cannot be found anywhere else but Strangford lough. That reiterates what I have always said: Strangford lough is unique. Strangford is unique, and I am pleased and privileged to be the MP for the area.

[Mr Carmichael]

And they’re fortunate to have you!

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind.

Strangford is at the junction between significant bodies of water, and it contains a thriving commercial fishing community, primarily based on the inshore fishery. A significant number of fishermen fish out of the local fleet and there is also an important processing plant sector, tied to the inshore fishery, that produces mussels, cockles, whelks and shrimps. The fishery is one of the most important in the country and local people feel passionately about it. They and their families have been fishing these waters for generations and their views are deeply rooted in tradition.

The hon. Member for South Devon put forward a case: to move forward with all our great technology and establish all the green marine energy that we can. I support that. Some people in Northern Ireland may not share my opinion, but I think it important for us to move forward. However, we also need to protect our fishing sector, and I make a special request on its behalf. What is required is a regulatory framework that is flexible, adaptable and responsive to changing conditions at sea. Unlike land-based conservation, whose ecosystems are more static, marine ecosystems are dynamic and can change year by year. We must be able to adapt our policies to the changes, ensuring that our approach to marine energy also supports our fishing sector and those who—let us be honest—vote for me. Let us make sure that we deliver for them as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will touch on the Crown Estate later in my speech. On that specific point, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that devolving the Crown Estate is the answer, and I take issue with the suggestion that the Crown Estate’s considerations in Wales somehow come from Whitehall. I have met a number of representatives of the Crown Estate, and they are in engaged with the Welsh Government and with communities in Wales. If we can do more on that, I am very happy to reach out to the Crown Estate, although I am not directly responsible for it and it is not accountable to me. Of course, it has published a number of strategies recently and there is more coming on the long-term vision for the Celtic sea and other parts of the Crown Estate in Wales. It is about partnership work, which includes not just bringing together the Crown Estate but how we look at the planning system and consenting, as well as the strategic spatial energy plan more broadly to plan for the long term. I will come back to some of those points later.

Although marine renewables are not at the centre of that clean power action plan to 2030, they will hugely benefit from the actions that we will deliver through it, not least on grid connections. Grid connections are all about future-proofing the grid in this country so that it can meet the demand of the future, and prioritising a grid queue that has got out of control with over 700 GW waiting to connect, which is simply not deliverable.

I would like to turn to the issue of funding, but first I wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who does not look a day over 21—but that is the last time I will pander to the Lib Dems. He raised a point about Great British Energy, as did a number of other hon. Members, many of whom I cannot help but notice did not vote for it, but now want it to be headquartered in their constituencies and deliver significant amounts of funding. Great British Energy will play a role in this space. It is our first publicly owned energy champion, and it will deliver and deploy clean power across the country and help with some of the innovation and development work.

Marine renewables are exactly the kind of technology that Great British Energy might invest in at an early stage and have a significant impact on, rather than technologies that are at a more confident stage. Hon. Members may not have had the opportunity to reach out to Great British Energy—the Bill is still going through the House of Lords, so it does not technically exist yet—but the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, has had a number of meetings across the UK, has engaged on questions about a whole range of technologies and is keen to continue to do so. It will be for Great British Energy, as an independent company, to make its own investment decisions based on a whole range of factors, including the return on investment potential, but I see marine renewable technology as a potential benefit for it.

We think that tidal stream energy will play a significant role, particularly beyond 2030. As many Members raised, tidal stream will bring balancing benefits to a future electricity system that will have renewables at its heart. The balancing role that tidal can play—as a baseload, in the traditional way of thinking about the electricity system—would be important. Currently over half of the world’s tidal stream deployment is situated in UK waters. However, this Government want to go further and faster, as the technology has huge potential.

Aside from having one of the world’s best tidal resources, the UK also hosts world-leading marine energy hubs. Many hon. Members spoke about the EMEC. I have been pleased to speak to the EMEC over the last few months; the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), visited recently and I hope to get to Orkney to do the same at some point.

When we came into power, the Government took the contracts for difference option that had been started by the previous Government and increased the budget to try to get as many projects as we could over the line. That led to a 50% increase in the ringfence for tidal stream to £15 million in the last allocation round. That demonstrated our commitment to the technology and ensured that 28 MW of tidal stream was secured in allocation round 6, including 9 MW for projects based in Orkney.

