Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

Last week, the National Energy System Operator published a full systems cost analysis of the Secretary of State’s flagship project to carbonise the grid by 2030. This morning, the Secretary of State said on several media outlets that the report shows that his plans will lower bills. I remind the House that the report assumes that gas prices are 40% higher than the Department’s own estimates, that the price of carbon price is at least double what it is now, that the Government can commission more offshore wind in the next two years than in the last six combined without moving prices, and that they can build the grid at a pace we have never seen before in this country, without any delays. Even if all that is achieved, page 78 of the report shows that the cost of the system will be higher. For clarity, would the Minister like to repeat at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State’s claim that the NESO report shows that Labour’s system will lead to a lower cost of electricity?

[Michael Shanks]

What the shadow Secretary of State has just outlined quite coherently is that the Conservatives have no ambition in this space whatsoever, but we do. I am very happy for the right hon. Lady to outline where our ambition is. We will build faster than the previous Government, although I have to say that that would not be difficult. The shadow Minister sitting next to her, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said quite clearly at their conference that the previous Government had built infrastructure far too slowly, and their former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that their onshore wind ban was “always mad”. We are quite happy to pick up where they left off and deliver the clean power that this country needs.

[Claire Coutinho]

This is the ministerial team who told the electorate they were going to cut their bills by £300, without doing any homework to find out how those plans would work. They voted against our amendment to hold them to account on their own pledge just two weeks ago, and now they are trying to claim that the NESO report shows that their approach will lower bills when in fact it shows in black and white that the system will be much more expensive. Does the Minister not see that if they follow this plan, we will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world and that the British people will be colder and poorer as a result?

[Michael Shanks]

Time and again, the Conservatives run away from their record on this in office. The reason why people right across this country are paying more on their energy bills is that the Conservatives did not get us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, but we are now moving at pace. The right hon. Lady may want to keep us in the vulnerable state where we are reliant on international gas markets, but we are determined that we will not do that. We will bring down bills and deliver energy security. I am not ashamed to say that we will move with great ambition to deliver what this country needs and to deliver the good jobs that go with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

The Prime Minister is set to announce at the conference of the parties that he is making the UK’s already stringent carbon emission targets even higher. That is despite the fact that we contribute only 1% of global emissions, while the leaders of the world’s highest-emitting countries—making up over 60% of emissions—are not attending. The Climate Change Committee has said that this target will require, for example, an accelerated shift away from meat and dairy, less travel and a gas boiler ban for the British people, yet the Government’s approach would see our reliance on imports from China—which is 60% powered by coal—go through the roof. Does the Minister agree that an approach that is asking for more sacrifice and hardship from the British people, in return for more goods from one of the world’s largest carbon emitters, would mean fewer jobs in Britain and more carbon in the atmosphere?

[Mr Speaker]

Too long.

Great British Energy Bill

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Nature Recovery Duty—

“(1) In exercising its functions, Great British Energy must take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of targets set under sections 1–3 of the Environment Act 2021.

(2) Under the duty set under subsection (1), Great British Energy must consider opportunities to incorporate nature-based solutions in—

(a) the design and maintenance of any assets in its ownership, and

(b) its investment decisions.”

This new clause would give Great British Energy a new duty, requiring it to contribute to the achievement of Environment Act targets. The duty specifies the incorporation of nature-based solutions (including nature friendly design and building measures) in all assets owned by and invested in by Great British Energy.

New clause 3—Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions—

“(1) Prior to making any investment, Great British Energy must publish an assessment of the impact of the investment decision on—

(a) greenhouse gas emissions and

(b) the production or combustion of fossil fuels.

(2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”

This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and

(f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”

This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to reduce household energy bills by at least £300 in real terms.”

Amendment 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to advance the production of clean energy from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.”

This new section would require the statement of strategic priorities to make specific regard to facilitate community-based clean energy schemes.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.”

Amendment 8, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030 resulting directly or indirectly from Great British Energy’s pursuit of its objectives under section 3.”

Amendment 11, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to allocate 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to marine energy projects.”

This amendment would require 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to be allocated for marine energy projects.

Amendment 12, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to work with Great British Nuclear on the development of nuclear energy projects.”

This amendment would require Great British Energy to work with Great British Nuclear on developing nuclear energy projects.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.

Amendment 15, page 3 line 16, leave out “consult” and insert “receive the consent of”.

This amendment would require that the Secretary of State receives consent from Welsh ministers before including in the strategic priorities and plans any matter concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd.

Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of reducing household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must include a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years.

(1C) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1D) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 9, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 10, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) Great British Energy’s in-year return on investment, and

(b) A forecast of the following year’s expected return on investment.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 14, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in particular, direct Great British Energy that any revenues generated from activities of Great British Energy in relation to resources located in Wales must be invested back into projects located in Wales.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that all revenue generated by Great British Energy from resources in Wales are invested back into energy projects in Wales.

[Claire Coutinho]

It is nice to be back discussing Great British Energy, and on the day before the Budget, too. I am sure that Labour Members are worrying about what kind of horrors they will be forced to defend next. They will have had a miserable summer trying to explain to their constituents why they are scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners in poverty, just weeks after a general election in which no mention was made of that. They will have spent the last few weeks explaining that the term “working people”—the people they promised to protect in their manifesto—does not include small business owners, or employees with savings, and that their use of the term “national insurance” does not prevent a national insurance rise for employers. They will be getting a bashing from companies, who were told that Labour would be pro-business, yet have been clobbered by post-election announcements of tax rises and trade union charters, and who have a Prime Minister with an optimism about Britain that puts him on the charts somewhere between Eeyore and Victor Meldrew. And tomorrow Labour Members will have to explain why the Chancellor who said before the election that any change to the fiscal rules would amount to fiddling the figures is now changing them to open the door to billions of pounds of borrowing.

This is a timely return to the Great British Energy Bill. Our amendments today will give Labour Members an opportunity, which I am sure they will welcome, to hold their leadership to account for at least some of the promises that they were told to go out and sell. Let us take a look at a few of the promises that Labour Members made during the election. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) wrote on her website:

“We will set up Great British Energy…cutting energy bills by an average of £300 a year.”

The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) posted on Facebook:

“Why am I backing Labour’s plan to set up Great British Energy? It will save £300 off average household energy bills in the South East by 2030.”

The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said on Facebook:

“everyone in the east of England will get £300 off their energy bills…no ifs, no buts, no maybes, these will be measurable and you will be able to check our progress at the end of the next Parliament.”

