Gas-fired Power Stations

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend will be aware of all the work we are doing to speed up transmission. We are halving the timeline from 12 to 14 years to seven, and the connections action plan has already moved forward connection dates for projects amounting to 40 GW. We are putting in a lot of work across the piece. This gas capability is there as a back-up, but the usage and the emissions resulting from it will fall precipitately over the next 10 years, and we can all celebrate that.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

After their years of delaying meaningful investment in clean, cheaper, reliable renewable energy technologies such as tidal and long-duration pumped hydro storage, it is no surprise that the Government are now having to scramble to create new dirty gas-powered plants. How much does the Department estimate the new plants will cost, where is it suggesting they should be built, and what does the Minister mean by carbon-capture-ready? Does he mean carbon-capture-operational?

[Dave Doogan]

Hear, hear. Do tell!

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I remember that visit distinctly—my first as the nuclear Minister. I thank the hon. Lady and everyone who hosts nuclear power stations in their constituencies for championing that industry, the sector and the workforce. The workforce and the sector have been widely castigated in the popular mindset over many years, but now are reaping the rewards of continued support from people such as my hon. Friend and others in this House. I am delighted that Hartlepool got the extension. The road map that we set out today will deliver a clear identification of what can be delivered, where and how. That means a bright future for nuclear in Hartlepool.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Nova Innovation in my constituency recently announced the wonderful news that it had won €20 million of investment from the EU to lead a pan-European consortium to create the Seastar tidal energy farm in Orkney, the largest tidal energy site in the world. Why does the UK Government continue to largely ignore this safe, lower cost, reliable form of energy? As Greenpeace points out, the energy industry itself knows that the economic case for slow, expensive nuclear just does not add up.

[Andrew Bowie]

Tidal received money for the very first time through the last auction round in the contracts for difference process. This Government are investing in tidal technologies, wind, solar, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, continued exploration for oil and gas—which the hon. Lady’s party opposes—and nuclear. Of course, it is fantastic news for her constituents and the businesses around Scotland that are winning contracts to invest in renewables. What, to their shame, Scottish National party representatives in this place never mention is the hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland that depend on the nuclear industry—manufacturing, construction, education and the fantastic work going on right now in Torness, the only generating power station in Scotland currently delivering power to 1 million homes. Perhaps the Scottish National party will come to the Chamber and explain how, when that power station closes down—as sadly and inevitably one day it will—they will replace the power generated for Scottish homes under their plans to completely ignore this safe, secure and clean option for secure future energy.

COP28

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I will start with a short reality check. Climate scientists are forecasting with near certainty that 2023 will set a new record as the hottest year. October global temperatures soared 1.7°C above the late-1800s average for that month. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, September 2023 surpassed the average July temperatures from 2001 to 2010. Those records are not merely being broken but being shattered. Heatwaves, droughts and floods have resulted in significant human suffering, claiming thousands of lives, disrupting livelihoods and displacing scores of people.

The burden of these climactic shifts falls disproportionately on those regions and communities that have contributed least to the crisis. East Africa, a region with minimal contribution to global carbon emissions, has faced devastating drought and famine, with estimates earlier this year suggesting that two lives were being lost every minute. Meanwhile, low-lying nations such as Tuvalu facing the real threat of extinction in the coming decades are creating digital back-ups of their entire existence and culture, complete with ancestral knowledge and value systems.

As we approach COP28, it is therefore encouraging—although long overdue—that the conference will focus more on frontline communities, and especially those in least developed countries and small islands. That emphasis must translate into tangible financial support. That is an area where Scotland has set a precedent as the first country in the global north to commit funds to climate loss and damage, pledging £2 million at COP26. Last year, the Scottish Government allocated an additional £5 million to non-economic loss and damage, supporting initiatives preserving the heritage of affected communities. Those sums are, of course, small compared with what is required globally. Finance provided by rich countries to help the poorest deal with climate change remains woefully inadequate. However, the Scottish Government’s action has encouraged others to follow, with about $300 million thought to have been pledged globally to address loss and damage.

At COP27, a landmark agreement was reached to establish a dedicated fund aimed explicitly at supporting vulnerable nations and communities who are grappling with the irreversible effects of climate change. That action must be accelerated, and the finance offered must be additional to that already available for mitigation and adaptation—and it must be in the form of grants not loans. Support for adaptation initiatives is simply inadequate.

