Electricity Grid Upgrades

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the delivery of electricity grid upgrades.

It is wonderful to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to have the opportunity of this debate.

I chair a cross-party group of MPs from Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. We are working to promote the Clean Power 2030 objective, but we want to deliver it more cheaply and quickly, because it is becoming increasingly clear that undergrounding high voltage direct current cables is the way forward for the great national grid upgrade. Undergrounding will carry public consent and will avoid delays, and will therefore be cheaper as well as better for the countryside. Relying on new lines of pylons for the entire upgrade, as proposed, will delay decarbonising the national grid, because they arouse such hostility and will end up costing more because of the delays.

This debate is therefore not just local. Decarbonisation is one of the great national challenges that the United Kingdom faces. How it is achieved, how quickly and at what cost is an issue of national importance. The National Energy System Operator’s “Clean Power 2030” report is welcome, but it highlights the scale of the challenge. NESO is clear that public support is critical to achieving those ambitions, but its response to the Secretary of State in that document warns that losing public consent is a significant threat to delivering projects on time and within budget.

Fintan Slye, the executive director of NESO, made the importance of engaging community support clear on Radio 4 when the report was launched on 5 November:

“I am acutely conscious that building infrastructure, pylons, does impose on people and their locality.”

He also emphasised that

“it is really important…that we bring people and communities with us on this journey”,

and that the transition to net zero only works

“if we can bring society with us”.

He is clearly saying that infrastructure solutions must align with community priorities.

The challenge to install new capacity is enormous. The UK has around 14 GW of offshore wind capacity but, to meet future energy demands, that capacity will need to grow nearly threefold by 2030 and continue expanding so it can handle 125 GW of wind by 2050. That is a much faster rate of investment than we have seen so far, but projects for 2030 are already falling behind. Given the strength of public opposition to overhead pylons, it is highly unlikely that any pylon proposals will be delivered on time.

The “Clean Power 2030” report sets out how delays are already affecting key projects such as the one from Norwich to Tilbury, which is 184 km of pylons across Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. NESO says that it will now be delayed by a year to 2031, and that delay is very costly. NESO estimates that the cost of delay is £4 billion a year—far higher than previous estimates—mainly because of the constraint payments that have to be paid to wind power generators.

Given the public opposition to the Norwich to Tilbury project, the funds being amassed for legal challenges, and the opportunity for judicial review at least twice during the process, it is likely to be delayed for far longer than just one year. That risk is likely to apply to the other 17 pylon schemes proposed in the great grid upgrade. Nevertheless, National Grid plans to use overhead pylons as the primary infrastructure for the massive reinforcement of the national grid. I put it to the Minister that the current concept is not deliverable.

The implication is clear. The way to secure public consent is by pursuing strategies that respect and protect local communities and what they value—their property, their livelihoods and the countryside.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has done a fantastic job in this area. He has been very persuasive in setting out the damage done to his constituency. Does he agree that the strength of the OffSET group—the offshore electricity grid taskforce—demonstrates that the issue is going to affect communities right across East Anglia, including Margaretting village in my constituency, and that therefore the opposition he talks about is likely to be very strong across the whole region?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. It affects other colleagues, including some present here today representing, for example, Lincolnshire. We know that there are concerns in north Wales, and on the east coast of Scotland in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is representing the Opposition Front Bench. This is a very widespread problem.

Undergrounding HVDC cables is not only technically viable, but the most sensible and sustainable solution for the future of our energy network—that is, if we cannot have it offshore. I acknowledge that quite a lot is going offshore, but it rubs salt in the wound that other areas, from Scotland to north-east England, have the luxury of offshore schemes, but we in East Anglia do not. Our countryside is not worth the investment.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member talk about delays and the issues with floating offshore wind. Does he agree that we should look at why we have such delays? After 14 years of Conservative Government, one might have thought that many of the challenges would already have been dealt with. Does he acknowledge that many of the current issues are because of a lack of action over the last 14 years?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I accept that the present Government have inherited a planning system and a philosophy of upgrading the national grid that is out of date.

When we were in Government, we were very slow to recognise that such a big, strategic upgrade needed a proper strategy. We started moving towards holistic network design. We commissioned a report from Charles Banner KC to look at streamlining the planning process—I will come on to putting that streamlining in place—and I very much welcome that the Government have commissioned a spatial review of the entire network, which should have been done years ago. I think we were blind to the failings of the structure inherited from the Electricity Act 1989; we should have moved much sooner.

That report should make it easier for the Government to change the out-of-date policy of a presumption in favour of pylons, which we said in our manifesto that we would review. I am very happy for the Minister to blame the previous Government for the difficulties he is facing and to change the policy accordingly, but it will be very odd if he comes to the Dispatch Box to defend what the previous Government were doing, after what the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) just said—but I suspect that that is what he will do.

I put this issue forward in a bipartisan manner. We should all be able to agree that the great grid upgrade is not going fast enough, and that we need to streamline the planning process and speed up delivery. However, we also need to mend our ideas about how we deliver it, because as I have said, undergrounding high voltage direct current cables is not only technically viable, but the most sensible and sustainable solution for the future of our entire energy network.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I would like to return to the hon. Member’s point about international comparisons and other countries nearby perhaps having a presumption in favour of overgrounding. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that Germany’s Opposition recently said that using overhead lines instead of digging underground could save the country €35 billion, and that the German political parties that previously, as part of Angela Merkel’s coalition, backed underground cables have now called for overhead lines to be given priority. Does the hon. Member agree that the picture is not quite so clearcut in mainland Europe?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What is interesting about Germany is that its presumption was in favour of undergrounding, so the idea that that is a great big experiment and we do not know what it means is incorrect. There is plenty of expertise in Europe. When we look at cost comparisons between undergrounding and pylons, it also depends on the territory we are dealing with.