At least 50 MPs made similar claims.

Why were Labour candidates up and down the country saying these things? Perhaps they were simply listening to the Cabinet. The Science Secretary said on “Good Morning Britain”:

“I can tell you directly…by the end of this Parliament that…energy bills will fall by up to £300.”

The Work and Pensions Secretary said:

“Great British Energy will get people’s bills £300 a year lower.”

This is my personal favourite: the Chancellor—the woman of the hour—said,

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.”

These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is

“not the scope of Great British Energy.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q5.]

This is not trivial; these are promises that people care about. Every single Labour Member will have had constituents vote for them because they believed that Labour’s promise of £300 off their energy bills would make a meaningful difference to their lives. Amendments 6 and 7 in my name will hold the Government to account on their election promise to cut bills.

Our amendments would give Great British Energy a strategic priority to cut people’s energy bills by £300 by 2030, and would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on progress towards meeting that target. Surely all Labour Members who made these promises and kept them up on their social media accounts will want to track the Government’s progress on this important issue for their constituents. Well, tonight is their chance.

But £300 off bills was not the Secretary of State’s only promise at the election. He also claimed that Great British Energy would create 650,000 new jobs, but he did not mention that figure on Second Reading, and the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), did not mention it in Committee. It does not appear in Great British Energy’s founding statement, nor does it appear in the Government’s explanatory notes on the Bill.

The only detail we have heard about the number of jobs to be created by Great British Energy came from the Secretary of State’s hand-picked chair of that body, who said that “hundreds” of people will be employed at its Aberdeen headquarters. We have since found out that the chair himself will be based in Manchester. It is a funny kind of headquarters if the head will not be based there, but that is the kind of sophistry that the public are starting to expect from this Labour Government.

More importantly, those few hundred people will hardly make up for the 200,000 jobs this Government are putting at risk through their plans to shut down the North sea, or the missed opportunities for jobs thanks to their go-slow on nuclear. On the Secretary of State’s watch, we have already seen thousands of jobs in industry lost.

The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.

As with our amendments on the Government’s £300 pledge, amendments 8 and 9 in my name would give Great British Energy a strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs by 2030, and would require an annual report to Parliament on progress towards this aim. That is important, because even the trade unions that normally support Labour have warned the Secretary of State and his team that his plans will lead to the mass deindustrialisation of Britain. The general secretary of the GMB has said that the Secretary of State’s plans are

“hollowing out working class communities”,

and will amount to “decarbonisation through deindustrialisation.” He said that importing more from China is

“bad for communities, not great for national security and it makes no sense in terms of the environment.”

He also said, and I hope the ministerial team are listening closely to this one:

“Our message to Ed Miliband is very clear: We are worried about a lot of promises that are not being delivered on jobs.”

Those Labour MPs who are members of the GMB, including the Energy Minister, have the opportunity tonight to hold the Government to account by voting for annual reporting on the jobs being created. The question is, will they listen to the general secretary’s concerns?

The next promise was that Great British Energy would turn a profit for the taxpayer. The Secretary of State admittedly got himself into a mess on this one. He has never had to make commercial investment decisions, and neither has any of his ministerial team, which is why they have been caught out promising the British public that they can turn a tidy profit, while at the same time telling multimillion-pound energy companies that they will take the least attractive parts of their investments off their hands. That is important, because the Secretary of State has written this Bill to give himself powers of direction. That was not the case for the UK Infrastructure Bank, and there was a recurring question in Committee about how much independence the supposedly independent Great British Energy will have.

This is my proposal: if the Secretary of State wants the power to meddle, he should be duty-bound to report the results of that meddling—its profits and losses—to this House. Amendment 10 in my name would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on the performance of its investments, including its in-year return on investment and a forecast of the following year’s expected return. That is the bare minimum we can expect, so that British taxpayers can see what he is doing with £8 billion of their money.

I tabled clause 1 because it is crucial that we have proper oversight of the wider activities of Great British Energy. New clause 1 would require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess Great British Energy’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives and strategic priorities. In Committee, the Energy Minister said that the Government want Great British Energy to be

“accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2024; c. 168.]

I agree, and that seems a perfectly good reason to support new clause 1.

As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.

If Labour Members are so intent on handing this Secretary of State billions of pounds to gamble with, I expect they will also want to replicate the independent review enacted by the United Kingdom Infrastructure Bank Act 2023. New clause 1 would provide that scrutiny and, although I intend to withdraw it this evening, if the Minister would like to table a similar amendment in the other place to follow the precedent set by the Act, I assure him of our backing.

The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have made big promises. It is crucial that this House can hold them accountable, as the consequences could not be more important for people’s energy bills, people’s jobs and businesses’ ability to succeed. As the respected energy and climate economist Dieter Helm has said, the risk is that this Government will head towards a 2029 election with industries lost and bills higher—exactly the opposite of what the electorate has been promised.

The Government’s refusal to publish evidence for their claims, to set out the details of their plans or to engage in any meaningful policy discussion outside their normal slogans and mantras means that their policies are more likely to fail. For example, the Secretary of State has said that this Bill and Great British Energy are part of his plan to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed because every wind turbine and every solar panel constructed will lead to cheaper energy and greater security, but that is simply not true. First, it depends on the price we pay for them. Expert analysis by Cornwall Insight found that the contracts for difference round that the Secretary of State bumped up, and that he now boasts about, will actually increase people’s bills by £5. Moreover, he has advertised to the multimillion-pound energy companies that he will buy whatever they sell, no matter the cost, up to 2030. People do not need a business background to work out what that will do to prices.

Secondly, if we are building renewables faster than we can connect them to the grid, the constraint payments needed by 2030 could add hundreds of pounds to people’s bills. Then there are the network costs, the green levies and the cost of dispatchable power. If the Secretary of State wants to replace gas, which is our main form of dispatchable power, he should set out the cost of what will replace it.

The options in this country are coal, which I assume Labour Members do not want, biomass, carbon-capture gas or unproven technologies, none of which will make our system cheaper. All the signs are that, far from making energy cheaper and more secure, this Secretary of State and his ministerial team will send people’s bills through the roof, and more and more people are sounding the alarm about whether he can even keep the lights on. Perhaps that is why he never commissioned an accurate assessment of his plans. Labour Members had 14 years in opposition, 14 years hankering for the jobs and the responsibilities they now have, but when we asked for the full-system cost of the Secretary of State’s approach, he could only say that it will be published “in due course.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I am enjoying the right hon. Member’s lecture on energy security, but where was that argument during the last Government, when they left our country reliant on Putin and volatile fossil fuels, and when we saw energy bills soar? This Government are cleaning up 14 years of mess that the right hon. Member’s Government left behind.

