Warm Home Discount
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, with a change to the criteria that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to heat their homes, but for many this payment will be immediately eaten up by the increase in the energy price cap. We must be clear that the best protection for vulnerable households is to prioritise cheap energy. The announcement today is, frankly, a sticking-plaster approach to rising energy bills.
This Government fail to grasp the core issue: energy costs in this country are far too high for businesses, industry and, of course, bill payers. When the energy price cap rose in 2022, the now Secretary of State called it a “national emergency”. He called for an urgent freeze on energy bills and cited a lack of leadership. Now that he is in government, the only thing he is able to freeze is vulnerable pensioners by taking away their winter fuel allowance with no notice. Does the Minister think that shows leadership? I know that my constituents, and presumably hers too, will be concerned about their bills rising, concerned about inflation creeping back up—hitting 3% in January, despite the hard work done last year to bring it under control—and angry that Labour’s promise to cut bills by £300 is being broken.
The worst part of all of this is that this Government, led by ideological zealotry from the Secretary of State, are doubling down. Their obsession with going further and faster than any country in the world to meet their own self-imposed 2030 target is going to increase people’s bills even further. The renewables industry has warned that their rush to build record renewables in the next five years will push up prices and “consumers will lose out”. The Government’s rush to build twice as much grid in the next five years as was built in the last decade will increase the network costs on people’s bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the environmental levies will increase to £14 billion in 2030, largely driven by the hidden cost of renewables, all of which will end up on people’s energy bills.
The Labour party was not honest about its promise during the election to cut bills by £300, it was not honest about its plan to take the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners living in poverty, and now it is not being honest with the British people about what its plans will do to our energy bills. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the cost of energy is absolutely critical to any modern economy. We cannot go on following ideology over evidence and putting political targets ahead of what will cut the cost of energy in this country. However, this Government are in denial, which is why they scrapped the full system cost analysis commissioned when the Conservatives were in office.
Will the Minister say when proposals for a debt relief scheme will be published? Will she confirm by how much she expects levies to increase over the next five years? Will she commission a full system cost analysis of what the 2030 target will do to people’s energy bills? Will she confirm by how much bills will rise before we see the £300 off, which we were all promised?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Gentleman is right that energy prices are too high—on that, we agree. We also agree that that is worrying for families and businesses across the country. However, I would point out that 80% of this rise has been driven by wholesale prices. I would also gently remind him that the reason we are in this position—the reason we are so exposed to global fossil fuel prices over which we have no control—is because the Conservatives spent 14 years in government squandering the opportunity to accelerate the transition to clean power and reduce our dependence on global fossil fuel prices, leaving families across the country exposed.
The status quo is not tenable. We are at a point where energy prices are at an historic high, and we got here under his Government. That is a status quo that we are not willing to contend with. That is the reason—not because of ideology, but because we see the obvious: as long as we are dependent on global fossil fuel prices, we will be on this rollercoaster. That is what is driving the push to clean power. While the Conservatives have no alternatives, we have a clear alternative: we run to clean power; and while we do that, we support the most vulnerable households in the short term.
To answer the shadow Minister’s question, Ofgem is in the process of consulting on the debt support scheme as we speak, and we will support it to put that in place. We know that the debt burden has increased by £3.8 billion, and more than 1.8 million households in need of help will be supported by that scheme. We are absolutely committed to cutting bills—everything we are doing as a Government is driven by that desire and clear commitment. We will do that both through short-term measures and, critically, by running at clean power by 2030.
We have a plan to deal with energy bills. The Opposition have a plan to slow down and do nothing, and it will be the British public who pay the price.
Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The indication that Mingyang will get the green light from the Treasury to supply wind turbine technology to the Green Volt wind farm in the North sea is concerning. Indeed, alarm bells have been sounded by officials in the Minister’s Department and in the Ministry of Defence. This green revolution will come with a “made in China” label. The Government, in collusion with the Scottish National party in Holyrood, are determined to see Chinese companies reap the economic reward.
The Minister’s party says again and again that the transition to renewable energy will reduce our reliance on hostile regimes. Chinese-controlled technology embedded in our critical energy infrastructure is evidently a threat to our security. Can the Minister assure us that she is taking this threat seriously? Can she explain how using wind turbines made by Mingyang reduces our reliance on foreign states?