Our problem is lack of community consent, as Fintan Slye, the executive director of the National Energy System Operator, rightly says. It is a question of swings and roundabouts, but in the case of Norwich to Tilbury, the consequence of delays from trying to run roughshod over the very widespread and well-funded public opposition will be to put up the cost, which makes the cost of undergrounding advantageous over pylons. That is my point.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the principle of what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) says, but undergrounding DC cables has great advantages. The latest estimated cost of just one year’s delay for Norwich to Tilbury is four times more than the additional £1 billion cost of undergrounding HVDC— I hope the hon. Gentleman was listening to that: £4 billion a year for delay against £1 billion extra for DC undergrounding. I think that puts this into the field of a no-brainer. Why would we spend all that money fighting through the courts for a very unpopular scheme when we could save time and legal expense by going for a different method?

In the National Energy System Operator’s East Anglia network study, which was published earlier this year, undergrounding HVDC was set out as alternative option 8. The great advantage of undergrounding HVDC is that there will be far less public resistance. Moreover, as I have said, the planning procedures could be streamlined— as recommended to the Government recently by Charles Banner—to conform to the regime for installing new major water pipes. If we had the same planning regime for underground cables as we did for water pipes, we could speed up the process for undergrounding cables.

Underground HVDC offers a scalable, future-proof solution that can be delivered with far less environmental impact, with public support and much more quickly. Schemes without pylons that are already planned by National Grid—for example, in north-east England—are being delivered without public opposition or long delays, which seems to be an enormous advantage for the Government’s objective of decarbonising the grid. There is no comparable resistance from campaign groups, which is clear evidence that underground HVDC gets public support, making it a far more practical and feasible solution.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hard work that the hon. Member has done cross-party on this issue for many years, and I am grateful to be joining that as another east of England MP. The issue of public consent is important, because the proposals could have such a huge impact on local communities. Developers suggest that they could provide community benefits, but with all due respect, the idea of having a community hall 5 miles down the road does not mitigate having massive pylons going past someone’s back garden. Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with regard to public consent is that people who are very well organised will understandably continue to kick up a fuss, which will delay the creation of the renewable energy that we absolutely need and certainly support?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. As the new Liberal Democrat MP for Chelmsford, she demonstrates that this is a cross-party campaign, supported by people who are as committed to decarbonisation as anything else.

As has been said, there is no comparable resistance from campaign groups in the north-east of England. That is clear evidence that underground HVDC receives public support, making it a far more practical and feasible solution.

In East Anglia, the opposition to overhead pylons is not subsiding; it is growing and becoming more intense. Campaign groups are united in their resistance to this outdated approach to infrastructure. The Government, including the Minister, have made it clear that local campaigners will not be able to block their nationally important mission to build clean energy infrastructure across the UK. We are not blocking; we are trying to help. In my constituency, one local group wrote to National Grid, in response to a consultation, saying:

“By all means, build closer to our houses and shorten the route, just put it underground.”

That demonstrates that communities are not opposed to infrastructure or the objectives behind it. They are just against bad decisions to achieve it.

I mentioned streamlining the planning system to bring it into line with what is required of water companies laying major water pipes. There is a massive underground Anglian water pipe being installed from Bury St Edmunds, across my constituency to Abberton reservoir in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). That includes digging a trench through the sensitive landscape of Dedham vale across the Stour valley, almost exactly where the pylons or alternating current undergrounding will go. Nobody is objecting to that underground scheme. I have not had a whimper of complaint about that pipe going in.

Why stick to pylons when that method is slower and delays will make it far more expensive? The Government may argue, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned, that community benefits will compensate for the disruption to affected areas caused by pylons, but those ideas will not buy off the hostility to pylons and other unwanted infrastructure. Solutions that respect communities and their interests, as well as deliver for our energy network, are the future.

For Norwich to Tilbury, the onshore undergrounding HVDC proposal will cause significantly less environmental damage than overhead cables and AC undergrounding. Let me expand on that. For a start, the entire route would be underground, not just through the sensitive landscapes. The cable trenches required for undergrounding HVDC cables are far narrower than for AC cables.

AC undergrounding is proposed for the area of outstanding natural beauty, the special landscape area that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). That requires a 120-metre-wide trench, because AC cables need to be spaced out. That means a very wide swathe of destruction, as that vast trench is dug and refilled, and everything in its path is destroyed.

It is extremely expensive to avoid going through archaeological sites. The Stour valley is an archaeological site of the same importance as Stonehenge. If there had been stones in the Stour valley, we would have a Stonehenge, because there is evidence of a wooden henge. Ancient tribes lived there in prehistoric times and it was a significant area throughout Roman times and the middle ages.

All of that is at risk, in addition to the massive destruction of trees, ancient woodland and hedges, in order to install AC underground cables. I am all for mitigating the effect of pylons by undergrounding, but let us not kid ourselves that it is a solution for the most sensitive areas of landscape. It is also much more expensive to underground AC cables than DC cables. I would very much like the proposal to underground cables to be extended to other areas, such as the Roman River valley, which is technically not in the special landscape area but is just as special. The Government have an obligation to respect sensitive countryside, so that could be another cause for a judicial review. A much better solution would be to underground DC, not AC, cables through that sensitive landscape.