[Claire Coutinho]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman does some homework. We do not get our oil and gas from Putin. Instead, some 50% of our domestic gas supply comes from the North sea, which the party in government is trying to shut down. If he wants to talk about energy markets, he should do some reading about how they work. On that note, I commend our amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Natalie Fleet to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Claire Coutinho]

I also thank the Minister for his work in Committee, but I am afraid we are not reassured. Labour Members have a clear opportunity to prove to their constituents that they will stick to the promises they made just a few months ago. They promised to cut energy bills by £300 and to create 650,000 jobs; if Labour Members do not vote for amendments 6 and 8 this evening, we will know that they never had any intention of delivering on those promises. With the leave of the House, I will seek to withdraw new clause 1, which stands in my name, but we look forward to dividing the House on amendments 6 and 8.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

Objects

Amendment proposed: 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and

(f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”—(Pippa Heylings.)

This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

When we said that we could not support the Bill in its original form, it was because we had no detail to justify giving this Secretary of State a blank cheque for £8 billion of taxpayers’ money. In the intervening two months, I am afraid that we have not learned anything to give us confidence. We have not seen a business plan, a framework agreement or an explanation of how this is different from the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to do exactly the same thing.

We know that there will be a headquarters in Aberdeen, with a head who will be based 360 miles away in Manchester. We know that that same head does not think that the scope of Great British Energy includes reducing bills. I remind the Secretary of State that, in an interview in June, he said not only that he was ready to launch Great British Energy within days—so he should have this information—but that it would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills by 2030. Now he has completed the embarrassment of the bright-eyed MPs behind him by forcing them to vote against their own election promises.

Tonight, Labour Members have voted against holding Great British Energy accountable for cutting people’s energy bills by £300 and for creating 650,000 jobs. The Secretary of State talks about hanging things around people’s necks. Well, he made his colleagues repeat those promises over and over again during the election, and we will see what the electorate remember. These are not trivial matters. This is about people’s energy bills, people’s jobs and businesses’ ability to succeed in this country. The risk is that this Government are heading towards a 2029 election in which industries have been lost and bills have gone up—exactly the opposite of what the electorate have been promised. That is not just my argument; it is the argument of the respected energy and climate economist Dieter Helm.

The Secretary of State, whether he is talking about Great British Energy or his plan for a zero-carbon grid by 2030, likes to talk in slogans and political mantras, but he does not deal in detail or fact. He knows that Great British Energy does not have the power to reduce household bills, which is why he has refused our attempts to hold him accountable for his own promises.

The Secretary of State argues that ramping up renewables at breakneck speed will lead to cheaper energy and greater security—I believe he just said that—but the latest renewable auction, which he bumped up, will increase people’s bills by £5. He has advertised to multimillion-pound energy companies that he will be buying whatever they are selling, no matter the cost, until 2030—he even named a few and said that they welcome his approach. I can understand why! I know that he does not have a business background, but he does not need one to understand what kind of signals he is sending.

The Secretary of State has not modelled the cost of constraint payments, network costs or green levies. He has deprioritised exciting new technologies such as small and advanced modular reactors, which will come online after 2030, and he refuses to address the question of dispatchable power. If not gas, what is he arguing for in its place and how much will it cost? Far from making energy cheaper and more secure, he will send people’s bills through the roof. And more and more people are sounding the alarm about whether he will even be able to keep the lights on, which we were able to do even during the height of an energy crisis.

Tonight, Labour Members have shown their true colours by voting against making their own energy company accountable. If the Secretary of State cannot even back up his own election promises, why should we back him on this Bill?

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

The Secretary of State promised in the general election to cut everyone’s bills by £300 by 2030—a pledge he will not repeat now that he is in office. In fact, one of his first acts has been to snatch the same amount away from millions of pensioners in poverty. The right hon. Gentleman likes to preach, to politicise and, dare I say it, to patronise, but I have one simple question for him. To the millions of pensioners who are worried about their heating bills this Christmas, will he apologise?

[Ed Miliband]

The people who should be apologising are the last Government, who left this country in a total mess—a £22 billion black hole. I have to say to the right hon. Lady that she does have a brass neck. She said of the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), whom she is backing in the leadership contest, that she “tells the truth”, and what did the right hon. Member for North West Essex say? She said:

“I have people in my constituency telling me that they don’t need the winter fuel payments…Why do we not have a…mechanism for means-testing?”

That is her position.

[Claire Coutinho]

There we have it: no apology; no recognition that it is the right hon. Gentleman’s Government’s decisions that are going to leave pensioners in the cold this winter. He has to acknowledge this: from the trade unions to the CBI, from blue Labour to Blairites and from the left to the right of his party, people are sounding the alarm that his ideological approach will see jobs lost and bills go through the roof. Even his old pal Ed Balls does not think that GB Energy is going to deliver the green transition, and I read this morning that the Prime Minister’s brand-new chief of staff is a sceptic of the Secretary of State’s approach. The Secretary of State is increasingly isolated in his party, so when will he do the decent thing and set out the full systems cost of his approach, so that the British public can see what he is going to do to their bills?

[Ed Miliband]

Oh dear, oh dear. The truth is that after three months of this Government, people have breathed a sigh of relief that there is finally a Government with a plan for the country. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Lady should listen to what her own ministerial team has been saying about her. The former networks Minister has said that their infrastructure approach is hopeless. The former Energy Minister says that the onshore wind ban was “always mad”, and Lord Callanan said that the right hon. Lady had kicked the solar consents “into the long grass”. If I were her, I would be hoping for just one thing from the next Tory leader: a shadow Cabinet reshuffle.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. While I welcome the news today, I am saddened, if not surprised, that he has not had the grace to acknowledge the work of the last Government in getting us to this place. I know that his opinion is not that of the many partners who have come together to get this project over the line, and it does a huge disservice to his officials, who have worked so incredibly hard over the last couple of years to get us here. As far as I can see, the only positive investments that the Labour party seems to have made in its first 100 days—the Blackstone artificial intelligence data centre in Northumberland, the sixth assessment report and now this—were negotiated under the Conservatives. This is what the right hon. Gentleman’s party has turned into reality: it has crashed business confidence, and overseen £666 million of assets from UK-focused equity funds fleeing the country. No wonder it has had to have a change of management.