Just last week I, along with many MPs in the Minister’s party, was briefed by the Royal Navy on the vulnerability of our subsea communications and energy infrastructure. We have seen a pervasive rise in sabotage attacks on subsea cables in the Baltic, affecting our Scandinavian allies. If Chinese-manufactured turbines are installed, security experts have warned that sensors could spy on British seas, defence submarine programmes and the layout of our energy infrastructure. We would be reliant on Chinese equipment and software, and on Chinese suppliers for updates and maintenance, handing Beijing significant opportunity for interference. In the current international climate, it is unthinkable to disregard the security implications of this decision.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government have scrapped the GIGA—green industries growth accelerator —scheme that we launched to build British supply chains in energy technologies? What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Defence about its concerns over our ability to ensure the security of our energy system? What safeguards will be in place to prevent Chinese maintenance ships accessing the turbines for repairs? What guarantees has she had, if any, from our defence and security agencies that this investment will pose no threat to our national security? If such assurances are not forthcoming, will she revisit this decision and put a halt to the madness of allowing the People’s Republic of China to have such a significant stake in our energy system?
Kerry McCarthy
When the Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, I am the Minister now. [Laughter.] The shadow Minister mentioned revisiting this decision, but, as yet, no decision has been made. We are undergoing rigorous processes to consider the role of China in our supply chain and in the investment in our critical infrastructure.
Having been in my position, the hon. Gentleman will know why it is so important that I do not provide a running commentary on individual cases, but I have made it clear that we are taking into account the national security considerations as well as our need for investment in the supply chain. Let me touch on the legacy that we were left by the previous Minister: he was perfectly happy to leave our energy system exposed, with the British people paying the price. The retreat—the “under new management” line that he was parroting earlier this week—would leave us even more exposed to those petrostates and dictators. We are getting on with our clean power mission to end our energy insecurity, and I shall take no lessons from the shadow Minister on energy security given his Government’s record.
Biomass Generation
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I also apologise, as I am sure that the House is a little fed up hearing the Minister and me this afternoon.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome.
Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy.
Turning to the details of the statement, naturally we welcome a more limited role for Drax biomass in our power system, but more biomass subsidies are needed only in the short term, because this Government are embarking on a reckless experiment to have a grid based entirely on intermittent renewables at the expense of flexible and reliable baseload power. Drax’s role could be filled with more gas power plants, which are cheaper and cleaner than burning trees shipped in from Canada. Ministers know that burning wood at Drax produces four times the emissions of our last coal power plant, which in turn produces around twice the carbon emissions of gas. We could get that gas from the non-subsidised fields in the North sea, if this Government were not in such an ideological rush to shut down our domestic energy industry.
On cost, the new agreement that the Minister has signed us up to comes with a genuinely eyewatering strike price of £160 per MWh in today’s money. That is higher than Drax’s existing agreement of £138 per MWh. In fact, Baringa’s analysis that Drax put out this morning shows that bill payers will still be paying over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. If the analysis behind the Minister’s promise to cut bills by £300 is anything to go by, we should not rely on him too much. Has his Department carried out its own independent analysis, separate from that published by Drax this morning, to determine what the increased strike price will cost the British people and how that compares to supporting extra gas power in the capacity market?
We welcome the strengthened sustainability criteria, as investigations by Ofgem and the BBC’s “Panorama” have revealed serious questions to be answered by Drax about the import of wood from untouched primary forests in British Columbia. But as the BBC journalist Joe Crowley, who reported on these issues for “Panorama”, stated this morning, more clarity is needed on whether wood from primary forests will be classed as unsustainable under this new regime. Will the Minister confirm that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during any of its generation—not just that which is subsidised? What work is being done to ensure that the new sustainability criteria are actually enforceable?
On sustainability reporting, will the Minister confirm that the Department has received the KPMG report that the Prime Minister said he would look at? Will a copy be placed in the Library? The Minister’s statement has left the door wide open for the introduction of power BECCS after the transition arrangements end in 2031. That proposal to fit first-of-a-kind technology solely for the purpose of meeting our carbon budgets would cost the bill payer up to £40 billion—£1.7 billion a year. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS?
Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.
Michael Shanks
“Under new management,” indeed! The tough thing about being the acting shadow Secretary of State is that it is not, of course, his script that the hon. Gentleman is reading out.