Another reason why this proposal is so advantageous is that offshore DC to onshore AC requires huge DC-to-AC converters at the cable end points. When DC current generated by a wind farm lands somewhere such as Friston in the constituency of Suffolk Coastal, there has to be a massive DC-to-AC converter for it to go into the AC grid network. If we started building a DC grid network—for example, if energy ran all the way from Norwich to Tilbury on a DC line—all those connections could go straight into the DC network, avoiding the need for extra infrastructure. Incidentally, that would apply to the interconnectors for energy coming from the continent. Electricity arriving from the proposed Tarchon Energy interconnector would be DC, so we would not need a massive DC-to-AC converter at Ardley in my constituency; we could have just one DC-to-AC converter at the point at which the electricity needs to be converted to AC much nearer London—at Tilbury or even the Isle of Grain.

It is clear that HVDC is right for many parts of the United Kingdom, not just East Anglia. Wind power stations are increasingly located along the coast or just off our coastline, and a DC transmission network would reflect that. Converting power to AC at landfall is inefficient and duplicative. A properly designed onshore and offshore HVDC network would reduce the infrastructure needed, cut down on converter stations and enable us to focus on building for real demand, rather than just peak production.

Globally, HVDC is becoming the standard for modern energy networks. By investing in HVDC now, the UK can maintain its leadership in renewable energy, create jobs and develop skills that will keep us competitive. The alternative is clinging to outdated, mid-20th century technology that will leave us falling behind other countries. Germany will not give up HVDC undergrounding altogether, but that is the presumption in our planning system, which I suggest the Government need to revise.

The Government must show decisive leadership and embrace an HVDC future. This is about more than just reducing costs and avoiding delays; it is about ensuring we meet our renewable energy goals in a way that works for communities, the environment, the economy and the planet.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. This debate is an opportunity to discuss how to upgrade the grid in the best way possible, because currently, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the rules do not work. Despite the fact that we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and the most depleted in the G7, our planning system does not take nature into account.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgment that the previous Government did not adequately reform the energy system. I am also struck by the fact that he mentioned the 1989 Act. He has been in the House since 1992, when all the Government Members in the Chamber, with the exception of myself, were in school. I have been an ardent monitor of this House and energy policy more widely, and I have not seen him quite so enthusiastic about energy market reform until now, so I am somewhat sceptical about his conversion to the idea that we need to change our planning system. I am here to change the rules, and I am glad that he is, but we need to agree on exactly how to do that. We need to preserve our nature, while increasing our efforts to restore it.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge it was the previous Government who commissioned the Banner report on streamlining the system? Let us approach this on a bipartisan basis—we are all on the same side, trying to achieve the great upgrade of our electricity grid—and stop scoring party political points, shall we?

[Ms Billington]

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge when the Opposition are right and I am afraid to say that on this one they are not. We need to preserve the nature we have, while increasing efforts to restore nature. To restore nature by 2030 by 30% is one of our manifesto commitments, and that has to be taken into account with planning and national infrastructure projects. We will not reach our ambitious climate targets without it. I am disappointed there was no reference to the impact of this kind of infrastructure on nature by the hon. Gentleman. Reaching our targets will require a strong land use framework that intersects with an energy special plan, to which we have committed, and an updated national planning policy framework. I am delighted that the Government are currently working on all three of these documents and I look forward to seeing more detail on them.

It was interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the importance of public consent and support. For anyone who is aware of my work before I came to Parliament, public consent and support are absolutely vital for us to be able to undertake the transformation that we are discussing. That also involves benefit for communities, and ownership and accountability for those communities, in the form of local energy projects to help us build a more resilient grid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a good point, and it is why Lincolnshire county council’s submission to National Grid specifically takes into account the trenching problem that the hon. Lady raised. It suggests an offshore grid, but obviously one that avoids the damage she mentioned. I recommend that she studies that submission—it is in the public domain—to see how we can offshore that grid without damaging the salt marshes in the way she suggests.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made the relevant point that there are balancing factors. First, once cables are undergrounded, they are maintenance free, but pylons require constant maintenance, which therefore adds to their carbon footprint. Everybody has seen that. Secondly, salt marshes are very often Ramsar sites and migration bird sites, and we do not want overhead power lines interfering with the migration of birds. We often see that scores of swans have been killed on power lines because they are not very good at navigating around these things.

[Sir John Hayes]

With the insight for which he is known, my hon. Friend has anticipated two of the points that I was going to make. The problem with pylons being so close to SSSIs is that the birds do not know boundaries. Of course, the salt marsh in Lincolnshire matters because, exactly as my hon. Friend said, it is important as a site for geese and duck in particular. To run the pylons so close to that is at best highly contentious and at worse wholly destructive. The offshore grid that my hon. Friend describes can be run further out to sea, which is what we do with cables routinely. If we were able to see the ocean bed around our islands, we would see any number of trunked cables that run through them, which provide vital power and communications infrastructure.