Countries of the global north not only bear a substantial responsibility for the destructive consequences of climate change through our emissions but have benefited from the competitive advantages that the early adoption of fossil fuels and industrialisation provided. Therefore, surely wealthy nations have a moral obligation to recognise that historical responsibility and lead by example. First Minister Humza Yousaf and Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Just Transition Màiri McAllan, who will represent Scotland at the conference, will make that case to delegates.

Action to address loss and damage gets to the heart of what we mean by climate justice. It is a principle that is equally important at home as it is globally. The Scottish Government are committed to ending our reliance on fossil fuels in a way that is fair and leaves no one behind. That is exemplified by the just transition fund: the Scottish Government’s 10-year, £500 million investment to support projects in the north-east and Moray as those regions transition to net zero. The principles of a just transition are also enshrined in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2019, emphasising the creation of green, sustainable jobs and addressing economic inequality.

The actions needed to reach net zero by 2045 will transform all sectors of our economy and society, and will require rapid structural change. In Scotland, and indeed throughout the UK, we have seen how unplanned structural changes in the past have left intergenerational scarring and deprivation, most notably in our former coalmining communities. Our transition to net zero must be managed differently.

In October alone, we have experienced two extreme rainfall events, including Storm Babet, which disrupted transport, destroyed infrastructure and crops, led to the evacuation of communities, and tragically took lives in Scotland and across the UK. The health of our environment, economy and society is interlinked with how well we mitigate climate change and adapt to its impacts. That is why the Scottish Government are making an extra £150 million available in this parliamentary term on top of £42 million annually for flood risk management, and £12 million on coastal adaptation.

The Scottish Government’s climate change plan update outlines nearly 150 policies, setting a pathway to meet our ambitious emissions targets by 2032, including a 75% reduction by 2030. We have reached significant milestones. In 2020, almost 100% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption in Scotland was generated from renewable sources. Although the Scottish Government have met targets and missed others, at the last count the Government missed their annual emissions target by only 1.2%. That tells us two things. The actions of the Scottish Government are helping us to track very closely to where we need to be against the backdrop of some of the most stretching targets in the world. Equally, there is a great deal left to do.

Of course, the delivery of Scotland’s climate ambitions is also contingent on action by the UK Government in reserved and shared areas, and that certainly has not been helped by the Prime Minister’s recent abandonment of key net zero commitments. The sheer scale of his policy reversals may have a significant impact on Scotland, not least in the preparation of our own draft climate change plan. I am afraid that the King’s Speech only deepened those concerns. The problems with the announced new licensing system have been highlighted by both climate scientists and anti-poverty campaigners, so I do not need to go into them, but analysis from earlier this year showed that new oil and gas fields in the North sea will produce only enough gas to meet the UK’s needs for a few weeks a year. If the Government were serious about strengthening the UK’s energy security and bringing down people’s energy bills, they would start by announcing robust measures to incentivise investments in renewables. I think in particular of tidal stream—I speak about that regularly in this House—similar to what we are seeing from the EU and the US, as well as matching the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund.

People in Scotland are rightly asking how it is possible that they are facing unaffordable energy bills when in 2020 Scotland produced enough renewable energy to power the equivalent of every household in the country for more than three years. They are also wondering why in a country where we produce six times more gas than we consume, Age Scotland’s figures suggest that a scandalous 50% of people aged 55 to 64 are living in fuel poverty.

We are also seeing the damaging impact of Brexit on environmental protections and standards, which Members on the SNP Benches warned of repeatedly. The Tories’ Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 threatens the high standards that Scotland enjoyed as an EU member, before we were removed against the wishes of the clear majority of people in our country. Just this week, we heard the UK Government’s plans to reduce the safety information required from chemical companies to register substances to an irreducible minimum. The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—UK REACH—is already falling behind the EU’s regulations, and that move will only heighten the risk of toxic substances entering the environment.

In the realm of national security, the Defence Committee’s recent report on climate change found that the Ministry of Defence could do much more to measure and reduce its carbon emissions without eroding military capability.

[Dr Coffey]

I hear what the hon. Lady says about chemicals; the Government are planning to produce a new chemicals strategy. She may not be aware that the European Union refused to allow the United Kingdom access to all the information on REACH. The cost of replicating exactly the same information is huge. She needs to be mindful that we are trying to support business, while recognising that the European Union could have given us access and refused to do so.

[Deidre Brock]

That is just another complication caused by Brexit, which has been a disaster for the UK.

As I mentioned, in the realm of national security, the Defence Committee has taken a close interest for some time, so it seems that some sort of environmental audit would be appropriate for Ministry of Defence activities.