This Government are fixing the mistakes left by the previous Government. I gently point out that eight previous Conservative Energy Ministers stood at this Dispatch Box and—deal after deal after deal—announced a worse deal than this for bill payers, energy security and sustainability. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that today. In fact, only a year ago—such is my love of his contributions in this House that I have read up on Hansard—he was saying that he had “absolute confidence” in the deal the previous Government made with Drax.
Let me outline why this deal is so different from those his party made in the past. The hon. Gentleman first asked about subsidy and mentioned a figure, which is what it will cost to deliver the necessary dispatchable power. He missed the fact that it is, of course, half of what was paid under the previous Government—nearly £1 billion a year—to Drax. We have halved that amount to lower bills for consumers.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about sustainability. We agree on the importance of tightening up the sustainability, which is why we have moved from 70% to 100%. I would gently say, again, that he was quite happy to support public money going into unsustainable biomass year after year when he was in the Energy Department. We have said that we will not pay a penny of subsidy to Drax if there is unsustainable biomass in the mix.
Thirdly, what the previous Government did not do, of course, was any sort of deal to control the runaway excess profits—record profits—that Drax was able to obtain as part of its deal. We have put in place a mechanism to claw back that excess profit so that the people of this country do not pay over the odds for their energy.
Fourthly, I will address the important point about energy security. Year after year, the Conservatives exposed us to the lack of a plan for what the energy system would look like in the late 2020s and into the 2030s. This Government have had to take tough decisions quickly to secure that supply for the future, and that is what we have done. We have decided that running Drax when it was not necessary—when there were clean, cheaper alternatives in the system—will no longer happen. To the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on Drax running less, I say that limited generation times mean that it will run only when we need it for capacity to meet demand in the system. The alternative—he asked for the figure, which I set out in the statement—would be £170 million more every single year.
Finally, on the future of BECCS, we are open-minded at this point on the role it will play. However, I agree that it is important that we come to a decision on that soon. The review we have outlined is about bringing together all the various bits of science that we know are there in different reports and trying to work out a credible pathway for whether power BECCS will play a role in the system. We will make that decision as soon as possible.
I will finish by saying that this is an extremely different deal. It will deliver benefit for the hard-working people of this country, ensure that sustainability is at its heart and protect our energy security in the years ahead.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.
On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.
Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.
More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.
Mr Speaker
Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.
Andrew Bowie
In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.
The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.
Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.
The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—
Michael Shanks
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.
What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister must be the only Member of Parliament representing Aberdeenshire who is against investment in Aberdeenshire. He will have to explain to his constituents and businesses right across his community why he stands up and opposes investment in his constituency. Of course, in doing so, he misunderstands the role that Great British Energy will play; the key point of it is that it will invest £8.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in clean power projects right across the country, helping to unlock private sector investment and create supply chains in this country. The shadow Minister has now turned his face against all of those jobs that will be created in Aberdeen, which is a question he will have to answer for his constituents.
Andrew Bowie
The Minister has a right cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire, when tens of thousands of energy workers are going to lose their jobs because of this Government’s decisions on the North sea. The British people were promised lower bills by the next election; now, they have been given a vague assurance that in the very long term bills might come down, and they are meant to be grateful for that.
The arrogance of this Government is staggering, if not surprising. They are so driven by ideology that they will not even allow Government lawyers to defend licences issued for Rosebank and Jackdaw, and are willing to see imports of fracked gas increase as long as they go down in history as the Government who shut down the North sea. While pensioners freeze as the Minister’s Government strip them of the winter fuel allowance, and as people are made unemployed due to his Government’s position on the North sea, can the Minister see why people across this country are quite miffed that the Government get to waste £8 billion of their money on the GB Energy white elephant?
Michael Shanks
First, let us be absolutely clear that Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects right across the country, including in the shadow Minister’s constituency. Secondly, he has an absolute cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about jobs in oil and gas, when more than 70,000 jobs were lost in North sea industries over the past decade—the shadow Minister was in the Energy Department for at least a chunk of that time. The truth is that a transition is under way in the North sea. Conservative Members were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it was not happening as thousands of people lost their jobs. This Government are determined to build what comes next; the shadow Minister stands opposed to that, and he will have to explain to his constituents and the people of Scotland why he does not support that investment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This Government’s ideological obsession with intermittent renewables at the expense of stable, clean, baseload nuclear power will, we think, be their greatest mistake. They have delayed the small modular reactor down-selection competition, and we have not heard a peep about the final investment decision on Sizewell C. However, none of that comes close to the monumental act of self-harm of deciding to throw away and bury—out of reach, underground—20 years of nuclear-grade plutonium, which could be used to drive forward a nuclear revolution in this country. How does the Secretary of State think this will play with the pro-growth, pro-nuclear MPs in his own party who are already worried about him being a drag on growth?