In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of investment and the business models to support the CCUS market. Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East Coast Cluster.

The brilliant Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, has been a leading light in this regard for many years. I noted that the Secretary of State did not mention him, which was pretty graceless, but I am sure that he would like to welcome his work. I must also mention the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who first announced Government support for carbon capture technology amounting to £20 billion last year. That, ultimately, was the breakthrough step that got us here.

The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least £20 billion would be spent following the next spending review. The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician. In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for 20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the losses will be?

We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer; they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State’s statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update the House on those two projects? More widely, while his announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry. In the words of Gary Smith, the leader of the GMB, the Secretary of State’s approach has been to export jobs and import virtue.

Let us look at what has happened on Labour’s watch. At Grangemouth, 400 jobs are at risk, with nearly 3,000 potentially affected. At Port Talbot, 3,500 jobs are under threat, and at Scunthorpe, there is the potential for 2,500 job losses before Christmas. Moreover, Labour are putting 200,000 jobs at risk through their plans to ban new oil and gas licences and to make the UK regime the most punitive fiscal regime for the sector anywhere in the world. When will the Secretary of State publish an assessment of the impact that his plans for the North sea will have on jobs, and on investment in clean energy? After all, this carbon capture investment today would not be possible without Eni, Equinor and BP—companies using the stable finances of their oil and gas businesses to invest in clean energy.

The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still 60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain. Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to be found.

The Secretary of State has still made no comment on, and no apology for, promising the British public at the general election savings of £300 on their energy bills by 2030. Will he finally give an answer to his Back Benchers, the House and all our constituents, and explain what has happened to that pledge?

[Ed Miliband]

I know that the right hon. Lady is in a difficult position, and it rather showed today. Let us be honest: the truth is quite painful for her. She failed, as Energy Secretary, to get carbon capture over the line, year after year—well, to be fair, she was only in the job for 10 months, but certainly month after month. The funding was never secured, because there was not the political will from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. We have seen a long line of 20 Energy Secretaries and 14 years of failure. I must give the right hon. Lady her due: she did try, I am sure; but there was nothing but dither and delay. When we came to office, the funding had not been accounted for as part of a spending review; it simply was not there. There was just a vague promise. Now it is quite difficult for the right hon. Lady, and perhaps we should have a little sympathy for her, because she has had to come to the House and see what a Government actually delivering looks like.

Let me deal with the right hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She had the brass neck to suggest that the problems at Grangemouth and Port Talbot were somehow due to the negligence of this Government. Let me tell the House about Grangemouth. I came to office with the closure of Grangemouth already announced and likely to happen. I have probably had more conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government than Tory Ministers had in 10 years, because they just were not interested. We should be extremely angry about that. So what did we do? We funded the Willow project, which the Tories did not fund. We added to the growth deal, which they did not do. We said that we would have a national wealth fund with the potential to fund Project Willow. We had none of that from the right hon. Lady. She just was not interested. She just did not care; that is the truth of the matter. Of course it is ideological, rather than accidental. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. A bit of honesty from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)! I noted that he was very honest about the right hon. Lady at the party conference. The truth is that the Tories did not have an industrial strategy because they do not believe in an industrial strategy.

Let me deal with the rest of the right hon. Lady’s nonsense. I am very pleased that she is interested in Gary Smith, because he has said:

“This is a serious step in the right direction and a welcome investment in jobs and industries after years of neglect under the previous administration.”

That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.

Great British Energy Bill

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question, and insert:

“this House, while recognising the need to cut household energy bills for families, accelerate private investment in energy infrastructure, and protect and create jobs in the energy industry across the UK, declines to give a Second Reading to the Great British Energy Bill because Great British Energy will not produce any energy, will not reduce household energy bills by £300, does not compensate for the amount of investment in energy projects that will be deterred by the Government’s plans to prematurely shut down the UK’s oil and gas sector, and involves an unjustified use of taxpayers’ money at a time when the Government is withdrawing the Winter Fuel Payment from 10 million pensioners as energy bills rise.”

I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be back. I know the Secretary of State will have had a busy summer settling into Government, having the eagle-eyed civil service now screen all his comments and a hungry press pack on his tail about every promise he has made. He even slotted in a trip to Brazil, a place very dear to my heart, but perhaps he should have spent a bit more time on the Bill. If the Bill does everything he and his team have promised, I will be impressed. Let me remind the House what is on the record. If it saves £300 off bills by 2030, if every project it invests in is guaranteed to turn a profit by 2030, if it can get new innovative energy prototypes off the ground and create 650,000 jobs, even I will be impressed. But here is the rub: the Bill is four pages long—there is barely anything in it.

I do not want to oppose the Bill just for opposition’s sake, but the Secretary of State has provided no detail on how the Bill will deliver any of his promises, let alone all of them. It is a four-page Bill in which he is asking for £8 billion of taxpayers’ money, while setting out no investment plan, no figures for the energy that will be produced, no numbers for energy bill savings or carbon emission reductions, and not even a timeline. I doubt it can deliver any of the things he has promised. He is asking for £8 billion of taxpayers’ money—a completely blank cheque—for an energy company that will not cut bills or turn a profit by 2030. I will come back to those promises.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Claire Coutinho]

I will give way in a second.

The Secretary of State is setting up a new body when our energy sector is not short of state-run bodies. We have Ofgem, the National Energy System Operator, the Climate Change Committee, Great British Nuclear and, of course, the UK Infrastructure Bank, with £22 billion to provide debt, equity and guarantees for infrastructure finance to tackle climate change, set up by the former Prime Minister.

At this point, the taxpayer might well ask why they are coughing up twice for programmes that do the same thing. Here is why. When I read the Bill, tiny as it is, it rang a bell and, lo and behold, it is a carbon copy of the Infrastructure Bank legislation, so why do the same thing again? Well, there are a few important omissions and tweaks. First, while the Infrastructure Bank legislation sets out directions for governance by directors and non-executive directors, the Bill does no such thing. While the Infrastructure Bank legislation appoints an independent person to carry out a review of the effectiveness of the bank in delivering its objectives, the Bill does no such thing.

Lastly, while the Infrastructure Bank legislation gives special powers to direct investments to the Treasury—to independent civil servants—the Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State, who, as far as I am aware, has no investment background and no financial training and whose only period in the private sector, if I have this right, was as a researcher at Channel 4.