[Sir John Hayes]

There is a big argument to be had about costs because we are planning a project that will last decades—perhaps even longer. When I was the Energy Minister, I was very conscious of the fact that we might be making 100-year decisions. It is very hard to gauge costs over time because of two things. First, there are the ongoing maintenance costs associated with any line that runs above ground, and given the changing climate, it is likely that extreme weather events will become more frequent, and extreme weather events will have an effect on anything above ground. Secondly, the relative costs of underground and overhead cables vary according to the kind of cable laid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said; and indeed some of the evidence from other places in Europe and elsewhere suggests that the cost of trunking cables underground is falling, whereas there is no similar reduction in the cost of overhead cables, which, on pylons, have been at the same cost for a very long time indeed.

The final point is about consent. The longer these things take, the more they cost. Certainly in Lincolnshire—and I imagine this is true in Essex, Suffolk and other places—there will be protracted legal challenges to the pylons, whereas, with local support and the support of local authorities like Lincolnshire county council, undergrounding would be a much more straightforward affair. Factoring in those costs is complex, but it needs to happen.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Very briefly, the ESO review of the east of England network demonstrated that there is a higher up-front cost for undergrounding of an extra £1 billion from Norwich to Tilbury, but in the longer term it saves money. It is just not correct to say that undergrounding is automatically much more expensive. That is a departmental mantra that is now discredited—just read the ESO and NESO documents.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds to that intervention—he is being very generous in giving way—can I just say that we have to move on to the Front-Bench speakers at 10.30 am and there are many people who wish to participate? I have not imposed time limits; all I am saying is that there are 13 minutes left and probably seven people who want to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak briefly because I know that many of my colleagues also wish to speak.

I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). This does not have to be a partisan issue, but equally we have to acknowledge the situation as we find it, not the fantasy that we wish it to be. The reality is that we have had 14 years in which decisions could have been made.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Here we go.

[Jack Abbott]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Here we go”, but it is absolutely relevant to this debate. Yes, the Conservative Government passed the Banner report—well done. That is the big achievement of the last 14 years. There was a fundamental opportunity over the last decade to recognise where we were going as a country, and what we needed to do. Those decisions were consistently kicked down the line, and now we are here.

The window in which we have to operate is incredibly narrow. We essentially have five years to meet the transition, which we have to do. Yes, underground cabling will cost more, but also there is a significant time delay, too. It is not a 2030 timeframe; it is a 2034 one. Let us get over the fantasy of a magical offshore grid connection that will solve everything way more cheaply and quickly. It just does not exist. We have to be honest with people.

There will always be opposition to any development. I grew up in Suffolk; I know that there will be opposition to the grid upgrades. There is also opposition to solar farms in the west of the county. Obviously, there is opposition to Sizewell C and things like it, but that cannot get in the way of progress. There is also the Green party bingo card—opposing all the projects; well, we definitely cannot go down that route either.

This is about opportunity. There is an opportunity to say that we will be transitioning to renewable energy to fulfil our mission and the guarantee that we made to working people at the election. It is our chance to seize the opportunity for greater energy independence, and for us—including my home county of Suffolk—to seize the opportunity to be world leaders in the energy transition. We cannot keep going around the houses, dithering, delaying and pretending that this stuff will not happen. It might sound good to constituents back home, but I grew up in that area—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I thank the Minister for his engagement and for the meeting he had with MPs. It would be very kind if he could write to me with the further detail that he has not been able to put on the record today. I would also point out that the only orange flag against ultrahigh voltage direct current undergrounding in the ESO review in the spring was about cable availability. It was not a red flag but an orange flag. With streamlining of the planning process, this could be sped up. It is a possibility, and I hope the Minister will continue dialogue on this issue, because I think he will need this as a solution to the problems he will run into.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order. No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I would encourage the right hon. Gentleman to read the NESO report, because it sets out in great detail not only that clean power is achievable by 2030, but that it will lead to lower bills. What he says about investment misses the point: in the last few weeks, we have announced billions of pounds of private sector investment in these projects; indeed, Scottish Power has announced today that it will provide £1 billion. Companies are choosing to invest in this country, whereas they did not under the Conservative party. The reality is that once upon a time, the Conservatives recognised that the drive to net zero was important. They have abandoned that commitment now.

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

I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet the OffSET—offshore electricity grid taskforce—group of MPs later today; we are very much looking forward to the meeting. Does he recognise that achieving the 2030 deadline set out in the NESO report requires an acceleration of the process, which, in turn, is dependent on much higher levels of public consent?

[Michael Shanks]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am looking forward to meeting him and his colleagues this afternoon to discuss the particular issues in his area. We need to build more network infrastructure across the UK to make this endeavour a reality, but he is right: we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is why we have said that we are looking again at what community benefits will look like, building on some of the work that the previous Government did in consulting on this issue. Crucially, however, if want to bring down bills and deliver energy security, we will have to build the infrastructure, and that is what this Government are committed to doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important question. Community energy has so many benefits in our energy mix, including giving communities a stake in our energy future. We also know that there are many social and economic benefits that come from that. We are committed to our local power plan, which will deliver investment in community-owned projects. Great British Energy will have a key role to play in supporting communities, capacity building and in that initial funding to help them deliver these projects.

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

Could I invite the Minister to meet a cross-party group of MPs from the east of England to discuss how the review conducted by the electricity system operator can contribute to energy security and in particular to look at how undergrounding high voltage direct current cables could be cheaper in the long term than pylons and more efficient for achieving net zero? Will he agree at least to have a meeting with us on that basis?