Ed Miliband
First, may I take this opportunity—I know we are short of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—to congratulate the permanent shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), on the birth of her baby boy? I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating her. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his temporary elevation.
On the issue of plutonium disposition and the decisions I and my hon. Friends have made, we are acting on the best advice we have inside Government. It has the potential to create thousands of jobs—thousands of long-term jobs—and it is the right thing to do not just for jobs, but for nuclear safety.
Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg. It is a day full of energy; we cannot get enough energy—in all respects, I suppose.
As we discussed just a few weeks ago with regards to the Electricity Capacity Mechanism (Amendment) Regulations 2024, the capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of electricity market reform, to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of electrical generation capacity or, in some cases, reduced demand.
The capacity market is responsible for ensuring that the right incentives are in place to deliver during periods of electricity system shortage and stress. As we mentioned when the previous amendments were introduced in November, the previous Government identified over a decade ago that, while introducing renewable energy sources into the energy mix,
“The amount of gas capacity we will need to call on at times of peak demand will remain high, with potentially significant amounts of new gas generating capacity required by 2030.”
As we saw in the January cold snap, a renewables-dominated system does indeed come under considerable stress. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine—as it often does not in the UK, especially in the winter—we experience a dearth in the supply of renewable-generated electricity. That is compounded by high demand on the coldest, darkest days.
The draft instrument aims to improve security of supply and expedite investment in low-carbon technologies. It seeks to amend the timeframe for the Electricity Settlements Company’s determinations, bringing those adjustment decisions in line with the timeframe for penalty charges. It also seeks to use multi-year agreements to provide certainty, incentivising a greater range of technologies to participate. On that basis, and also because it was the previous Government who began this work, I do not wish to oppose the draft instrument.
I shall not stand in the way of business today, as the draft instrument seeks to make only minor adjustments to the capacity market. However, as before, I do wish to put on record the Opposition’s apprehensions regarding an increasingly intermittent energy system, shored up by increasingly expensive capacity market payments. As I said, however, we support these moves today.
Question put and agreed to.
ECO4 and Insulation Schemes
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for taking the time to meet me this morning prior to making the statement.
The ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme were set up because we know that improving the energy efficiency of homes is one of the best ways to cut energy bills and keep people warm. This is especially the case for those who are in fuel poverty. When we took office in 2010, just 14% of homes in this country had an energy performance rating of A to C; today, that figure is around 50%, and for social housing, we went from 24% in 2010 to 70% today. That is a record that we are proud of—a record of reducing bills for households and keeping families warm. Almost half of the measures installed under GBIS have been in low-income households.
Solid wall insulation is a small proportion of the overall work that the ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme undertook. The vast majority of installations under those schemes have been cavity wall and loft insulation, alongside installations of smart thermostats and boiler upgrades under the ECO scheme. However, it is deeply concerning that examples of substandard solid wall insulation have been identified in some of the installations under those schemes. We of course support the action that the Minister has announced today, and Ofgem being given responsibility for overseeing the repairs and remediation, and it is right to conduct additional on-site audits to inform action moving forward. I thank TrustMark for the work it has done to identify examples of poor-quality solid wall insulation, and we also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the quality of solid wall insulation under other schemes. It is absolutely right for installers to fund the repair work, and to ensure that the situation is remedied for affected households as soon as possible. Nobody should have to live in a house with damp or mould as a result of poor-quality insulation.
Could the Minister, in addition to taking the action that she outlined in her statement, please answer the following questions? First, have the audits undertaken so far identified what proportion of the solid wall insulations are affected by poor-quality work? Can she confirm that all 39 companies that have been suspended still exist, and set out the mechanism by which they will be required to remedy their work? What action is being taken to make sure that remedial work is of the required standard, to ensure that consumers are protected from yet more poor-quality work? What action is the Minister taking to make sure that everyone who had solid wall insulation installed under the schemes is informed promptly and in full, and that nobody will be missed? Will she publish a full list of the 39 companies suspended from the scheme for carrying out poor-quality work, and has the Department considered taking legal action against them?