[Mr Carmichael]

The creation of the ringfence in AR4 had an absolutely transformative impact, so my sense is that meeting the industry’s request for a much bigger ringfence in AR7 could do similar. I am not expecting the Minister to tell us today whether that is the direction of travel that the Government are intending to take—although he is welcome to—but could he at least tell us when we might get an answer on that?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. One of the things we announced before Christmas in the clean power action plan was the broad outline of where we see allocation round 7 progressing this year, alongside the clean industry bonus. We will be saying more about that in the weeks ahead when we launch the initial information on what it will look like, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is not surprised that I cannot announce anything today about what ringfences might be in place.

It is a tricky balance. The aim of the CfD and the reason that it is effective at what we want it to do is that it has to balance the deployment targets that we want to see with the critical role of delivering value for money for those who will end up paying for it—the consumers and all our constituents. Ringfences have an important role to play, but there is a danger that a ringfence could lead to us paying significantly more for a particular technology than we might want to.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being very generous. Actually, the setting of the ringfence is a process that could be significantly improved by the taskforce being set up, as that would allow the Government to understand what is going on in the industry, which improved understanding could inform decisions such as the setting of the ringfence.

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman is determined to move me more quickly through my speech; I promise that I will come on to the taskforce. He is right that the more visibility we have of projects that might bid, the more aware we can be of what the sizes of ringfences and budgets for each pot in the CfD might look like. A range of factors makes that complex, such as whether projects are at final investment decision stage, or whether planning and consent are in place to allow them to bid into the auctions. There are many factors, but the visibility point is well made. On ringfencing, I hear what hon. Members have said and what has been passed to our Department over the past few months, but we will seek to balance the needs to deliver deployment and to ensure value for money when making these decisions.

A number of hon. Members raised the issues of licensing and consenting, which are at the heart of our aims for reform of the planning system. We want to continue to have a robust planning system in which communities have a voice, but we also want to move much faster in making decisions, so that projects are not held up for years on end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank everybody who has attended. For the benefit of the Backbench Business Committee, who may run the rule over these things, we have had no fewer than 17 Members in the Chamber in the course of this debate, covering the length and breadth of the country. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said there was unity in the message; it was almost as if we had been briefed in these matters. This allows me to place on record my appreciation—shared by all who are engaged in this issue, I am sure—of the work of the UK Marine Energy Council, RenewableUK, Scottish Renewables, and in particular, the companies that get the devices in the water. Their commitment and dedication to decarbonisation and the development of this most important sector is nothing short of inspirational. I extend my gratitude to them and everyone who has contributed today.

We are not using the full amount of time that we have been allocated, so I am off to sign up the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a Duolingo course in Italian. We may benefit from that in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the marine renewables industry.

End of Radio Teleswitch Service: Rural Areas

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman is right that Northern Ireland is a different energy market from Great Britain, but there will be, without question, electric-only customers in the larger settlements of Northern Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is a heavy user of heating oil, but the same scenario will exist in Northern Ireland. Although it is a different energy market, the same Department has to have oversight of the equity and effectiveness of whatever solution is found for that part of the United Kingdom.

Constituents have contacted me with concerns that they are being asked to switch to a smart meter without a guarantee that the smart meter will work properly. Some customers with poor reception who have switched to a smart meter are being asked by their supplier to submit manual readings. It is not clear whether manual readings are compatible with alternative economy tariffs, as these are based not only on how much energy is used, but on when that energy is used.

The Data Communications Company manages smart meter networks, which can reach 99.3% of properties, and more than half of homes in GB are already connected. Information is transmitted over a wide area network using mobile phone or radio signals sent from each property’s communications hub, but the method of transmission differs. In central and southern GB, smart meter data is transmitted using cellular and wireless mesh technology provided by Virgin Media O2, whereas in the north of England and all of Scotland it is transmitted over long-range radio signals provided by Arqiva.

It would be safe to say that there remains substantial concern about the ability to have two-way communication between supplier and customer over this system. This is no small part of the reason for the hesitancy common among “total heating with total control” customers to rush towards the need to switch.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on the fact that radio teleswitching is going. It is an analogue technology, and we will be fortunate if it lasts until next June—it could collapse at any second. It will be replaced by smart meters, and surely it is not beyond the wit of man to design a smart meter that provides something like “total heating with total control”. They do not at present, but that is just because they are not designed to do so. Is it not the case that this could be fixed if the regulator got the companies and the different players together and told them to produce something that suits the customers, not just themselves?