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill sets out huge powers for the Secretary of State—he will be like the slim controller of the energy system, as he tries to interfere. But he has a track record in such cluelessness—the 2030 decarbonisation target. “We need more ambition,” he said. We had therefore hoped that the self-confessed nerd would know how to do it, but we had the letter in August to Fintan Slye of the Electricity System Operator, which set out the fact that the Secretary of State did not have a clue about how to deliver 2030 decarbonisation. The answer from Fintan Slye, if he were not in such an impossible position, would have been short: “It can’t be done. You need to do your homework.”

[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 ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for that comment. He will know that that is not a point of order. Would the shadow Secretary of State please proceed?

[Claire Coutinho]

This is really important, because we are talking about taxpayers’ money. Those were small-time projects with budgets in the tens of millions, but the Secretary of State is asking for a budget of billions of pounds with no plans. He mentioned a couple of companies in his speech, including EDF, which made a loss of €17 billion in 2022, and Ørsted, which made a loss of €2.7 billion in 2023, so I think it is right that we ask some of these questions.

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

The right hon. Lady mentions Robin Hood Energy and other local energy companies that were in fact supply companies. We are talking about a Great British Energy company that will be generating energy. She simply does not understand that. She is making a mistake about our plans, and failing to understand what is actually going on. She is suggesting that something is going to happen that is not going to happen.

[Claire Coutinho]

If the hon. Lady would bravely like to say that the company will generate energy, I am sure that she would like to tell us how much, because no one else seems able to.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Claire Coutinho]

I am sorry, but I will make some progress.

Finally—this is really important—the Secretary of State pays lip service to nuclear, but we know that when Labour was last in power it did not start a single nuclear power plant in all its 14 years. All summer, there has been an eerie silence. On the capital raise for Sizewell C, which should be out by now—nothing. On the small modular reactor competition, which should be deciding its final projects now—nothing. We committed to a third large-scale nuclear power plant at Wylfa—again, nothing. We wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, but once again he has refused to confirm any detail or, with regard to Wylfa, whether those plans are even in place. Can the Secretary of State say whether the creation of GB Energy is slowing down those projects and causing the timetable of these programmes, which will provide clean, cheap energy, to slip?

[Mr Perkins]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will not; I will continue.

Once again, we simply have no answers. I find all this very strange, because at our last encounter in this House, the Secretary of State was keen to confess that he was a “super-nerd”. As someone who has been a lifelong mathlete, I am the first person to want to champion a fellow super-nerd, but when I meet super-nerds they normally like evidence, facts and numbers. Whenever we look at what the Secretary of State has set out, there are no numbers attached. He talks about decarbonising the grid by 2030, but he has not set out the full system costs of that. He promises profits and bill savings from GB Energy, but he cannot tell us by when or how much.

When it comes to the Bill and its 2030 target, it is clear that the Secretary of State does not have the numbers, because two weeks ago he wrote a letter to the director of the Electricity System Operator. I have it here. Do you know what he said, Madam Deputy Speaker? He asked the director to please

“provide practical advice on achieving clean power by 2030”,

including a

“High-level assessment of costs”.

Given that we are talking about people’s energy bills, I think the public would like a detailed look at what this is going to cost them. To top it off, he asked the director to advise what actions his Government should take

“to enable delivery…clearly setting out where further work is required.”

The evidence could not be clearer. He went into a general election with a pledge and no idea how to achieve it, what it will cost or whether it is achievable at all.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

That is the exact point that I wanted to make; I was very keen for the Secretary of State to take my intervention on that point. The key practical, tangible thing that my constituents want to know is when they will see the £300 saving that he promised them during the general election. That is what really impacts families and households up and down this country. When a Minister comes to sum up the debate, will they restate that commitment to households about a £300 saving?

[Claire Coutinho]

That is a very fair question. I hope that the energy Minister, who I assume will wrap up the debate, will be able to provide some detail.

Far from being a super-nerd, the truth is that the Secretary of State is the ultimate career politician. He comes up with big titles and makes big promises to the public, but he has no idea how to deliver. My big fear—[Interruption.] He should listen, because it is an important point. My big fear is that he is losing focus on all the amazing technologies that will come online after 2030, whether it is fusion energy, the next generation of nuclear reactors or carbon capture. These are the innovative new technologies that will not just deal with the 1% of emissions in the UK but the 99% produced overseas. In Government, I focused a lot of my time on speeding up the development of those technologies. We launched the £1 billion green industries growth accelerator specifically to reduce any supply chain constraints, for example on cables. We provided almost £200 million to help the UK become the first commercial producer of advanced nuclear fuel outside Russia. We were making Britain one of the most exciting places in the world for fusion energy development, with £600 million of funding.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way—finally. She is criticising the Government for the rushed target of decarbonising the grid by 2030. Can she enlighten the House on when the Conservative party would do it?

[Claire Coutinho]

I will. This is a critical point, which I have made in recent weeks. The point about having longer to decarbonise is that it gives time to develop British supply chains. That is exactly what I was doing. The green industries growth accelerator and some of the other things that I have talked about gave us time to set up British companies. Those things cannot be done in five years. There is a need to get project finance, to hire workers and train them, and to get planning permission. There is a huge amount that needs to be done. The fact that the Secretary of State wants to rush the transition and make it happen at breakneck speed is risking British jobs and livelihoods, and making us dependent on Chinese supply chains.

The Secretary of State has promised many things with the Bill, but he simply cannot set out any detail about the things that he wants to deliver. It would be a blank cheque for £8 billion of taxpayers’ money, with no plan, no evidence, and no numbers for the bill savings or profits that he has been promising the British public. That is why we cannot support the Bill as it stands.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Becky Gittins to make her maiden speech.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say how wonderful it is to see you in the Chair?

I warmly welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) to his place on the Government Front Bench. I know that he used to be a schoolteacher, a wonderful profession, and I am sure that his ability to wrangle with unruly children will help him with his work in this place.

I also welcome the continuation of the fine tradition started by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) of having a Minister from Scotland in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Scotland has played, and will continue to play, a vital role in our energy security, and I know that the hon. Member will bring his local expertise to the role.