Members in all parts of the House want to ensure that families have a warm and comfortable home that is efficient and cheap to run. The Minister has our assurance that we will work cross-party to ensure remediation for those affected.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his response. I am glad that there is consensus across the House that energy efficiency measures and home upgrades are key to delivering warmer homes and lower bills, and I hope all Members are supportive of the action the Government are taking.
In answer to the hon. Member’s questions, we are still conducting audits to get a full picture. From sampling that has been done—I stress that the sampling was geared towards the installers that we thought were most risky—it seems that a significant proportion of that sample has major issues, which is why we are taking this action. On the 39 installers that have been suspended, we are working through certification bodies and TrustMark to require them to go into households and remediate the work. In the cases that we have audited, that is happening. The vast majority of installers want to do the right thing and want to do a good job, and where issues have been flagged, they are repairing the work. Where we think there are problems, we have mechanisms in place for making sure that the installers deliver on their obligations, and the guarantee system acts as a backstop.
A crucial question is how we ensure both that where remediation work is being done, it is being done to the right standard, and that future solid wall insulations are done to a better standard. We are putting in place additional spot checks across the piece to make sure that where work has been remediated, it has been done to the required standard, and critically, all solid wall insulations will be given more monitoring and checks. Suppliers have committed to that, so that when people are having this work done, they can be confident that it is being done to a much better standard than we have seen.
On keeping everyone informed, we will be writing through Ofgem to all households that have had solid wall insulation installed. We will be doing quality checks on all 65,000 solid wall insulations. I should stress that we hope the vast majority of those will be okay and that any issues will be minor, but we want to do a quality check across the piece. Our priority is getting in, making sure we are doing a proper inspection of the property, and getting key issues remediated as quickly as possible. Through all of that, our priority is the consumer, whose experience has to be as hassle-free, stress-free and cost-free as possible. This should never have happened in the first place, and we are determined to get this right and fix it on those consumers’ behalf.
Draft Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and a great pleasure to be back at another Delegated Legislation Committee. I am thinking about getting a camp bed and staying on this corridor for the rest of the year.
Of late, His Majesty’s official Opposition have been accused of seeming to oppose for opposition’s sake; in last week’s Second Delegated Legislation Committee there was an uncomfortable moment when the Minister quoted a 2023 speech of mine back to me verbatim. That will not be the case this morning, however, because the Opposition welcome the move to regulate the heat networks market, which has hitherto been largely unregulated. Heat network users currently have fewer rights and diminished customer protections compared with other utility consumers. Although heat is an essential utility, the existing legislation covers only issues that pertain to metering and billing usage.
We welcome the consumer protections that the draft regulations entail. Consumers and bill payers are at the crux of our energy systems, and changes made must be in their best interests. I believe that this change is indeed in their best interests: in this instance, the consumers stand to benefit.
Sadly, that does not seem to be true of the Government’s energy policy more widely. We are not seeing the £300 saving on energy bills that was promised in the election campaign. What we are seeing is a ruinous overreliance on renewables, with wind generation supplying just 0.7% of the UK’s energy demand today; the boiler tax, which Labour MPs waved through Parliament last week; and the increases to employer national insurance contributions, which will depress wages and dampen employment. Households and consumers rarely seem to be the focus when this Government are making policy.
Today, however, that is not the case. In the heat networks market, the consumer stands to benefit from the introduction of this regulatory framework. As the market for heat networks expands, the risk of exploitation of consumers becomes more pertinent. It is therefore right that legislation be introduced to remedy the gap and bring heat networks into line with the frameworks that regulate gas and electricity markets.
I will not detain the Committee any longer. The Opposition absolutely support the regulation of the heat networks market for the sake of the protection of consumers from exorbitant charges, so I do not wish to stand in the way of the draft regulations. I strongly encourage the Government to prioritise bill payers and consumers across the rest of their energy policy, so that once again we can be in a place where I am not opposing for opposition’s sake, as I was accused of doing last week.
Marine Renewables Industry
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. Congratulations on your appointment to the Panel of Chairs, and I am sure that this is the first of many long sessions in the Chair in Westminster Hall.