Whoever wins the next election faces a long road to rectify the decisions of the current Government. Hon. Members should not take my word for it, but it does not bode well for the UK’s standing on the climate crisis ahead of COP28. Lord Deben, the former chair of the Climate Change Committee, said in the summer that by failing to act decisively in response to the energy crisis and building on the success of hosting COP26, the UK has lost its claim to global climate leadership.

To restore influence and authority ahead of COP28, the Prime Minister should take heed of the letter from the all-party parliamentary group for climate change, which Members from different parties across the Chamber have signed. It calls on the Prime Minister to appoint a Secretary of State-level UK climate envoy ahead of COP28, after the Government scrapped the role of special representative on climate change within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We want the UK Government to support climate-vulnerable countries by committing new and additional grant-based finance to the loss and damage fund, and championing a just global energy transition by engaging with affected workers and supporting other countries to fairly move away from fossil fuels.

As we all know, the Paris agreement binds countries to stop the planet heating by 1.5° by the end of the century. However, current policies are set to heat it by about 2.4°. That trajectory spells disaster for the planet. We must play our part in reversing it immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I enjoyed the hon. Lady’s speech. Unsurprisingly, when I was in the middle east recently, water was right at the top of the agenda, reflecting its importance. I attended the Net Zero Council meeting in Manchester last Thursday, and it was my pleasure on the following day to go to the Severn Trent water treatment works in Stoke. By the end of next year, it is expected to be the world’s first carbon-neutral water treatment works, for which I pay tribute to Severn Trent. Again, it shows the importance of water, which is so often forgotten. Water is one of the workstreams of the Net Zero Council, which was established this year to bring together the Government and business to develop road maps for each sector of our economy.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for her driven, heartfelt efforts to make sure that nature’s contribution to the climate is fully recognised. The reason for holding the climate and development ministerial is that climate and development are two sides of the same coin. If there could be a three-sided coin—I am stretching my metaphors—the third side would be nature, because climate, development and nature go together.

We have talked about the importance of forests, and we have to make sure that the people who live in and around these carbon sinks—they are not just carbon sinks; they have many other qualities—have economic incentives that align with what we want. We have to make sure that they see development and opportunity for their families. It is only on that basis that we can even ask them to protect the nature that has been so denuded here. If we are to ask others to protect their nature for the general benefit, we need to make sure that it fits with development, as well as contributing to climate and nature.

I thank my right hon. Friend for Suffolk Coastal for all she has done. Her enthusiasm for mangroves is clearly shared across the House. They are a bit of a miracle. Making a difference often costs a lot of money, so we have to try to align incentives as much as possible. We need projects in which very small amounts of funding can make all the difference, so that mangroves stop shrinking and start expanding, and so that people return from the city to work with their families around the mangroves as part of a prosperous community. The mangroves need to be prosperous while developing as a carbon sink.

[Deidre Brock]

It was very interesting to hear about the importance of mangroves. I would also be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about peatlands. How will he be supporting them at COP?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Congo has extraordinarily large and important peatlands, which have the same basic dynamics. Everything is different, and every country is different, which is why we have to pull different things together, but the fundamental principle is that we have to create a system in which the local people—from the governor of the province down to the indigenous villagers—are better off by maintaining and keeping these peatlands. We are keen to make sure that the role of peatlands is understood because, again, they are a critical enabler. Lost peatlands cannot easily be replaced, and they are part of the negative tipping point we could reach if we do not take urgent action.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

I do not want to go into the calculation elements of it, but it looks at the disconnect between the strike price that was delivered in auction round 4 and the ambition for auction round 5, wraps it up in the inflation environment that we are in—bear in mind that these are 2012 prices, so it is not actually that number—and comes out with a figure within that range. It is an auction, as the hon. Gentleman will know very well, so there is an element of second-guessing to it. However, after this Government’s failure in auction round 5, we cannot allow something similar to happen in auction round 6, which will create a disinvestment in offshore wind that we cannot allow to happen.

Scotland is a well-established net exporter of electricity. In 2020, we created 31.8 TW of renewable electricity in Scotland, equivalent to powering all the houses in Scotland for three and a half years. That was in 2020, and we are now generating even more. Calls in Scotland are growing louder and louder, asking how it is possible that in our country of 5.5 million people, where we produce six times more gas than we consume, a staggering 50% of Scottish people aged 55 to 64 are living in fuel poverty. It is as well that they ask, because the answer lies in being handcuffed to Westminster.