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman will have no small number of these customers in his constituency, and he touches on the important point of the vagueness around this. Customers are being told that they must do this, and when they ask for any detail about that which they must do, it is scant, vague and conflicting.

We only have to look at the forums on the energy company websites and on Facebook to see that peer-to-peer support is answering people’s questions on this issue, rather than there being a cohesive and comprehensive programme of information from the Government, the Department, the regulator and the energy companies, working in concert in a professional and coherent way to let customers know exactly what is going to happen.

On the speed of the roll-out, the energy suppliers, the UK Government and consumer groups have committed to co-operating to replace RTS meters prior to the shutdown, which is a pretty minimal commitment. The 10 energy companies that have pledged their participation are: British Gas, EDF, E.ON, Octopus, Ovo, Scottish Power, So Energy, SSE, Total Energies, Utilita and Utility Warehouse.

Through its call to action, the industry has committed to several measures, including zeroing in on regional hot spots with the highest number of RTS customers. That is good but it is late. The industry has a catch-up job in public relations and customer confidence, which it needs to accept and resource. The industry has committed to expediting meter upgrades for RTS customers, giving prioritisation to vulnerable customers for upgrades, co-operating to solve technical issues, and pooling knowledge and expertise across companies. This should not be a competitive commercial endeavour; it should be a call to action across energy companies.

Different houses are wired up in different ways to accommodate “total heating, total control.” They will interact differently with smart meters when they are fitted, which needs to be reconciled. The industry has committed to issuing monthly reports on meter replacement. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to focus on those monthly updates, because the problem we have is that if we continue to replace RTS meters at the current rate, that will take until 2028, when we only have until June 2025. That is why my constituents and I are so concerned.

To be fair, the industry is also concerned. It wants the transition to work because it wants its customers to be supplied and to be paid for that supply. The industry is not trying to make this not happen—quite the opposite—but we need to change gear and pace. Industry is confident that it has the capacity to deliver for every home, but not if all those homes come forward in April, May and June. That will not work, which is why we need a call to action now. We are into December and nothing will happen before the new year, so we need to ensure that we hit the ground running in January with this matter as a priority.

I made sure the Minister had advance sight of my questions, so she could respond at the end of the debate. Is she confident that all properties will have a smart meter installed by the deadline? What options are available to RTS customers with poor or no mobile signal, or no ability to receive the radio signal at their property? Will there be an option in extremis, when it is demonstrated that the signal cannot be received at the property, for the customer to have some type of timer solution, with or without a smart meter?

Will a standard tariff be ruled out as an option, given that it would be ruinously expensive for any customer? What action has been taken with industry to ensure that customers receive a tariff at the same rate or better than that which they had on their “total heating, total control” rate? That is a key concern for my constituents.

What steps will the Government take to ensure that the electrical system, and the statutory and commercial entities that control that electrical system, will carry the risk for inflated bills as a result of the changes? Consumers have no responsibility whatsoever for the functioning of the electricity system so, by any measure of justice, they should not be exposed to the financial risk of a system that no longer works and is being replaced by one that is more expensive. That should not happen.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. As I will set out later, it is important that people who will be affected by the transition are aware of the issue and the steps we need to take to upgrade. I reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the transition is done with consumers in mind, and that it works for the households we know will be affected.

Since the 1980s, the radio teleswitch service has played an important role in helping many consumers to have lower-cost energy for heating and hot water. However, as has been acknowledged, the technology is coming to the end of its life. The continuation of the BBC’s longwave radio signal is due to end on 1 June 2025. We have already extended the service once, from March this year. When the service ends, as has already been pointed out, there will no longer be the availability to switch between rates. In some instances, consumers may lose control of their heating or hot water. With the deadline fast approaching, I cannot stress enough that this is a big issue for us. It is a priority and we understand that there is a job of work to do to ensure that we can deliver the transition for consumers.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is absolutely right. I raised that with the former Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier this year, and he agreed to convene a roundtable where we got everybody in the room, because there had just been too much blame-passing around the various partners. That meeting got overtaken by the election, but it happened without parliamentarians at the table. Will the Minister now look at the possibility of reconvening that meeting with parliamentarians so that there is that element of accountability at the table?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

Yes, I am very keen to reconvene that. It is absolutely essential that we work with hon. Members across the House who represent constituencies that we know will be affected. From our perspective, we have a big job to engage consumers to ensure that they are aware and that the transition is working. We are keen to work across the House to do that.