Today’s debate on marine renewables has been fascinating, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. Before I go any further, I will echo his comments on EMEC, the incredibly important role it has played and Neil Kermode’s leadership over the past few years. It has delivered a world-leading technology and, indeed, makes for an inspirational visit, if anybody has the time or inclination to go north to the Orkney Islands.
It has, for the most part, been a thoroughly pleasant afternoon listening to an oral tour of some of our great coastal communities—and of Taunton and Melksham and Devizes. I have nothing against Taunton; it is just that it stood out for me. I have personal links with many of those communities, so it was a genuine pleasure to listen to the debate.
As so many people have said, the United Kingdom is uniquely placed in terms of marine energy. We are an island nation, and our history has been written by the seas. Given the potential of marine energy to help drive us towards our clean energy future, our future will be written by them too.
Energy from the sea is not a new concept in the United Kingdom, especially not to somebody who hails from Aberdeen. The UK continental shelf and the Norwegian continental shelf have been the lifeblood of the UK’s energy industry since the 1970s. Aberdeen, in the north-east of Scotland, has been the powerhouse of the European energy sector for decades. My sincere hope is that that remains so in the decades ahead.
[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has shown this afternoon, the east coast of Scotland, and particularly his constituency, is well designed for marine energy technologies, and particularly tidal. Marine energy generation in the UK covers many technologies, some of which—such as tidal and wave generation—are not yet deployed at scale and not quite at a commercial level. That also includes offshore wind, which has successfully scaled up in the United Kingdom over the past few years.
I did not want to get drawn into yet another list—I know how much the Minister enjoys my reeling off the previous Conservative Government’s successes when it comes to investment in renewable technologies—but I was prompted into it by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young). I am very proud that we built the first to the fifth largest offshore wind farms in the world, which are delivering power into the United Kingdom right now, that we halved our emissions and that we were the fastest cutter of emissions of any country in the G7. We are very proud of what we did, which is supporting thousands of new jobs across the United Kingdom, particularly in the north-east of England, in communities such as Grimsby and around the Humber.
The UK’s seas are home to the emerging technologies we have heard about this afternoon. Many of the technologies we will employ in the energy transition might not be fully fledged, but the previous Government were proud to announce a record £650 million of investment—for example, into the development of nuclear fusion technology, in which the UK is a world leader. We support the development of fusion and the development of technologies such as tidal, because, moving forward, we need to support all energy solutions.
As I said, the previous Government did a great deal to provide an economic framework for various technologies—especially marine energy projects—and to try to attract private sector investment through the contracts for difference scheme. In 2021, we announced that £30 million per year would be ringfenced for tidal stream projects. Allocation round 4 in 2022 made allocations to four tidal stream projects, which was a first. Allocation round 5 in 2023 is often castigated as a failed round, so obsessed are some people with wind at the expense of everything else, but it made allocations to 11 tidal projects, with capacity totalling over 50 MW. Allocation round 6, which was run under the previous Government and announced by the current Government, made allocations to six tidal stream projects, with a total capacity of 28 MW.
With the CfD mechanism, the previous Government created the conditions for new technologies such as tidal to thrive. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out at the beginning of the debate, the world’s most powerful tidal turbine was launched off the east coast of Scotland by Orbital Marine Power, an Orkney-based company. Constructed in Dundee, the 2 MW turbine capitalises on some of the strongest currents in the world. In 2024, thanks to the dogged and determined campaigning by Neil, the right hon. Gentleman and others, the then Secretary of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—now the editor of The Spectator—and I secured £3 million of new funding for EMEC, recognising the work that it does. That was in addition to having invested over £7 million between 2016 and 2022.
The question posed by many is, why bother with marine energy when we have so many other technologies we are investing in right now? We have offshore, onshore, nuclear technologies that are coming on stream, solar power and everything else. Well, it is because we must. We need to invest in all the technologies available to us in order to drive us forward into our clean energy future, to make us more energy independent and energy secure.
Sadly, there was no mention of tidal in the “Clean Power 2030” document published by the Government. There is a perception—it might not be the reality—that tidal technology has fallen through the gap. In the rush to decarbonise the energy system, the Secretary of State seems to be putting all the eggs into two baskets. It would be good if the Minister could set out that that was not the case and that the Government were as committed to tidal and wave power as they should be. When the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind and solar will not keep the lights on in the United Kingdom.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is criticising the lack of action on tidal, so can he explain why his Government cancelled the Swansea tidal lagoon?