Scotland is currently leading the world on floating wind, but only by a very slim margin. We need strategic ambition and significant investment to leverage our intellectual, engineering and geographic advantage into a systemic lead on this technology on a global scale, certainly for technology and design, and for manufacturing in the European sector. Until three months ago, Scotland had the world’s largest floating offshore wind installation, but that title now belongs to Hywind Tampen in Norway.

We are at a critical juncture for offshore floating wind in Scotland, with the potential to exploit our enormous growth opportunity, and to export our manufacturing expertise across the world, but only if we get the strike price right. It is therefore frustrating in the extreme to see the Tories talk about the need for economic growth while at the same time utterly failing to do anything ambitious to support this burgeoning industry of almost limitless potential for Scottish jobs, UK jobs and global sales. Contrast that investment posture with the rush to welcome Chinese expertise and French technology into England’s nuclear industry.

Floating wind must get an appropriate strike price in AR6 that reflects the enormous growth potential of the industry. The Department needs to stand up to the Treasury and secure an administrative strike price that reflects the rudimentary understanding that, as a new technology, floating wind will have a higher cost per megawatt-hour, but it will reduce over time. The price must reflect the advantage of having a more advantageous strike price that allows the supply chain to fall on these islands, not forcing developers to get their supply chain from abroad.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend mentioned standing up to the Treasury. The Secretary of State bragged about the Government’s support for tidal, but it is a peedie amount in comparison with their loving support for nuclear. It is very disappointing, when we consider how efficient, steady and reliable—and how much cheaper—that electricity source is. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dave Doogan]

I absolutely agree. I can only assume that it is due to the Conservatives’ blinkered reliance on nuclear. They cry, “We need baseload!” but we need a mix of energy storage and baseload solutions, just as we need a mix of generation. If they showed half the ambition for pumped storage, battery storage and hydrogen as they do for nuclear, we would be in a far better position and much less reliant on this grossly expensive generation technology.

On the pumped storage issue, I wrote to the Minister earlier this year and was informed that the Government were

“committed to putting in place an appropriate policy framework”,

but we saw nothing in the King’s Speech and we detect no sense of urgency regarding pumped storage. Long-term energy storage is yet another way to ensure energy security that the Government seem more than happy to ignore.

To maximise the efficiency of renewable energy generation while ensuring the lowest possible prices for consumers, we require a properly functioning energy grid, which will necessarily include long-duration energy storage. Industry has been super clear that future expansion of pumped hydro storage is achievable and affordable, and that crucially a number of projects already have planning permission, such as Cruachan in the west of Scotland. However, the UK Government’s current market mechanisms prevent the investment needed to ensure that those vital projects are delivered in a timely manner, consistent with the climate emergency and the ambition to lower consumers’ bills.

A cap and floor mechanism will fix pumped storage, and I would be very interested to hear the views of the Secretary of State on that, but when we take all these issues in the round, it is very clear to me and to the people of Scotland that we need control over our energy future. The only way to do that is with the full powers of independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point: where charge points are blocked, they become useless for EVs. The LEVI scheme that she references is designed to try to help as many people as possible, and I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary to take a closer look at the specific point she raises about those blockages.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Private jets, described as “incredibly carbon-intensive”, have been in the headlines. The recent Department for Transport-commissioned report suggests that the carbon footprint of private jets in the UK is on par with 200,000 people taking a return flight to Hong Kong, and calls for the number of private jet flights to be halved. Will the Secretary of State be having a word with his colleague the Foreign Secretary about that?

[Grant Shapps]

Private jets are in the headlines almost as much as motorhomes. The reality is that to solve this problem, we need sustainable aviation fuel in the shorter term, which is why the UK has one of the world’s leading targets: 10% of SAF in our energy mix for jets in just six and a half years’ time.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Deidre Brock Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

For once, I find myself in the unusual position of debating legislation that I do not intend to reject out of hand. I have to admit that I broadly welcome most of the measures in the Bill, particularly those relating to carbon capture and storage and hydrogen models. That said, I must put on record my objection to all the comments that have been made about nuclear. Nuclear is the only energy technology that has become more expensive rather than cheaper over the years, so talk of its making our bills less expensive is collective madness. We need to move away from that. As for the talk about small modular reactors, no design has even been approved for their implementation yet. I do not know how the competition can be judged when there is no approved design for SMRs, and I understand that the process that is going on will take at least another 18 months.