One of the outcomes of the roundtable that was put in place was that the taskforce has been established—with Ofgem, industry and the Government—to manage the transition and to put and inject the urgency that we need to see in the ongoing process. In October, the industry signed up to a call to action, representing a collective agreement to take the steps needed to speed the transition away from RTS. Specific actions that were included in that call for action are: targeting of resources towards regional hotspots where we know there are a high number of RTS customers and we know that we need to do work to reach them; fast-tracking of meter upgrades for RTS customers and, in particular, vulnerable customers who we are very worried about; and collaboration on some of the technical solutions that we know are needed.

We are clear that the delivery of the transition away from RTS requires active engagement with consumers, as they will need to agree to appointments, collaborate with their installers and ensure that they have the right solutions in place.

Fuel Poverty

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policies on tackling fuel poverty.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. A household in fuel poverty is defined as one that commits more than 10% of its income on energy to maintain a satisfactory heating regime. Fuel poverty includes three elements. The first is the household’s income, from which we compute that 10%; the second is the household’s energy requirements, on which the quality of the housing stock and the availability of cheaper tariffs have an influence; and the third is the fuel prices themselves. It is sobering to think that across the United Kingdom as a whole, no fewer than 6 million households are living in fuel poverty. In Scotland in 2022, some 791,000 households were fuel-poor.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I have recently received more than 200 emails from pensioners in Glastonbury and Somerton who do not know whether they can afford to turn on the heating this winter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households, to reduce the number of people living in fuel poverty?

[Mr Carmichael]

It will be the first surprise of the day for everyone that the answer is yes. I very much agree that we need that—or if not that, something of the sort. Meaningful action that is fit to meet the needs of the different parts of the United Kingdom is long overdue.

While households in fuel poverty are committing more than 10% of their income, households in extreme fuel poverty are committing more than 20% to meet their energy needs and keep their home warm. In Scotland, there were 311,000 such households in 2019. By 2022, the figure had risen to 472,000.

This issue is particularly acute for us in the northern isles. In Orkney and Shetland, 31% of households live in fuel poverty; the Scottish average, which is higher than that of the rest of the United Kingdom, is 24%. It is not difficult to see why fuel poverty is particularly acute in the northern isles. Winters are longer, darker and colder than in other parts of the country. We are off the gas grid. Most of our homes are heated using electricity, oil and sometimes liquefied petroleum gas or solid fuel. Yes, an increasing number of people are able to use photovoltaics and ground or air-source heat pumps, but the bulk of our heating still comes from conventional sources.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I recently visited the home of an elderly pensioner in my constituency. I sat in her freezing cold living room with her for more than an hour while I took instructions on a matter. She was wearing two jumpers, a scarf, thick trousers and boots. She was dressed in that way because she was too afraid to put the heating on, as she did not think she would have the money to pay the bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s cruel cut to the winter fuel allowance will have a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of some of our most vulnerable people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sad to say that I do agree. I have seen the same thing time after time in houses across my constituency. I have seen people sitting with two, three or four layers on and a blanket over their knees. If there is any heating, it might come from a single bar on an electric fire or something of the sort. With the winter fuel payment, we have to understand that there is a generational difference: the people who were getting that payment were in large part brought up in an age when people did not borrow; they lived within their means. Taking away that money puts them more acutely at risk than people of other ages. When we devise policy, we sometimes have to look at the social and psychological impact as much as at the political and the economic. The hon. Member makes a good point.

In communities such as mine we have older, much less energy-efficient housing stock. Some elements of last week’s Budget may mitigate the worst effects. It did not have the comprehensive strategy that I wanted, but in the interests of fairness we should acknowledge that if the increase in the minimum wage leads to increased household incomes, it will have an impact on some people living in fuel poverty. The retention of the state pension triple lock will also provide some mitigation. To that extent, those things are welcome, but in the context of the wider influences on fuel poverty, they will hardly hit the sides. The energy price cap has now been put up to £1,717, which is an increase of £150, and it seems likely that there will be a further increase come January. The situation among the fuel-poor is only likely to get worse, which is where the hon. Member’s point about the winter fuel payment comes in.