I was surprised to see the title of this debate. Under the Conservative Government, we built more offshore wind than any other country bar China, much of it driven by our contracts for difference scheme, which weaves together the Conservative principles of competition and enterprise. It was under the Conservative Government that we went from having 7% of our electricity coming from renewable energy to almost half today, and it was under the Conservative Government that we kick-started the largest nuclear revival in 70 years, committing to three large-scale nuclear reactors and a whole new fleet of small and advanced modular reactors. That is the record that has led to more than £300 billion being invested in green technology since 2010, creating jobs up and down the country.

The Labour party likes to say that the difference between us is that they are the climate believers and we are the climate deniers, but that is obviously nonsense. It was under the Conservative Government that we became the first country in the G20 to have halved carbon emissions, and we did that while growing the economy. The real difference between us is this: we know that the transition needs to happen, but we recognise that it is now at a stage where we are asking the British public to incur great costs—to change their cars, their homes and many other things. We are way ahead of other countries, and what happens next is not cost free. If it is not managed carefully, if it is driven by ideology rather than the national interest, then it will cost us jobs, hit struggling families and leave us reliant on fuel imports from foreign regimes. This country will succeed in the decades ahead only if we have enough cheap energy to power our nation. It is no use being world-leading at cutting emissions if the cost of our energy goes through the roof and all our businesses leave to set up in countries that still burn coal for 60% of their energy. That would be worse for global emissions and a disaster for the British public.

We will do our bit from the Opposition Benches to hold the Government to account on their plans, but my message to those MPs now sitting on the Government Benches is that it is in their interest to ask these crucial questions too. Throughout the general election campaign, the people now sitting on the Benches behind the Minister told their new constituents that their plans would save them £300 on their energy bills—they said it in hustings, they said it in local media, they said it on their leaflets— but they will have noticed by now that their Ministers are no longer saying that at all.

This is the problem, Madam Deputy Speaker: when you get into government and you speak in the House, you cannot use numbers for which you have no basis. [Interruption.] Labour Members will learn that. But their voters—[Interruption.] They laugh, but their voters will not forget that they made that promise. Their online clips and social media accounts will not go away. They all know that their leadership have sold them down the river on this one. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State know that those savings cannot be delivered; in fact, their approach to energy will add huge costs to people’s bills.

That is not us being evil Tories. It is also the view of the European lead for Mitsubishi Power, who said that the Labour party’s plans would require a “huge sacrifice” from Brits; it is the view of the GMB trade union, which has said that the Secretary of State’s plans will lead to power cuts and blackouts across the country and come at an enormous cost; and it is the view of the Tony Blair Institute, which says that Labour’s plans would raise bills and harm our energy security. People the Labour party normally listens to, from the right to the left of the party, agree with us on this issue.

I urge the hon. Members sitting behind the Minister to take this issue seriously and examine his plans in detail, because it is their promise, which they all made just a few weeks ago, that is being ditched. Come the next election, the first question their voters will ask is not, “Have you met the 2030 target?”, but, “What did you do to my energy bills?” If the trade unions, the business leaders and the Conservative party are right that their approach would place huge costs on British households, I can tell them that their constituents will check the parliamentary records and see whether they asked any questions, and they will have to explain why they let these measures pass without challenge.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I have to congratulate the right hon. Lady on her chutzpah after 14 years of Conservative government. I have examined closely those net zero policies—the stop-start on feed-in tariffs, the failed competitions for carbon capture and storage, and the stalling of new nuclear. She does not have a record that she should be proud to stand on, and I would have hoped that she would graciously accept and back the innovative plans of the Labour Government.

[Claire Coutinho]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I disagree, particularly on nuclear, because every single operational nuclear power plant in this country was started by Conservatives.

I will offer some suggestions for questions that Labour Members might like to ask. They like to say that renewables are cheap, and they are cheap to operate. After all, wind and sunshine are free. However, if we want to know what a type of power will do to our bills, we have to look at the full system costs. If we race ahead with renewables at the same time as making our gas power stations uninvestable, what will be our back-up when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, and how much does that cost the system? New technologies such as small modular nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and batteries of long duration storage are all welcome, but they will not be ready by 2030. What will be used, and how much will it cost?

Will the largest nuclear expansion in 70 years, which I set out, be sacrificed to pay for GB Energy? I know that Ministers barely refer to it any more, but nuclear will be critical to our energy supply in the years ahead. Have they made an assessment of how much their plans will increase our reliance on the current dominant provider of pylons, cables, batteries and solar panels, which is China? If not, when will they do so? How much private investment into the energy transition will they lose through their plans to tax the North sea into oblivion and ban new oil and gas licences? It is not a coincidence that many integrated energy companies in this country pursue both oil and gas and renewable projects at the same time; it is because they use the same skills, supply chain and workers. Industry says that more than £400 billion is at risk from these plans. GB Energy, at £8 billion, will not touch the sides of replacing that. How much will be lost, and where will the extra money come from? Will it be from central Government through people’s taxes, or will it be through the bills and standing charges of all our constituents?

The Government keep claiming—I think the Minister did so today—that GB Energy will turn a profit. I believe he said that “every single project” will make a return, but the slice of the pie that they want to invest in is the slice that even businesses do not think they can make money from. That is what de-risking means. Members should ask on what basis the Secretary of State thinks that he can turn a profit for the British taxpayer when highly experienced energy companies believe that they cannot.

If I were to give one piece of advice to the Minister it would be to do what I did when I first started the job. He should not listen to just one side of the climate lobby who pretend that there are no costs involved in this transition, but go to speak to industry, and to oil and gas workers, and listen to how much those families value secure, well-paid jobs on their doorstep. He should not follow the Secretary of State’s path of quoting only from the Climate Change Committee, and never from business or industry. The Minister’s job, first and foremost, is to keep bills down and the lights on. He should not forget those last two priorities, or he will find that those on the Benches behind him will turn very quickly.

[Barry Gardiner]

The right hon. Lady said that Members should not quote only from sources that they feel are friendly to them, so I will not quote from the International Energy Association, but perhaps she might accept a quote from the World Economic Forum, which stated:

“Renewables are now significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the world’s cheapest source of energy”,

according to its report.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but as I said, we have to look at the full system cost. He is very experienced in the energy sector, and he knows as well as I do that the flexible capacity that is used to back up an intermittent system is where the true costs lie. It is fair for Opposition Members to ask for an assessment of what those costs will be, and what they will mean for British bill payers.