[Michael Shanks]

I am always happy to have meetings with any right hon. and hon. Members across the House on a range of issues, so I will take that away. The evidence suggests that undergrounding is five to 10 times more expensive and that actually it can have more of a damaging impact on nature and natural habitats than pylons. The important thing with all of this is that this is nationally important structure, which is necessary for us to get to the targets that we want to get to. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that seriously, and I will meet him and others, but we have been clear as a Government that we will build this infrastructure if it is necessary.

Great British Energy Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

Thirdly, Great British Energy will work with industry to develop supply chains across the UK to boost energy independence and create good jobs. The reality is that the last Government spectacularly underdelivered on the promise of creating jobs in clean energy. It is true that British waters are home to one of the largest floating offshore wind farms in the world: Kincardine, just 15 km off the coast of Aberdeen—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) nods, but where was it made? Its foundations were made in Spain and its turbines were installed in the Netherlands, and it was then simply towed into British waters. How can that be right?

This Government are not neutral about where things are made. We want the future made in Britain. Clean energy is the economic and industrial opportunity of the 21st century, and the truth is that other countries are seizing this opportunity. Britain is being left behind. The facts are extraordinary: Germany has almost twice as many renewable jobs per capita as Britain; Sweden almost three times as many; and Denmark almost four times as many. That is the previous Government’s legacy.

What our friends and neighbours have realised is that a domestic national champion is a crucial tool to help deliver economic success. The success of the Danes, for example, cannot be divorced from the role of Ørsted in helping to make it happen. That is why Great British Energy will work alongside our national wealth fund and the British jobs bonus, partnering with industry, to build supply chains in every corner of the UK, delivering the next generation of good jobs, with strong trade unions, and reindustrialising Britain.

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

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. May I draw attention to the letter he wrote to Fintan Slye, the chair of National Grid ESO, in August, and the response he has given in his open letter to the industry, alongside a question about the cancellation of the offshore co-ordination support scheme, which was coming up with viable alternatives for better delivery of the Norwich to Tilbury project? Mr Slye says that the plan the ESO will develop will be

“a whole systems spatial view of what is required to deliver a clean, secure, operable electricity system by 2030.”

Does that include all the work that ESO has already done in its review of the Norwich to Tilbury project, which includes many viable options that could speed up the process and make it more viable for the long term?

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is always a pleasure to see him in the Chamber making excellent points.

The question that I have is this: why has the Secretary of State set up a duplicate programme with no instructions for governance, independent review, investment plans or consumer savings that he can be judged by? Why should taxpayers’ money fund a similar entity when the only difference that I can discern is that it gives the Secretary of State unchecked power? What is it about the £8 billion of taxpayer money that he can direct without checks or balances that first attracted him to the idea of GB Energy? These are fair and reasonable questions for us as the Opposition to ask, and he must look to improve the governance in this Bill.

Let me turn to the promises that he made. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and at least 50 Labour MPs promised their constituents in the July election that GB Energy would save them £300 a year on their energy bills. They said it on their election literature, on social media and in hustings. They said it because they were told to do so by the Secretary of State, but I listened very closely to his speech today and I did not hear him make a promise that GB Energy will save them £300 on their energy bills.

In a debate just before the summer recess, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), would not repeat the promise either. That is because they all know that it is not true. In fact, one of Labour’s first acts in government has been to take away up to £300 from 10 million pensioners this winter, including two thirds of pensioners in poverty. It takes some nerve for the Labour party to say that it never wanted to do this, because the winter fuel payment was in the manifesto of the Secretary of State’s party when he wrote it in 2010. It was in there when he was leader in 2015, it was in there in 2017 and in 2019, but in 2024 it was omitted. There was no mention at all for the first time in 14 years.

I will give credit to the right hon. Gentleman—something that I do not always do. When he was leader in 2015, he put it in his manifesto that he would take the payment away from the top 5% of pensioners. He will remember that. He had the courtesy of telling the public his plans, but, professional politician that he is, I suggest that he would have clocked that it was not included this time round. He has been in politics for 30 years and would have known what that meant, so I hope that he can confirm today whether he had any conversations with the Prime Minister, the Chancellor or Morgan McSweeney before the manifesto came out. If so, he sent out those Labour candidates—all the people on the Benches behind him—with this false promise of the £300 energy savings when someone clearly knew that they were going to take that amount away from millions of pensioners this winter.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend referred to the letter that was sent by the Secretary of State to Fintan Slye, the head of National Grid ESO and, curiously, there is nothing in the Secretary of State’s letter that refers to the need to lower electricity prices. The term “electricity prices” does not appear in the letter and neither does the term “security of supply”. Does she agree that those are the two great concerns about rushing the 2030 decarbonisation target?

[Claire Coutinho]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that point.

There will be a vote next week on the winter fuel payment—I think the Government have confirmed that. Everybody heard the Secretary of State speak today, so I say to those on the Opposition Benches that, if they want to break the Whip, if they want to stand out from the crowd, I am sure that they will have his encouragement.

Let us come back to those savings. The Secretary of State has promised bill savings by 2030 through GB Energy —I believe that is correct. The question is how. Does he have any serious energy expert who thinks that that is possible with an investment of £8 billion over five years? That is a drop in the ocean when it comes to energy investment. It is a fraction of the amount of investment that he is deterring from the private sector into clean energy with his plans to shut down the North sea. He talked about offshore wind, nuclear and hydrogen in his founding statement, but none of those things get built in five years. Let us be honest, the likelihood of his plans bringing any power online by 2030 is tiny. The idea that it will be enough to lower bills across households is, frankly, for the birds. When we asked his Department how much energy he wanted to enable through the Bill, his Department said that it would be looked at in due course. That is just not good enough.