Andrew Bowie
The previous Government looked at the Swansea tidal lagoon in great detail and depth, but the decision was taken before my time in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero not to proceed with it. I am informed that it was due to a combination of the cost and the reluctance of those involved to make the case that the technology would be successful. However, if it can be presented as a viable project—if the costs can be brought down and the technology can be proved to work—of course the current Government could look at it again. We should be investing in things that work and that return a benefit to the taxpayer.
Last week, the UK learned the word “Dunkelflaute”—I have probably pronounced it terribly—which expresses what happens when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. The recent cold snap illustrated just how insecure a system reliant on intermittent renewables such as solar and wind will be, so we need to invest in new baseload generation, including gas, nuclear and tidal.
Those technologies sadly got little mention in the Secretary of State’s “Clean Power 2030” action plan. There were few words about nuclear and nothing about tidal—seemingly, no plan for future generation. It is clear that a wide mix of energies will be required to ensure our energy independence and security. Offshore wind and solar are obviously essential parts of the mix, but so too will be—or at least should be—oil and gas; nuclear, large and small, with microreactors; and new and emerging technologies such as wave and tidal. The developments happening across all those technologies in this country are great.
We should support Great British and Northern Irish scientists, innovators, engineers and technicians who have the opportunity to build on the successes of the past decade, which saw Great Britain and Northern Ireland lead the world in investing in new energy generation. To echo the sentiment of other right hon. and hon. Members, we need more direction and clarity from the Government about where we are heading on this journey to more tidal and wave investment. We fully support the calls for a road map and a taskforce to drive that forward and support the industry.
I say to the Government: please do not just put all our eggs in two baskets, but invest in and support other technologies. We need all those energy sources in future. Many of the technologies will be developed and deployed around the coast, in some of the more deprived communities in this country, so the jobs and investment that they will contribute will be massively beneficial not just for our energy security but for the wider economy. If we invest now—if we spend the time and money and expend the energy—Great Britain and Northern Ireland can yet again be the beating heart of this new global industrial revolution.
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.
Andrew Bowie
The Minister is being very generous, and I apologise for taking his time, given that I have just spoken. He talks about reforming the planning system so that projects can be built faster. Obviously, a lot of the projects we are speaking about are in Scotland. Can he update us on discussions with the Scottish Government about reform of the planning and consenting provisions in the Electricity Act 1989, which are seen by some—not by all—as an additional burden for companies seeking to develop such projects north of the border?
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s raising that point, because that is an important piece of work that we have been moving forward. With the Scottish Government, we launched a consultation, which ran for four weeks, on how the consenting process could be reformed, so that we can change the 1989 Act in a number of key areas. I think the consultation closed a couple of weeks ago; the responses are now being analysed, and we will bring forward legislation in due course.
That is a good example of partnership working with the Scottish Government on attempts to deal with some long-running issues. Across the UK, the key point is that the aim is not somehow to reduce the burden of planning where there are still opportunities for affected communities to contribute; it is about saying that it does not serve communities, developers or the Government well when decisions are held up for years on end. That is part of how we will speed these things up.
Other hon. Members mentioned the supply chain, which is incredibly important. That is why we as a Government have said that we are not agnostic about industrial policy in this country; we want manufacturing to come to these shores. It is encouraging to see that there is already significantly more UK content in tidal stream projects than in some other technologies that we have in this country. That is a real positive. I hope that we can continue that and learn from it for offshore wind and other technologies that we want to expand.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and many others asked about setting up a taskforce. I am very open minded about that, and when I met the Marine Energy Council just before Christmas to discuss this and a number of other matters, I said that. I cannot quite remember how many taskforces I am currently chairing—we do like a taskforce, and they are important —and I am extremely grateful for the expertise of those who give up their time to come into Government, to help us to shape action plans and route maps and to understand what the challenges are. I am open to the suggestion, but if we set up something like that it must have a clear purpose, and at end of it we want a set of actions that Government and others can drive forward. That is what my officials are working on, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman more about it.
