National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend 100%—as, I hear, does the shadow Minister.

This is one of those rare areas where I think we do have complete consensus—well, maybe not complete consensus, but widespread consensus—across the House. Nuclear is going to play a really critical part in our future energy needs. It provides the stable baseload power that runs on the system 24/7 for decades. Nuclear power that we build today could well still be operating by the end of this century. It is an extraordinary technology that we should be supporting and investing in as much as possible. That is why we are taking forward Sizewell C and Hinkley, but also why we have unlocked the small modular reactor programme and are delivering it at scale, and why we will take forward the reforms in the Fingleton review to make sure we can build things even faster in Britain.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can I just point out that the very fact that the Minister is at the Dispatch Box answering this urgent question is itself an indictment of the confidence that not only the public, but people working in NESO, have in the resilience of the system? Can I also point out that commentators have been warning for a decade or more about the risk to the security of supply from the over-reliance on intermittent renewables? While we in the Conservative party have learned that lesson, and are determined to have a much more robust and secure electricity policy, why are the Government doubling down on the risks they are creating by rushing ahead with renewables, vastly expensive grid investment that would otherwise be unnecessary and, of course, these absurd and obscene constraint payments to wind farm operators that cannot feed their electricity into the grid and get paid for it anyway, costing customers billions of pounds?

[Michael Shanks]

There was a lot there, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy to see me at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to see him in his place, and to be here to answer this important urgent question. On security of supply, let me say that, yes, renewables are not going to be the entirety of our mix at all times. That which is why nuclear is important as well, it is why storage is important—so we can store energy for when we need it—and it is why our interconnectors to Europe are critical.

The hon. Gentleman said two things in his question that I think show the problem with the Conservative party’s logic at the moment. First, on an urgent question about the resilience of our grid, he is saying that we should not invest in the future of the grid, which is the very thing that would lead to more issues with grid resilience. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman did just say that. If Opposition Front Benchers read his question back, I think they will see that he did.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point is rightly a challenge about constraint payments, which we should not be paying, but I gently challenge him: if we had not built renewables without strategically planning where they were and the grid to connect them into, we would not be paying that money. His party may want to reflect on exactly why that happened. We are fixing the problems we inherited, and that involves investing in the grid.