It is true that the mechanism of pension credit is there to mitigate the worst effects, as I anticipate the Minister will say, but we have known for 20 years that there are problems with all the tax credit schemes and with the variation in uptake across the board. Again, it is a generational thing. Knowing the community that he comes from, the Minister will know that among older people in parts of the country there is still a real stigma attached to a means test. They will always be less likely to apply for something that they could otherwise have been given by right. For those who live in fuel poverty, it now feels as though anything given with one hand is being taken away with the other.

What can we do? What tools have we at our disposal? We have the warm home discount and the energy company obligation scheme, to which I will turn in a minute, but I first wish to raise a couple of more specific issues that relate to tackling fuel poverty in communities such as mine.

The Minister has already heard me raise the question of an isles tariff; in fact, we met earlier this week to discuss it. Orkney and Shetland has been at the heart of supplying the nation’s energy needs for the past 40 or 50 years, as we have played host to the oil and gas industry. Shetland now has one of the biggest onshore wind farm developments anywhere in the country, but in the shadow of the turbines are some of the greatest and most acute problems with fuel poverty. That is now generating genuine frustration. As we play host to major energy developments—latterly renewables—there is very little or no community benefit for those who host them.

Serious attention now needs to be given to the question of an isles tariff. It does not need to be an isles tariff; it could be something that applies across the highlands and islands and in other areas that are particularly badly affected. I am pretty sure that Ofgem will not be keen—as far as I can see, Ofgem is never keen on anything that will actually make a difference—but if it can accept the principle of differential treatment through a social tariff, which is now the subject of a consultation, a geographical tariff should also be given serious consideration.

Many of my constituents rely on electric storage heating. Access to “total heating with total control” tariffs, which were designed by the former hydro board specifically with communities like mine in the highlands and islands in mind, still provides them with the best and cheapest available source of heating. However, it does not allow them to take advantage of different tariffs when switching or other ways of saving money are available. It requires two meters, one of which has two readings. As smart meters are rolled out, it appears that although they may be smart, they are not smart enough to do something that the old technology did quite easily.

There is then the question of the radio teleswitch, which is the delivery mechanism for many tariffs. It is due to be switched off in 2025, as the last of the BBC analogue signal is decommissioned. We all need to cross our fingers and hope it lasts until 2025, because it could quite easily fall over at any point. When it does, the string and chewing gum that are keeping it going at the moment will simply no longer be enough.

Will the Minister give me an update? Before the election, his predecessor agreed to hold a roundtable. The election intervened, but I am pleased to hear that the roundtable went ahead and that the different players were brought together in the room. It appears to have made some progress, but my constituents would be keen to hear the details.

The Government’s manifesto promised a strategy with a warm homes plan, whereby £13.2 billion would be committed to address fuel poverty. The Budget last week allocated £3.4 billion over three years. That is a sizeable chunk of money, but it is not the £13.2 billion that we were promised. Presumably the remaining £9.8 billion will have to come in years four and five of this Parliament if the Government’s commitment is to be met.

I have two problems with that approach. First, it will leave a lot of people in fuel poverty for another three years while they wait for the money to come. Secondly, if the money comes at all, we will be shovelling it into wheelbarrows to get it out over the two years, a situation that always brings the law of unintended consequences into play, as we have seen time and again with energy efficiency measures, renewable energy development and so on. There is money that must be spent within a target time, but there is neither the existing labour force nor the skills base to deliver the work, so a whole load of fly-by-night companies are set up that come into our communities from outside, do substandard work, go away and eventually go bankrupt while constituents are left to pick up the pieces.

It is obviously for the Treasury to decide how the money will be spent, but looking towards years three, four and five of this Government, can the Minister give me some assurance that there is a view towards a strategy that will use the money that is currently committed, that we will have a clear idea, and that we can start planning now how to use any money that comes in future?

The two existing vehicles for alleviating fuel poverty—the warm home discount, which reduces bills by £150 a year for those who qualify, and the energy company obligation, which assists people with energy efficiency adaptations, renewable energy adaptations and so on—are both means-tested, which takes us back to the question of cliff edges. Most concerningly of all, those measures are due to end in 2026 unless they are renewed by the Government. The Minister will have an easier conversation with the Treasury if he bears it in mind that the funding for the schemes comes not from the Treasury but from the energy companies.