On the technology point, the Government’s position is that overall the wave energy industry is at research and design phase. That is a key step on the journey to potentially achieving commercial viability, but we do not think it is quite there yet. We are aware that it has huge potential, given the nature of this country, and significant strides are being made to take it forward. My officials are regularly in touch with those in the sector and are being kept up to date on the latest developments. We hope that all these technologies will become extremely successful and the Government are happy to do whatever we can to support that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he had not had time to write a speech but then, as always, he made a very eloquent contribution. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Devon made the same point about partnership, which is critical to all of this. The coast around this country offers enormous potential in our energy future, in floating offshore wind, in which we are already a world leader in so many ways—I hope we will continue to be so—and marine renewables, in the economic programme that we have already, and particularly in fishing. The point was strongly made that this is not about competing priorities, although it might seem like that; it is about how we can bring industries together to ensure that they co-exist. We can get real strength from that.
Gas Storage Levels
Andrew Bowie Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on gas storage levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Energy security is a key priority for this Government, and at no time was there any concern about Britain’s energy system being able to meet demand. Our systems worked entirely as intended. We had capacity to deal with market constraints, and that has been backed up by the two authoritative voices on this issue in the country—National Gas, which runs the gas network, and the National Energy System Operator.
We have sufficient gas supply and electricity capacity to meet demand this winter, due to our diverse and resilient system. While storage is an important flexibility tool in the gas system, our varied sources of gas supply mean that the UK is less reliant on storage than some other European countries that have a more limited supply options. Our diverse options include the UK continental shelf, our long-term energy partner Norway, international markets via the second largest liquefied natural gas onshoring capacity in Europe, and two interconnectors.
Gas storage is used throughout the year, but typically operates in winter to help meet peaks in demand. Through colder spells, storage levels are expected to fluctuate across the winter period. That is what happened last week following the severe cold weather, and it is a sign that the gas and storage markets are working exactly as they should. That is precisely why we have those systems in place. In their winter outlooks, National Gas and the National Energy System Operator assessed that there is sufficient supply to meet winter demand, including the role of storage. On Friday, National Gas, the owner and operator of Britain’s gas networks, confirmed that
“the overall picture across Great Britain’s eight gas storage sites remains healthy.”
We will continue to work closely with National Gas, NESO and storage operators to maintain continued security of supply. I reiterate: Britain’s energy system is working to continue to meet the demand of consumers across the country.
Andrew Bowie
All our constituents will be aware of the freezing temperatures experienced across the United Kingdom last week, dipping to minus 18° in the north of Scotland. However, many will not be aware of just how close this country came to an energy shortage, blackouts, or demand control—closer than at any point in the past 15 years. On Friday Centrica, the owner of British Gas, issued a stark warning that freezing weather and a spike in demand had reduced our gas storage to “concerningly low” levels—26% lower than this time last year. At a time when temperatures dropped below freezing for an extended period of time, our stores were set to last for less than a week.
Earlier in the week the National Energy System Operator issued a call for electricity providers to step in to provide extra electricity to meet demand and limit the risk of blackouts, paying 10 times the average daily amount to keep the lights on, all of which will end up on the energy bills of our constituents. With an incredibly tight margin between demand and available power generation, we were once again forced to rely on reliable gas power plants to keep the lights on in this country, showing that gas is and will be a vital component of our energy security for decades to come.
With their rush to meet the Secretary of State’s ideological target to decarbonise the entire electricity grid by 2030, this Government are playing fast and loose with our ability to keep the lights on. They are rushing headlong into a renewable energy dominated system—a Chinese renewable energy dominated system—but Ministers cannot escape the fact that when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, wind turbines and solar panels will not keep the lights on in Britain. We should be in no doubt that this Government’s ideological plans for our energy supply will leave the UK dependent on foreign imports, send bills soaring, and leave us teetering on the brink of blackouts.
Interestingly, when Labour was last in government in 2010, the Secretary of State whipped his then Ministers to vote against Conservative proposals to increase gas storage capacity in the United Kingdom, with a Labour MP on the Energy Bill Committee saying that
“the climate of this country, other than in the past month, is usually such that we do not quite need the same storage facilities as other countries in mainland Europe?”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 19 January 2010; c. 282.]
Does the Minister think the Secretary of State regrets not backing that proposal in 2010? Does he accept that the push towards renewables will lead to higher levels of intermittency, and does he accept that we will need to urgently review our gas storage capacity in the immediate future?
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister’s point would be well made were it not for the fact that it is completely untrue. If we look at the facts, the capacity market notice that he mentions was cancelled—