The second promise is clean power by 2030. GB Energy was supposed to be the silver bullet to reach the Secretary of State’s target of a decarbonised grid by 2030. We will come on to whether that is a good idea a bit later. To do that, he said that he needed £28 billion a year. His Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about hundreds of billions of pounds, and he has in fact secured from his Chancellor £1.6 billion a year. He talked about national ownership. This is not enough money to do that, and he knows it. He himself thought that his plans would cost vastly more, yet he is promising to do it all now with 6% of the funds. That is just not credible.

Then we come to promise No. 3. The Government say that

“in every single project”

that GB Energy invests in

“there will be a return for the British taxpayer”.—[Official Report, 26 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 937.]

That is what the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen said on 26 July—it is in Hansard if Members want to check. It says “in every single project”.

What Labour is telling industry is very different. It says that it will use that money—£8 billion of taxpayers’ money—to de-risk its projects. I believe that the Secretary of State said that in his speech today. What does that mean? That means that it will be investing in the parts of those projects that the energy companies do not expect to be profitable. May I ask this: what is it about the Secretary of State’s vast private sector experience, which he gained as a researcher at Channel 4, that makes him think he can turn a profit, when experienced, multimillion-pound energy companies cannot? He has not set out an expected financial rate of return, any risk profile or a timeframe for these returns. Those are the minimum things that anyone seeking investment should set out, and I say that as someone who is financially trained. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is not, but this is basic stuff.

Here is the problem. If the Secretary of State’s goal is to give taxpayers a good deal, he should be investing on commercial rates, which would just displace private sector capital and would not speed up his decarbonisation targets, produce more energy or lower bills. But if his goal is to de-risk more speculative projects—that is the line that he is giving industry and the thing that he said today—then by definition he will be throwing taxpayers’ money into the least attractive parts of investments, by which I mean the parts that multimillion-pound companies do not want. The risk is that GB Energy, far from generating any profit for taxpayers, will become a skip for all and everyone to put their problems and their failures inside. This is crucial, because we cannot let the Government repeat at a national scale what Labour councils have done at a local level. [Interruption.] Labour Members groan, but they should think about what local taxpayers have had to face.

Robin Hood Energy in Nottingham, which collapsed, left residents with debts of £38 million. Bristol Energy, which failed, cost residents £43 million. Warrington’s stake in Together Energy left residents with a potential liability of £37 million. These were small-time projects with budgets in the tens of millions.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear what the shadow Secretary of State is saying because there is so much noise coming from those on the Government Front Bench. They do not want to hear what she is saying, because it might be true.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Let me be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) on his maiden speech. He has demonstrated in two ways that he is quite a rare beast. Being an engineer is not a widely held profession in this House, and he will no doubt bring great value with that expertise and experience, but his business experience is also extremely valuable. I am afraid that if he looks around him on the Labour Benches, he will see precious few people with any business experience—as the Secretary of State has shown with his Bill.

The Bill is about setting up a shell company. That is it. The idea that that constitutes an energy policy is a complete myth. In fact, the Government have not even produced an energy policy. There has not been a White Paper on UK energy policy under this Government. There are no pages full of data and numbers to give us any confidence that the Government know what they are trying to achieve, how they will achieve it, or what the risks are.

In fact, that was given away in an astonishing letter that the Secretary of State wrote to the director of the electricity system operator, asking for all the information that one would expect the Government to have given that this was a major platform in their manifesto. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), shakes his head—I will give way to him if he wants to intervene—but where are the numbers? Where is the data backing up this wild assertion that just going all out for renewables will provide security of supply and lower energy costs? It is a mantra that Labour Members keep repeating to themselves with increasing enthusiasm and vehemence to make up for the fact that they have no numbers to back up their assertions.

Let me be clear about one thing: I am an advocate of achieving net zero. I believe in the target of net zero by 2050—indeed, I am a member of the net zero all-party parliamentary group. When Members hear me speak, they are not listening to some luddite or climate change denier. I want this policy to work, but there are very considerable risks, which are evidenced by reading between the lines for what is not in the Secretary of State’s letter and what is clearly flagged in Fintan Slye’s response to it.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Member not recognise that under the previous Government, the UK was falling badly behind on investment, when other countries— particularly the US—had transformed the investment that they were drawing in by making very big Government commitments to some projects, particularly nascent ones? Does he not recognise that that sort of Government support makes a big difference to business confidence?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I do not agree with that, simply because we have seen massive investment in renewables over the past 14 years, as the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), set out. We have been making fantastic progress with bringing renewables on stream, but there are considerable questions to ask. I wish it were as simple as setting up a shell company and saying, “We are going to get the state to do everything”, but I am afraid it is not. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, Ørsted and EDF make massive losses, and either the taxpayer has to pay for those losses or those costs go on to electricity bills.

The Secretary of State announced on Tuesday that we have got all this renewable capacity coming on stream—enough to power 11 million homes. That is if we match the maximum capacity of the renewables with the average annual demand of those homes, but of course renewables are intermittent. It seems such an obvious thing to say, but we have to say it: sometimes the sun is shining, sometimes the wind is blowing, and sometimes we have enough water for hydroelectric power, but sometimes not. In the winter months, solar makes very little contribution—it makes no contribution in the dark, at night. [Interruption.] It may seem obvious, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) may laugh, but we need to point these things out, because when the Secretary of State says that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, he is comparing the strike price with the cost of buying marginal supply capacity when we need that extra marginal supply.