The other area where the Government must be honest with the public is about what they are going to build. The Secretary of State’s first week in the job saw him approve 4,000 football pitches’ worth of solar farms on farmland in Rutland, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Those projects were not sat on my desk, as the Secretary of State has claimed. I had made a decision to reject Sunnica on the basis of a scathing examining authority report, and I changed policy to protect our best agricultural land. These are not projects that were likely to be approved; these are bad decisions. Work was being drawn up to be announced, but the decision had been taken in the case of Sunnica. The Secretary of State will know that from civil servants, who are duty bound to brief him honestly in the Department.

In the case of Mallard Pass, the site has been signed off, 40% of which will be built on our best and most versatile agricultural land, taking no notice of legal planning guidance that says that best agricultural land must be avoided. The Secretary of State and his Ministers will have to justify that, and many more decisions, to his new colleagues, many of whom now represent rural communities and whose constituents will be rightly concerned that they are next.

I wish the new Minister well for his time in the Department. The energy sector is one of the most interesting and important policy briefs affecting this country, and it is in all our interests that he does his job well. However, what the Government have done so far —make claims during the election that they cannot stack up now they are in government—will just not do. They have set out a hard target to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Secretary of State stakes his entire political reputation on it, without being honest about the costs. These issues are far too important for Government not to take seriously, and they are far too important for Labour Members to follow the Government blindly without asking questions. They did that during the election with promises to save households £300, and they can no longer stack up those promises just three weeks into Government. I humbly suggest that this is their first lesson of the Parliament: they should not give the Secretary of State a blank cheque again.

Clean Energy Superpower Mission

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I would like to put on the record my disappointment not to get the statement in good time. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will want to provide us with the same courtesy that we tried to provide him when we were in government. That being said, I congratulate him on his return to government. I was sad not to see more of him during the election campaign, particularly because our ability to secure enough cheap energy will be crucial to this nation’s success in the decades ahead. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the officials he will now work with.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his endeavour, but energy will be this Government’s big test. They talk a good game on growth, but the Secretary of State’s energy policy is their greatest liability. In government, we built more offshore wind than any other country bar China. We set out the largest expansion of nuclear power in 70 years. We said that, yes, we will need oil and gas in the decades ahead, as the Climate Change Committee has said, and we should use British oil and gas where needed. We are in a global race for energy, and demand will be higher in the years ahead because of data and artificial intelligence.

If the right hon. Gentleman’s plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030 are in place, we need to know what they will do to people’s energy bills, our energy security and our reliance on the current dominant player for cables, batteries and critical minerals—China. He is happy to quote the Climate Change Committee, but it also acknowledged that we will need oil and gas well into 2050. He must answer: where would he like that to come from?

When it comes to quotes, he should consider some from the business world who have commented on his policy, such as the chief executive of Mitsubishi Power, who said that his plans would require a “huge sacrifice” by the country, citing the costs of the Secretary of State’s approach. The chief executive of Ineos said that his approach to energy was “absurd”, leaving us dependent on imports of foreign fuels with higher emissions and doing nothing for the climate. Even the GMB said that his plans were “unviable” and would lead to power cuts, blackouts and enormous cost. Unite has said that the Government’s plans for the North sea would turn oil and gas workers into the coalminers of their generation.

The right hon. Gentleman must answer why he would like to import gas with much higher emissions. How many jobs will be lost from his plans? How much investment into the new technologies of the future, such as hydrogen, carbon capture and offshore wind, will be lost? Will he meet those workers and explain to them what will happen to their livelihoods?

During the election, the right hon. Gentleman claimed that he would lower bills and save families £300. However, those numbers are already in the savings, and no one on his side can set out the cost of his plans to decarbonise the grid by 2030. Who will pay for those network costs? What will they do to people’s standing charges, which were already too high?

The right hon. Gentleman also, I think, commented on having a say in terms of communities. The energy infrastructure he will need, and the fact that he wants to go further and faster, will have a huge impact on rural communities. Their concerns must be addressed. As I set out, the plans for our energy cannot come at the expense of our food or national security.

In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman accused me of dither, but as he will know from his officials, in at least one of the cases he has signed off I had already instructed some time ago that I was minded to reject it, and that paperwork was being prepared. He must set out urgently what his criteria will be. In one case, he overturned an expert examining authority. In another case, he signed off a solar farm which will be 40% on our best and most versatile agricultural land. Did he know that was the case? If so, what was his basis for finding that acceptable? Will he continue our efforts to build more solar on rooftops? I think he mentioned that he would reconvene the solar taskforce. I hate to tell him, but it had never been disbanded and we were due to publish that work. So, I would like to know what date he will be able to publish that work.

In conclusion, the Secretary of State’s party won the election and promised change, but he was not on show during that campaign to answer these critical questions of how he was going to provide that change and what it will mean for the country. What will his plans mean for the price of electricity? What will they mean for our ability to keep the lights on? What will they mean for struggling families’ bills, for our economy, and for the livelihoods of oil and gas workers? What will they mean for our reliance on China? For all that the Labour Government talk about growth, they will not be able to deliver on that with the Secretary of State’s plans for energy. I hope that in the months ahead he will set out some of that detail to be examined.

[Edward Miliband]

May I start by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her recent engagement? I wish her and her fiancé all the best for the future. We may disagree on some issues, but I believe this Government and the right hon. Lady can at least share a belief in long honeymoons. [Laughter.]

On the right hon. Lady’s response, I have to say that I was disappointed. The lines were very, very familiar. That is because they were the lines she has used for the last year. And here she comes today to the House and repeats the lines as if the intervening meteorite has not hit the Conservative party: the worst election result in 200 years for her party. The truth, as sensible Conservatives know, is that the lurch she worked on a year ago with the former Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was an electoral disaster for the Conservative party—the lurch away from climate action. What we saw in her statement is the classic dilemma for the Conservative party, which we will see played out, I hope, for many long years of Opposition. The dilemma is do they go the Reform route to be climate deniers, or do they actually re-embrace climate—[Interruption.]

Oil and Gas Overlaps: Offshore Wind Projects

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

The North Sea Transition Authority has announced three tranches of licences from the 33rd oil and gas licensing round. Production from these licences will support our world-class oil and gas industry and help maintain the UK’s energy security. Data published by the Climate Change Committee shows that the UK will continue to need oil and gas, alongside abatement technologies, even when we reach net zero in 2050.

A number of licences from the third tranche of the 33rd oil and gas licensing round have direct overlaps with, or come within 500 metres of, areas which are already under agreement for offshore wind development. It is important to note that the oil and gas licences grant exclusivity to explore the licence area, but they do not confer consent for any operational activity. This would require separate consents from the North Sea Transition Authority.