Another aspect of the Bill that I cannot get my head round is the fact that the so- called revising Chamber was deemed to be the right place in which to introduce it. That seems counterintuitive to me, but I will say to the Secretary of State that, if the other place was indeed deemed most appropriate for the purpose, the House should trust the five amendments that were made there and recommend that they should remain in the Bill. Let me say for the record that I support them.

The amendment that would prevent any new coalmines from being opened by the Coal Authority or its successors makes sense if we are serious about net zero. We cannot have the hypocrisy of lecturing developing countries about the use of coal while considering extracting coal ourselves. We cannot have the hypocrisy of Tory MPs’ decrying Germany for using coal while at the same time supporting the new Cumbrian coalmine. We need to end the pretence of a zero emission coalmine that ignores the emissions from the carbon embedded in the coal that is about to be burnt, and we need to end the hypocrisy of arguing for indigenous coal for steel coking in the UK when the coal is generally not suitable for the purpose and 84% of it will be exported to be burnt elsewhere.

As for the amendment to ensure that meeting the UK’s net zero targets becomes a specific part of Ofgem’s general responsibilities, that is just plain common sense. We have heard a number of interventions in support of it, and indeed it is one of the recommendations in the Skidmore review, as well as being called for by representatives of the wider industry including Energy UK, RenewableUK, the Climate Change Committee and the National Infrastructure Commission, and groups such as the Green Alliance. It is logical to assume that, if the Government object to Ofgem’s having a net zero mandate, they are signalling that they are not serious about doing everything possible to meet the net zero target—and when are they ever going to publish the long-delayed strategy and policy statement for Ofgem? For too long they have seemed to suggest that Ofgem should have responsibility for policy considerations when awkward questions arise, when it is clearly their responsibility to set policy decisions for Ofgem in that strategy and policy statement.

For years I have been going on about the unfair transmission grid charging system which penalises Scottish sites where the best load factor and wind resource can be found. As has been re-confirmed by the Green Alliance, the current system, overseen by Ofgem, favours electricity coming from Europe rather than wind farms built in the UK’s windiest areas. On average, according to the alliance, EU electricity generators paid 16 times less in transmission charges to send their energy to England last year than the cost of bringing energy down from Scotland, and Scottish generators are now at a significant disadvantage in comparison with sites in France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Denmark and Norway. What kind of perverse logic is that?

Worse still, National Grid ESO has confirmed that £4.6 billion was paid in constraint payments last year, mainly owing to the lack of grid capacity between Scotland and England. If ever there was an example of lack of strategy and forward thinking between the Government and the regulator, this is it. Paying wind farm developers to stop generating because of a lack of grid capacity, while either paying fossil fuel generators to ramp up gas generation to meet the demand or importing from the continent at the same time, is madness. Those constraint payments could easily have covered the cost of grid upgrades.

As well as the need for grid build-out to facilitate the renewable energy targets, there is a need for the Government—if they want to deploy renewable energy—to listen to what the industry is saying about the pressures of inflation and how it will struggle to meet the strike rates that have been suggested for allocation round 5. Indeed, some of the biggest developers mentioned by the Secretary of State are struggling to deliver on their AR4 commitments. We need to learn from the Spanish auction, which was a complete failure, to listen to industry and to ensure that that failure is not repeated as we try to deploy renewable energy as quickly as possible.

The Government’s own offshore wind champion has pointed out that they will be well short of the 2030 target of 50 GW of offshore wind. The Government should consider revising the “first come, first served” approach and the ability to hold on to grid consents, which is a prize that companies seek to retain. We need to move away from that system and allow access to the grid for companies that can deploy quickly. The Government rightly talk of speeding up consent processes in England and Wales through the planning system, but we must ensure that Scotland is not left behind. The Scottish Government have made contact with his Department. I am sure he understands that, while Scottish Ministers have responsibility for signing off planning consent for major infrastructure projects, the regulations themselves are reserved to Westminster under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The two Governments need to work together to revise those regulations so that Scotland is not left behind.

Several bodies, including Energy UK and the Climate Change Committee, have called on the Government to apply a net zero test to all policy, regulatory, spending and taxation decisions. I support that, because I know that we need to move away from silo working and ensure that there is a joined-up net zero policy across all Government Departments. I also think that the UK Government should learn from the Scottish Government’s establishment of a Just Transition Commission to place fairness and long-term job creation and transfer at the forefront of net zero, and I call on them once more to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition funding.

I also support the amendment on community energy. As a co-sponsor of the Local Electricity Bill, I support the suggested change to provide a framework to support the growth of a community and smaller-scale electricity export guarantee scheme. It has already been supported by Community Energy Scotland, and 318 MPs now support the Bill, including 125 Back-Bench Conservatives —more than enough to win a vote in the House. The concept is also backed by more than 110 local authorities—including my own, East Ayrshire Council—and more than 80 national organisations.