The strike price will not be reflected in our electricity bills, because we have to add in other things, such as system balancing costs. We have to add in grid infrastructure costs, because renewables require massive investment in grid infrastructure. We have to add in the costs of importing through interconnectors when we do not have enough domestic supply. We have not begun to factor in storage costs—the storage capacity of our electricity system is still miniscule. Members should read the Royal Society paper on creating electricity storage in this country: it is going to be astronomically expensive, and will probably still not be enough. Then there are constraint payments—oh, yes, the constraint payments. This year, we are paying £500 million to renewable producers under the contracts for difference scheme not to produce electricity when they can produce it, because that is how the system works. That is how we have attracted so much investment, but those payments are going to be about £1.5 billion next year.

I would like the Government to produce some forecasts. How much will the balancing costs be in each year over the next 10 or 15 years? How much grid infrastructure investment will need to be funded? That appears on our electricity bills—it is the standing charge, and boy, that charge is going to go up with all the infrastructure investment that we will require. How much will we have to spend on importing electricity? The two interconnectors coming into East Anglia as part of the Norwich to Tilbury programme will be importing electricity. They are not for exporting, because the only security of supply we will have if we have shut down all our combined cycle gas power stations by 2030 is from other places.

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

indicated dissent.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The Minister shakes his head, but if we have shut down all that capacity—if we cannot generate the electricity ourselves—we will have to get it from other places. There are phenomena called wind droughts, which can go on for very long periods. What are we going to do when the wind turbines are not turning and the sun is not shining during a very cold spell in the middle of winter? We had one or two close scares this winter. The generating margin that we used to enjoy has gone. The great risk of accelerating the decarbonisation of the electricity system is that there will be more appeals for voluntary or compulsory restraint from industry, because industry is the hidden customer that is shut off when we are short of electricity, or we risk more brownouts or even blackouts. That not impossible, so where is the data that the Minister is placing so much confidence in that shows these forecasts to be wrong? I am not making them off my own bat—there are plenty of people out there making them.

That brings me to the final brief point I want to make. I understand the logic that the Minister explained in his letter to me.

[Mr Amos]

I am sure that a Member with the experience of the hon. Gentleman will know that Britain returned to being a net exporter of electricity last year, so assuming that there will be additional costs from importing electricity due to the transition to renewables simply does not stack up. Does he also recognise that when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, the tide still rises and falls twice a day, 365 days a year? A future resting on renewable energy is possible, and we need to have that ambition for the United Kingdom.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I absolutely share that ambition, but the question is how quickly we can get there. At the moment, tidal power produces almost nothing as a proportion of our electricity requirement. It is also intermittent, by the way: four times a day, there is a period during which it does not generate anything and we need to replace that supply with other things. The real challenge is how we get to the objective that the hon. Gentleman and I share in a rational way that carries the British public with us. It is noticeable that what people are complaining about most is the price on their electricity bills. Today, the constraint costs, balancing costs, infrastructure costs and import costs that I mentioned make up perhaps 50% of domestic electricity bills. If that figure is wrong, let the Minister produce some figures of his own that explain what proportion of consumers’ bills arises from all those factors, because it is not explained. There is no transparency on our electricity bills.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the objective of decarbonisation, we are not going to get there at all if we lose the public—if the lights start browning out or going out, and we find that we cannot meet demand. To some extent, we are piling up that demand by decarbonising transport and other parts of the system, including decarbonising building heating through heat pumps. The demand for electricity will rise, but our capacity to produce it reliably at all hours and in all conditions is being reduced.

On the question of imports and exports, we might become a net exporter of electricity, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain how the price at which we are exporting compares with the price at which we are importing. The difficulty is that we will be importing when the wind is not blowing or the sun is not shining, and it is likely that the wind will not be blowing across the entirety of the North sea, so we will be importing fossil fuel-generated power at a very high cost to compensate for the fact that we have got rid of our own gas production and gas-fired power stations. I am not sure that situation will be very good.

If the hon. Gentleman would look at the Arup report on the Tarchon interconnector, which will come into my constituency under the present plans, he will see that that interconnector will not actually contribute very much to security of supply, but will be used almost entirely to export when there is too much wind. It will export at below the strike price because there is too much wind and it will export at a loss, and the cost will finish up on the bills of the British consumer. So the British consumer is paying for all the investment, paying for the strike prices, paying for the infrastructure and then paying to subsidise the exports to the Germans, who will be the beneficiaries of all this investment.

I appeal to the Minister to just read the Arup report and look at this. That is why I asked about the offshore co-ordination support scheme work that has been done. I am not going to ask for the impossible and ask him to revive the OCSS, but I would like from him an assurance that the work ESO has done will not simply be thrown away and wasted. Please can he assure the House that that work will be incorporated into the spatial plan that ESO says it wants to produce? Some very interesting innovations came out of that work, but there was also a lot of work discrediting the long-term viability of Norwich to Tilbury and, looking on a different timeframe—in the longer term—that could produce a much more viable alternative than is currently on the table. There is still work to be done on that, but I have no doubt that Fintan Slye will want to do that work as part of his project for the Government.