Oil and gas developments and offshore wind developments already co-exist and my expectation is that they will continue to do so. Oil and gas developers and offshore wind developers are already expected, through their respective consenting and stewardship processes, to take account of other projects when planning their developments.

To give greater reassurance to affected offshore wind developers that oil and gas licensees will take account of their developments, and to promote co-existence, the North Sea Transition Authority has introduced a new clause in relevant licences following discussions with the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland. The new clause will require the oil or gas licensee to have a co-location agreement with the affected offshore wind developer in place before any operational activity can take place in that licence area, which includes seismic surveying, drilling exploratory wells or installing subsea or surface infrastructure.

Co-location agreements will be the way forward for resolving any issues arising from overlaps and I expect all parties to engage constructively, to act in good faith and to behave reasonably when approaching discussions on co-location. Where there are difficulties in reaching a suitable co-location agreement, the parties should first seek independent mediation or discuss a way forward with the North Sea Transition Authority and the Crown Estate or Crown Estate Scotland.

Some stakeholders have asked about the role of the oil and gas clause in Crown Estate leases in the event an oil or gas developer asks for it to be used. This clause allows the Crown Estates to determine an agreement for lease or lease, in whole or in part, at my request where this is necessary to enable an oil or gas project to proceed. This clause has never been used and no oil or gas developer has ever asked, a Secretary of State to determine an offshore wind lease.

I would like to clarify that there should be no assumption that oil and gas has primacy over offshore wind, or vice versa. In the highly unlikely event that I receive a request from an oil or gas developer to ask the Crown Estates to determine an offshore wind lease, there should also be no assumption that I would agree to do so. In line with previous Government guidance, it would only be used in very exceptional circumstances, only after all avenues for co-existence had been explored and only after appropriate compensation for the offshore wind developer had been assured. For the sake of clarity, I would like to emphasise that co-location agreements will be the primary mechanism for resolving any issues arising from overlaps.

The previous guidance on the oil and gas clause in Crown Estate leases was published in 2014 and I recognise that the oil and gas industry, the offshore wind industry and UK energy policy have all changed significantly since then. My officials will consult with the North Sea Transition Authority, the Crown Estate, Crown Estate Scotland, Scottish Government, the offshore wind industry and the oil and gas industry on appropriate changes to the 2014 guidance in order to incorporate the new requirements on co-location agreements and to reflect wider updates since the guidance was published.

[HCWS504]

Carbon Budgets

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

Earlier this week we were proud to be able to announce that we had decided to forgo the option to carry forward any over-performance from the third carbon budget to the fourth carbon budget. Following that, I want to give an update on our progress on delivering against the UK’s world-leading system of carbon budgets.

We are extremely proud to have met, and indeed exceeded all three of the carbon budgets to date. In 2013, the Climate Change Committee said the Government were “not currently on track” to meet the third carbon budget. But our continued delivery of emissions-reducing policies meant that we were in fact able to exceed the target.

When the fourth carbon budget was set in 2011 it was considered by some, including in Government, to be so stretching, that a review point would be needed to see if it was actually achievable. As late as 2019, the Climate Change Committee said that “Government continues to be offtrack for the fourth” carbon budget. But again, with continued policy delivery, the UK is now on track to more than exceed the fourth carbon budget. And a future Minister will have to make a decision, like the one we announced earlier this week, as to whether to carry forward that over-delivery.

The fifth carbon budget goes further still in reducing emissions. But since that was set, we took the decision to move to net zero by 2050 target. That means we will have to significantly overdeliver on the fifth carbon budget. And our own plans show that we are indeed on track to overdeliver yet again.

Ministers took decisions on the level of the sixth carbon budget (CB6) in March 2021. This was the first net zero-aligned carbon budget and so requires an even more challenging level of emissions reduction. We are still more than eight years away from the start of the sixth carbon budget period and more than 13 years away from the end of it—despite which, we have around 300 policies in place to deliver emissions reductions required over the sixth carbon budget period, with around 200 of these having quantified savings associated with them. The most recent assessment showed that 90% of the savings required to meet the CB6 target are covered by quantified policies.

The UK has reduced emissions further and faster than any major economy, becoming the first to halve its emissions against the 1990 baseline, and we remain steadfastly committed to net zero. This is a record of which we are immensely proud, and indeed a record in which everyone in this country should feel pride.

[HCWS505]

Large-scale Nuclear Power Station: Wylfa

Claire Coutinho Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)]

In January this Government published the civil nuclear road map, which represented the biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years. It set out our ambition for 25% of our power to come from nuclear by 2050.

Since then, the Government have been powering on to deliver the road map commitments. We have launched the next phase of the small modular reactor (SMR) technology selection process, with bidders having until June to submit tenders; announced support to a multi-year programme of work to boost nuclear skills in the UK; and announced £196 million of support for a high-tech nuclear fuel facility in the north-west. We intend to take a final investment decision on Sizewell C before the end of this Parliament.

I am proud that this Government are delivering on their commitments and this statement outlines progress on another of our key commitments: to explore a further large-scale nuclear project.



At the spring Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor also announced that Great British Nuclear had reached agreement with Hitachi to acquire the Wylfa (Anglesey/Ynys Môn) and Oldbury-on-Severn (Gloucestershire) nuclear sites.

Today my Department has published a prior information notice (PIN), exploring building a further large-scale nuclear power station, similar in scale to Hinkley in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk. As part of the PIN the Government have indicated that their initial preference is that any such nuclear project should be located at Wylfa. Sitting on the north Wales coast, Wylfa is ideally suited to host a large-scale nuclear project given its proximity to water and nuclear heritage. This announcement has the potential to bring thousands of jobs and investment to the area, boosting the local economy.

This PIN invites interest from all potential large-scale vendors to engage with the Department as it carries out market engagement and builds an understanding of the capacity of the sector to support large-scale project ambitions. The Department will use the information gathered to inform future policy on large-scale nuclear development in the UK. This is an important step in signalling the Government’s intent, and while it is not compulsory for potential vendors to express an interest at this stage, we would encourage all with an interest to do so.

Importantly, I am clear that this announcement does not in any way seek to predetermine outcomes of the ongoing SMR technology selection process, and that indicating the initial preferred use of Wylfa should not preclude access to sufficient site capacity for future SMR requirements.

I am depositing a copy of the PIN in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS494]