The organisation Power for People deserves the most credit for getting the campaign to this stage. It is estimated that community energy generation could grow between 12 and 20-fold in size over a decade, which could mean up to 10% of electricity being generated by community-owned projects. That would facilitate additional investment providing returns for communities, building better network resilience with small schemes scattered across the grid—and, of course, that is far better value for money than the £70 billion or so for two large-scale nuclear power stations. In 2021, according to Power for People, community energy groups spent more than half a million pounds on energy efficiency upgrades, helping 21,000 people to reduce their energy bills, while nearly 60,000 individuals were engaged in energy efficiency initiatives. This means reducing energy demand in the entire system. It is clear that the reinvestment of returns by community schemes is a virtuous circle.

A policy that was successful in the past was the feed-in tariff, which secured the deployment of small-scale generation projects, particularly small-scale hydro projects in Scotland. Those projects work: they are proven technology, and last for decades. That is why we need pricing certainty for such generation. Some form of export price guarantee could reinvigorate hydro schemes around the 5 MW capacity, as delivered by companies across the Scottish highlands, such as Green Highland Renewables. It makes no sense for them to have reached maximum efficiency and expertise in terms of designers and contracts, but then to have the rug pulled from under their feet and that expertise lost.

On that subject, I want to put on record again the plea to find a way forward for pumped storage hydropower. I was disappointed that the Minister for Nuclear and Networks, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), said at the Scottish Affairs Committee that that would not happen any time soon. That technology can be deployed right now. It is proven technology that can be deployed fast, and we should be moving forward on it.

On energy efficiency, the Secretary of State was again boasting that the stock of properties rated EPC or above has increased from 14% to 47% since 2010. Yes, that is progress, but it is progress based on addressing the easiest homes first. Clearly, if only 33% of stock has been addressed in 13 years, the target for completing the rest by the target date of 2035 will not be met.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend mentioned energy efficiency. Is he as concerned as I am that there was no mention of strengthening minimum energy efficiency standards in the Bill, but measures to create powers for the Secretary of State to remove European performance of buildings regulations in the UK are included?

[Alan Brown]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concerns. It looks as if that is another Brexit dividend in reverse, where we could end up falling behind our European counterparts as those regulations have helped to drive forward standards in the UK.

To return to the Government’s efforts to upgrade stock and meet the 2035 target, we have to bear in mind that, even as house building continues, new housing is not being built to the correct energy efficiency standards, meaning that as time goes on the number of retrofits that will be required will increase. That is completely illogical and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

On the slippage on targets, simultaneously, energy companies are finding it difficult to find homes that meet the criteria required for ECO4 upgrades. They are struggling to hit targets. It is clear that the Government will have to revise costing proposals for the scheme, or ECO4 will collapse completely. Of course that will mean the supply chain will move elsewhere and it will be hard to recover the situation. I ask the Secretary of the State to have a wee think on that.

Without action on housing and buildings, there is no plausible path to achieving the fifth carbon budget or meeting the 2030 statutory fuel poverty target. The reality is that about 7 million homes are now classed as being in fuel poverty. Energy efficiency requires much greater urgency, especially in the private rented sector. Now is the time for a proper fair social tariff; I would be happy to support amendments in that area in Committee.

There is no doubt that hydrogen production is needed as part of the net zero pathway. It can provide fuel for shipping, aviation and HGVs, for example. It will be vital for decarbonising some energy-intensive industries. However, there is a growing understanding of the reality of the cost of hydrogen production, which means it is extremely unlikely to be part of a large-scale domestic heating switch-over.

I have previously supported the H100 Fife project, which I want to see come to a conclusion as we need to have an evidence base. However, in reality, hydrogen looks to be too costly and is unlikely to be a solution. Low-carbon expert Jan Rosenow, who was a special adviser to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee when we looked at heat decarbonisation, has identified and looked at 36 independent studies that do not predict any large-scale use of hydrogen for heating.

I can see the arguments in favour of hydrogen blending and its benefits as an interim measure to reduce the use of methane gas in heating systems, but more than 20 organisations have written to the Secretary of State outlining their belief that it will be too expensive and just another burden on bill payers. We need clarity on what the hydrogen levy will look like. We know the Government want to pass it on to bill payers, but what is the anticipated cost to consumers? How can an additional levy on bills be justified at this juncture? When France and Germany are investing heavily directly in hydrogen development and with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, the Government’s levy proposal means the UK will just fall further behind.