We need to know that there is a plan for the continuation of those schemes or for something that will seek to achieve the same end. It would be good if that plan could come as part of a Green or White Paper outlining a strategy. That is what is lacking at the moment: we have a scheme here, a scheme there, an idea of this and an idea of that, but there is no overarching strategy to ensure the best possible delivery. At the beginning of this debate, I gave the stat that 6 million homes across the whole United Kingdom are living in fuel poverty. That is not something that we should be prepared to live with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Thank you very much, Sir Roger, for allowing me to contribute to the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing it.

The two big issues facing rural Scotland, and the highlands in particular, are the care sector and fuel poverty. I am sure hon. Members have not spent too much time worrying about this, but although the mean daily temperature in London is 16°C, it is 9°C on the island of Skye, where God comes from. On Skye we have longer nights, colder weather, windier conditions and older, draughtier houses. In June this year, the daily standing charge for electricity was 61.1p in the north of Scotland and 40.8p in London, so in the north of Scotland we pay 50% more to be connected to our electricity. That is shocking.

[Mr Carmichael]

Standing charges, which vary massively and randomly across the country—from memory, I think the worst area is actually north Wales—are one thing, but just a couple of weeks ago OVO Energy announced that it would start charging its customers £1.50 every time it sends them a paper bill. Is that not just—I say this, Sir Roger, for the purposes of staying on the right side of you—taking the mick?

[Mr MacDonald]

What is absolutely clear is that the electricity companies are not losing money. Their total profits add up to tens of billions of pounds, but the costs are being borne by the poorest people in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger, and to join so many colleagues here in Westminster Hall for an incredibly important debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it.

It has been great to hear from colleagues. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) spoke about the removal of the winter fuel allowance and how the push to get more pensioners on to pension credit is incredibly important. However, when the figures suggest that the push for pension credit will actually offset the money being saved by the apparent removal of winter fuel allowance, I wonder whether the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have thought their plans through. The comments by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) about the knock-on impact of fuel poverty on the NHS and charities were well made and should have been listened to carefully by all in this room and beyond.

As ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a friend, made powerful points about the unique situation facing residents in Northern Ireland, where so many more houses than in Great Britain are off grid and rely on LPG and oil for their heating. Households over there face unique challenges when combating fuel poverty. As he said, the removal of the winter fuel allowance is a crushing blow for pensioners facing a cold winter this year.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) raised insulation. I completely get his point. We need to go further and move faster to insulate more homes. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record on that. We inherited a situation in which only 12% of households had an insulation EPC rating of C or above. When we left office earlier this year, it was up to 41%—a near 30% increase. Could we have gone further? Absolutely. Could we have done more? We absolutely should have. But that was a near 30% increase on the situation in which we found ourselves when we came to office, and that is something about which I am very proud.

[Mr Carmichael]

Is EPC not something else that we could reform? The way in which EPC bandings are rated seems to be utterly random and occasionally quite counter-productive.

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree. I would love to see the Government commit to a review of EPC ratings and how homes are judged. Maybe the Minister will speak to that if there are any plans coming through the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, or indeed any other Departments that would be responsible for that as well.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald)—it is taking time to get used to that constituency name—raised some very interesting points and concerns that I share, as I represent a vast rural constituency myself. However, he is entirely wrong: God, of course, comes from Aberdeenshire, not the Isle of Skye, although Skye probably comes a close second.

I wonder what the constituents of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, as well as companies reliant on the oil and gas sector, think of the Liberal Democrats’ support for the extension of the energy profits levy—something also raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). As we will be voting on the Budget resolutions in a few hours’ time, they may go away and reconsider their support for those Government measures. The Conservatives will certainly be voting against any extension.

Keeping homes warm this winter will be at the forefront of people’s mind in many households across the United Kingdom. We can feel the temperature falling outside as we speak. As a consequence of various pressures such as Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the ongoing instability in the middle east, the cost of heating homes has risen and has hit many families hard.

Myriad factors contribute to fuel poverty, including energy efficiency, income, housing costs and energy prices. That is why the Conservative Government took steps to support families to keep their homes warm. Through the energy bills support scheme and the energy price guarantee, we supported households the length and breadth of the UK at the height of the energy crisis. The steps we took amounted to approximately £1,500 for a typical household, covering about half the energy bill of every home in Britain. The warm home discount scheme meant support for 3 million households at risk of fuel poverty: that was 3 million families who could afford to keep warm and keep more of their money in their pocket. We stepped up support for our pensioners, delivering up to £600 in winter fuel payments and pensioner cost of living payments to 11.8 million pensioners. Some 1.1 million cold weather payments, worth £29.6 million, were paid out last winter alone. Those were all steps to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society in the cold weather.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

This has been an exceptionally good debate, and I have been encouraged by the degree of consensus. We have to approach a subject such as this with humility and recognise that nobody has ever found the answer to these fairly intractable problems.