I would like to know that the Minister is going to support the holistic approach to which the Secretary of State referred, because Norwich to Tilbury is certainly not the product of a strategic approach to electricity grid upgrading. We need a much more strategic approach, and I am looking for that from this Government, but it certainly will not come from this Bill.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

National Grid Proposals: North East Lincolnshire

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Martin Vickers]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the intervention and she is absolutely right: a moratorium is the way forward.

I have attended one National Grid consultation meeting and met representatives privately. It is not ideal that its plans remain vague as to the exact route; more concrete proposals would be beneficial to all involved. The National Grid has also given the impression to some local residents that this is a fait accompli, and I am sure the Minister will reassure them that is not the case. I also want to reassure them that is not the case. The consultations that National Grid is holding in the constituency and up and down the country must be meaningful, and they must be certain that Members from across the House will ensure they are meaningful.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate because what he describes affects Norfolk, Suffolk, and Harwich and North Essex in particular, and other Essex constituencies where the Government are not considering new technology at the moment. Instead of pylons, we could have high-voltage, direct-current underground systems of the kind that are now the default option in Germany, for example. Getting that on to the agenda would speed up that infrastructure, because it would not be nearly so controversial and mired in judicial review and courts processes.

[Martin Vickers]

Like other colleagues who have intervened, my hon. Friend highlights the point that new technologies are available which must be considered before a final decision is taken.

Infrastructure that transmits electricity across the country is nationally significant, and we accept that upgrades in one form or another are needed. Expanding the network will indeed lower consumer bills. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) noted in the debate on 2 May, transmission and distribution costs are now roughly 15% of every electricity bill. It will also secure our energy supplies as we decarbonise our energy production in pursuit of net zero.

Of course the most ideal routes from a resident perspective are also, according to National Grid, the most expensive. Building pylons is cheaper than burying cables or taking them offshore. Once we consider that this infrastructure is needed up and down the country, we realise that the cost becomes staggering. The Government argue that power lines buried underground are up to 10 times more expensive, although that is disputed and the cost often falls on to the bill payer. However, cost should not always be the primary factor in decision making: Governments and their agencies have wider considerations such as ensuring that the quality of life for their citizens is as pleasant as possible. They need to carry people with them by seriously considering every alternative and sharing their deliberations with the communities involved.

Similarly, there are indirect costs of building pylons that have nothing to do with their construction, but have been imposed as a tool to buy local support. An example of that is the announcement of community benefits schemes to be provided for the areas. That will be funding—although compensation might be a better phrase—for every overhead line and underground cable in an area, and the cost of that must be taken into account overall, as must the discounts of up to £1,000 for households closest to the new infrastructure. I am never opposed to local communities being given much-needed funding to improve the areas for the benefit of local residents—of course, it is only right that communities are compensated for inconvenience, particularly when it relates to such nationally significant work—but those costs will soon add up, and they must be included in calculations.

Unfortunately, constraints imposed by Government seem to have placed an emphasis in favour of pylons, as opposed to alternatives such as underground and offshore. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), standing in for the Minister in the debate on 2 May, said,

“overhead lines should be the strong starting presumption”.—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

The phrase “strong presumption” is a loaded statement and does not indicate that full consideration will be given to alternatives. Though he did clarify that flexibility is possible

“where there is a high potential for widespread adverse landscapes and/or visual impacts.”—[Official Report, 2 May 2024; Vol. 749, c. 200WH.]

Some clarity on what “high potential” and “widespread” means here would be welcome, given that many communities will have a valid case to say that both terms apply to developments in their area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

My right hon. Friend was a wonderful boss when I had the pleasure of serving under her stewardship in the Department for Work and Pensions. She has made her plea crystal clear, and I hope that common sense will be applied. In effect, things are paused during a general election period, and whatever the format and whoever is the decision maker, that person should always be mindful of community engagement.

That brings me back to the core point: the review gives us an opportunity to obtain up-to-date facts, recognising modern technology and the lessons that can be learned from Germany, and recognising the lifetime costs so that we can be confident that we are doing our best to deliver lower consumer bills, which are crucial not just to helping with the cost of living but to ensuring that we carry the public with us in respect of net zero.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement of OffSET. It is encouraging to find that we have had a bit of influence. Will he clarify, however, whether this background work will be continued during the general election period so that it is ready for an incoming Minister, whether it is him returning to office or another Minister?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Tempting as it is to bind a future Government, I cannot do so, although I know that my policy teams felt it was important to look at those principles. What I can and will do, however, is ensure that I am part of the process after the general election.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

My hon. Friend—she is a friend—is rightly proud of the contribution that Cumbria has made to our nuclear journey over the last century. The journey began at Calder Hall and has continued. She is right, and at the forefront of our decision making will be the experience, expertise and learning that has developed in and around her constituency, which will of course be at the forefront of our nuclear renaissance.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement, which is probably the most significant statement on energy policy for at least a decade. I welcome in particular the intention to streamline planning processes and regulation to reduce unnecessary costs and delays. May I ask for an assurance that if there is to be new nuclear development at Bradwell in Essex, it will be of a type that does not affect the marine protected area of the Blackwater estuary, a historic oyster fishery on which many of my constituents depend?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support at this exciting moment. Of course, many sites will be looked at for future nuclear development, and in every case they will have to adhere to the stringent, strong and gold-plated environmental standards that we expect of nuclear licensed sites across the United Kingdom.