Another concern that I have raised with the Secretary of State is about a clause in the Bill that could allow forcible disconnection from the gas network to facilitate hydrogen trials. It is really important that we do not go down the route of forcing people to disconnect, because that is no way to get the public on side.

There is a lack of joined-up thinking. The Government have said they have aspirations for hydrogen blending, but the current health and safety regulations allow a maximum limit of 2% of hydrogen to be blended into the system. At the moment, there are no proposals to change that legislation, so again the Government’s own targets cannot be met because they have other legislation that needs to be changed to make that happen.

Turning to carbon capture and storage, I welcome the legislation for the licensing and funding models, which is long overdue. This is enabling legislation, and it is clear that there are no definitive models proposed yet. There are also no clear funding pathways. We have the £20 billion a year pledge from 2028, but that has no corresponding budget line and it is at the behest of a future Government. This Government always say that they cannot bind the hands of a successor Government, so saying they can guarantee the £20 billion a year pledge is clearly at odds with that.

In the here and now, we still do not have certainty over the track 2 timeline. I ask the Secretary of State once again, when will Acorn get the backing it deserves? The Scottish Government’s 2030 targets cannot be met without it. Without further CCS clusters, the UK will miss its own targets as well. It is no surprise that the Carbon Capture and Storage Association has written to the Secretary of State outlining its concerns.

In conclusion, I turn to devolution. The Bill is littered with comments that the Secretary of State must consult

“the Scottish Ministers, if the regulations contain provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament”.

The requirement only to consult is not good enough. As an absolute minimum, the UK Government should seek to work with and obtain the permission of the Scottish Government where regulations relate to devolved competency. This is another example of a power grab, as the matter is set out in the Bill instead of there being collegiate working. I ask the Secretary of State to think again on this, because it is outrageous that 29 clauses have that wording. That relates directly to what I said earlier about the need to revise section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has full competency over planning, which should be a devolved matter.

Going forward, these matters need to be addressed, and there are many issues that need a strategic overview. I would be happy to work with the Government on that, and I will certainly bring forward amendments in Committee.

Powering Up Britain

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

RenewableUK commented that the budget and parameters set for the most recent contract for difference auction are currently too low and too tight to unlock all the potential investment in wind, solar and tidal stream. Tidal alone could produce huge amounts—up to 11 GW —of reliable clean electricity for far less than the cost of nuclear. The Minister claims he supports tidal, so why have the Government cut their funding commitments to it?

[Graham Stuart]

We have not cut our funding commitments; we have moved to a one-year allocation. The budgets are set based on our assessment of projects and where they are in the planning and permissions process. Those budgets, if projects can come forward and put themselves in a different position, can be altered by Ministers. I think we are in a fantastic position. We are the world leader and we have put in a ring-fenced pot specifically for tidal, so I suggest to the hon. Lady and her constituents that they should be celebrating Government support for tidal. We are the world leader, we are going further and our support continues. I look forward to visiting Scotland, and indeed Orkney, next week with a view to learning more about tidal potential, an enthusiasm for which I share with her.

Independent Review of Net Zero

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the work he has done, and for securing the debate. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part. As always, I tend to disagree with the contribution from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but I certainly agreed with most of the others.

There is certainly much to like in the report, with stuff to debate and, of course, some stuff to disagree on. Given that the review was commissioned by the previous Prime Minister, after her ill-informed leadership campaign in which she pledged to remove levies from bills and alluded to net zero as a costly commitment, I welcome the fact that the report was undertaken purely independently and did not go down that rabbit hole. The key thing now is what the Government do with the recommendations, especially in the short term, given that implementation for 25 of them is recommended before 2025. That is critical because existing carbon budgets are off track. We need re-alignment if we are to hit net zero by 2050.

I note that the term “Scottish Government” is not used once in the main body of the report. Although I accept that there is engagement, and that some good practice from Scotland is mentioned in the report, I would have expected more references to and understanding of where the Scottish Government are taking a lead, including on the roll-out for electric vehicle chargers, interest-free loans for EVs, the embracing of onshore wind, peatland restoration, woodland planting, the just transition commission, the £500 million low-carbon fund for the north-east, energy efficiency measures and the roll-out of zero-emissions buses. There is a lot of good practice in Scotland that the rest of the UK could learn from. More consideration is required of devolved Governments’ inability to deliver because of funding constraints and, in the case of the Scottish Government, strict borrowing powers. That also needs to be debated.