I did not anticipate that the main point of contention would be where God came from. Of course, as the theologians tell us, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, so all those who have claimed that He is from their constituency are able to do so quite accurately. A point that I think is beyond any debate is that He is happiest, if not necessarily warmest, when he is in Orkney and Shetland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policies on tackling fuel poverty.

Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing this debate. Once the Backbench Business Committee is up and running, this is a subject that deserves longer and more careful scrutiny.

Speaking from the perspective of Orkney and Shetland, I will keep things simple. Time is short and simple is what I do best. There are two things that I want people to understand about Orkney and Shetland. First, we have the highest level of fuel poverty of any community in the country. I hear what the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) says about poor people in all communities, and she is correct, but the truth is that the further north we go, the more we are likely to find people enduring poor housing standards with long, dark, cold winters. That has an impact and it is felt most acutely in Orkney and Shetland.

The second thing I want people to understand is that when we talk about needing to find a template for making these things work, in Orkney and Shetland we have already done that. We have done it since the mid-1970s on our relationship to our oil and gas industry, which we have hosted. We have the two largest onshore terminals for oil and gas in western Europe—now coming perhaps into the autumn, if not quite to the end, of their existence. The reason there is such support for the oil and gas industry in Orkney and Shetland is that for the last few decades it has been a tremendous source of community benefit for us.

If there is an energy generation source, or whatever it is, in a community and the community sees the benefit of it—in a direct financial sense of money going into a trust or just in the availability and reliability of good-quality, high-skilled, well-paid jobs—people will be much more accepting. When, as is the case at the moment, we see Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks turning on the Viking wind farm in Shetland and being paid £2 million in August alone not to generate any electricity, that is where we see a disconnect. Dr Huq, there is a great deal more I could say about this subject—and I hope we will return to it—but just remember this: whatever the question is, the answer is to get yourself to Orkney and Shetland.

Contracts for Difference

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks a very important question, which gives me a chance to advertise the Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill on Thursday. All are welcome—standing room only! As part of our plans for Great British Energy, we allocated £3 billion of the £8.3 billion that we set out in the election for what we call the local power plan to do what other countries such as Denmark and Germany do as a matter of course: unleash local renewables, with local communities, councils, community groups and co-ops being part of that. That is important, because it is a way to tackle fuel poverty and generate income for local communities. It is also important as a way of winning consent from local people. I look forward to my hon. Friend and others making a contribution on this question in that debate and others.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If, as the Secretary of State says, he wants to offer a line of sight for industry, he should look more closely at the opportunities that come from the development of tidal stream, particularly through the creation of a supply chain from the ground up; that is always easier than recovering one that has already gone overseas. But that line of sight has to go in both directions, which is why developers in tidal stream energy are asking the Government to set a 1 GW deployment target. Will he listen to those representations now, and act on them?

[Ed Miliband]

When I came into office and examined the issues around pot 2, which covers tidal, I was very keen to make sure that we increased the tidal minimum, which we did by 50%. These are important discussions to continue. There is a dilemma here, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, which is that tidal remains relatively expensive, but the point of the tidal developers is that many technologies remained expensive until they were deployed at scale. These are hard questions, because they are about value for money and how much we invest in tidal, but my Department needs to have those important discussions.

Clean Energy Superpower Mission

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I really welcome my hon. Friend’s advocacy on this issue. The hydrogen economy is a really important part of our future. It is yet another example of where we can succeed as a country and generate good jobs and good wages. I look forward to engaging with him on these issues.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I take the Secretary of State back to the question of tidal power generation? If he speaks to the developers in the sector, they will tell him that they need two things to keep growing the sector. They need an expanded pot for the ringfenced allocation in the next allocation round, and they need an ambitious deployment target for the sector. Can we have an early announcement on that? If he really wants to understand the potential of marine renewables, he needs to get himself up to the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney. He is very welcome there at any time, but he might want to come in the summer, while the days are still long.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the right hon. Member for that invitation, and I will very much consider it, because I care a lot about this area. Obviously, I have to make decisions, in a certain capacity, about allocation round 6, but I have heard what he has said.