What is abundantly clear in the report is the need for stable and consistent long-term policy to be matched by funding. The Treasury cannot be a blocker. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, other countries are now taking the lead in investment. The Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is making it a more attractive place for investment in renewables.

The folly of previous chopping and changing, and the cutting of solar and onshore wind from the contracts for difference auctions as part of David Cameron’s “cutting the green crap” agenda, has meant eight years of investment lost overnight from one policy decision. That has stopped the deployment of the cheapest forms of renewable energy. At least I can say that I am glad that we in Scotland continue to embrace onshore wind. We have made it integral to the decarbonisation of the power sector. The fact is that Scotland generates the equivalent of 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables. That should be held up as a fantastic achievement and an example for the UK Government to follow south of the border.

At least the deployment rate of solar is now recovering and will soon stand at 1 GW installed per year. That means that, in a period of just three years, the solar equivalent of a Hinkley Point C will come online. Solar is quicker, cheaper and can be deployed where required, providing greater grid stability. I agree with the recommendation for a plan to get a road map for 70 GW of deployment by 2035.

I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kingswood about the need for a re-envisaged road map for carbon capture, utilisation and storage to be delivered this year. The report rightly points out that the investment landscape for CCUS and hydrogen is currently unclear, and that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

Additionally, the track-2 clusters need to be expedited. It is outrageous that the Scottish cluster remains a reserve when it is probably the most advanced of the CCS clusters and is likely to be delivered quickest. Acorn represents the worst example of the UK Government chopping and changing policy and withdrawing funding. The reality is that the Scottish cluster needs to commence for Scotland to meet the 2030 target of a 75% reduction in emissions.

The new Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), obviously knows how important the Scottish cluster is as part of the just transition, and how important it is for jobs in the north- east of Scotland. I hope to hear a more positive response, rather than holding with the mantra of, “It is okay, Acorn is the reserve.” Being the reserve is not good enough, and it needs to commence sooner rather than later.

For the record, I agree with the detail on pages 67-68 that we will still rely on North sea oil and gas as we transition towards net zero. Where I fundamentally disagree with the report is in its continued blinkered approach about new nuclear. New nuclear does not form a great deal or a big part of the report, and there is not much evidence, yet it still comes out as a key recommendation and one of the suggested 10 missions. I disagree with applying the phrase “no-regrets option” to the concept of new nuclear.

The report rightly identifies that four of the five remaining nuclear plants will go offline in the next few years, before Hinkley Point C will come on stream. If the UK grid can cope with that scenario, fundamentally we do not need new nuclear as this mythical baseload. It proves we can cope without nuclear. Nuclear is not flexible enough and is relatively incompatible with intermittent renewables. There are still the issues and costs associated with radioactive waste. If we look at long-term performance, we see that nuclear is not necessarily there when the wind does not blow. Over a 10-year period, each nuclear reactor is shown to be offline for roughly a quarter of the year, so it cannot be depended on to be there when it is needed. The reality is that we need to invest in other technologies, particularly storage, to balance intermittent renewables.

The reality is that the nuclear market has failed, because it is too expensive and too risky. There is not a successful operational EPR plant in the world, yet despite that and the ongoing performance issues at Hinkley Point C, the Government seem hellbent on signing up for Sizewell C and using a regulated asset base model that will transfer risk to bill payers. Some £700 million of taxpayers’ money has already been thrown at the development of Sizewell C. That money could be better spent elsewhere. Capital costs for Sizewell C will be at least £30 billion. Think what that money could do if invested in other technologies and in particular in energy efficiency. I welcome the recommendations about aggressive energy efficiency targets going forward. Not only will that make bills cheaper, but it means healthier homes, healthier lifestyles and demand reduction.

Finally on nuclear, the report highlights elsewhere the issue of rising sea levels. It is madness to propose building a new nuclear power station in an area subject to coastal erosion and at risk of rising sea levels. Also, the report demonstrates that nuclear energy has never got cheaper cost-wise, whereas all other technologies, including battery storage and power-to-X fuels, are now cheaper than nuclear. Figures 1 and 2 from the report make the case that we do not need new nuclear and should be investing in other technologies.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Conservatives embrace so wholeheartedly dirty, outdated technologies, such as nuclear energy, and refuse to fully embrace tidal energy, which has so much potential for our renewables industry, certainly in Scotland, but right across the United Kingdom?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before you respond, Mr Brown, just remember the timings that were agreed.