State of Climate and Nature

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the climate and nature crisis.

On the day that the Met Office publishes its “State of the UK Climate” report for 2024, the Environment Secretary and I want to share with the British people what we know about the scale of the crisis and explain the actions that we are taking in response. We intend this to become an annual statement to Parliament.

Let me start by setting out what we know from the science. According to the World Meteorological Organisation, the past decade has seen the 10 warmest years on record globally. It says that long-term global warming, assessed by a range of methods, is estimated to be between 1.34°C and 1.41°C above pre-industrial levels, and last year was the first time we saw an individual year above 1.5°C.

Today’s Met Office report shows that, in line with what is happening globally, the UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme events. The central England temperature series shows that recent warmth has far exceeded any temperatures observed in at least 300 years. Over the past 50 years, the number of days above 28°C has doubled, and the number of days above 30°C has trebled. This spring was the UK’s warmest on record, beating the record broken last year. Meanwhile, warming oceans and melting ice sheets have contributed to sea levels around the UK rising by 13.4 cm over the past three decades, and this is accelerating. The science is unequivocal about why this is happening. As the Met Office said this morning:

“This…is not a natural variation in our climate…human emissions of greenhouse gasses are warming the atmosphere and changing the weather we experience”.

We know that climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. Globally, we are losing species at a much faster rate than at any other time in human history. Here in Britain, a quarter of our mammals and nearly half of our bird species are currently at risk of extinction, with birds such as starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges under threat. The abundance of species in England has fallen by an estimated third since 1970, and Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.

The impacts of extreme weather and nature loss are not simply a future threat to our country; they are already here and having impacts on our way of life. We know that heavy rainfall made last year’s harvest the second worst in at least four decades, costing farmers hundreds of millions of pounds. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of our best agricultural land and over 6 million properties in England are already at risk of flooding. According to the UK Health Security Agency, there were more than 10,000 excess deaths—10,000 people losing their lives—during English heatwaves between 2020 and 2024.

As we know from recent events, rising temperatures place pressures on every aspect of our national life. We have seen this again over the past few days, with incidents of wildfires from Surrey to Scotland, disruption due to trains overheating, and hosepipe bans announced in Yorkshire, Kent and Sussex. The climate crisis is also a massive threat to our economy; the Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, published last week, says that the damage caused by climate impacts in a near-3°C world is forecast to cut our GDP by 8% by the early 2070s. Based on current GDP, that will be roughly £200 billion.

These are uncomfortable, sobering facts, and we should make no mistake: we must act on the climate and nature crisis to protect our British way of life, because no sector or part of our society is immune from those risks. Unfortunately, all the evidence suggests that this is just the start of the threat we face.

I want to acknowledge in particular the anxieties that many young people feel about these issues. My candid message to them is this: yes, there are real reasons to worry about the world they will inherit, but we can do something about it. Every fraction of a degree of warming that we prevent, and every step we take to preserve nature, helps to limit the severity of impacts and protect our country from irreparable harm. It is our generations today who have a unique opportunity to act, because unlike previous generations, we can see the evidence of the climate and nature crisis all around us, yet we still have time to limit the worst effects. The only answer is to reduce emissions, protect and restore nature and adapt to the impacts that are now inevitable. Let me take those in turn.

To those who doubt whether Britain can have any impact on the pathway of global emissions, the lesson of history is that we can. Before the Paris climate agreement was negotiated 10 years ago, the world was on course for 4ºC of global warming. Now, national commitments imply 2.6ºC of global warming, or below 2ºC if countries meet their full climate targets. We remain way off track from where we need to be as a world, but we in this country have helped make a difference across parties.

In 2008, this House came together to pass the world’s first Climate Change Act. That was under a Labour Government, supported by Lord Cameron, the Conservative party and parties across the House. Now, thanks to the power of our example, nearly 60 countries have similar legislation. In 2019, under Baroness May, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050, supported by the Labour party and parties across this House. Now, in part thanks to the actions at COP26 in Glasgow, including the leadership of Lord Sharma as COP president, some 80% of global GDP is covered by net zero commitments. In 2021, England became the first country to introduce a legal duty to halt species decline by 2030, led by Boris Johnson and supported by parties across the House. Now, 196 countries are signed up to the global biodiversity framework to halt and reverse nature loss.

The lesson is clear. The choices we make as a country influence the course of global action and, in doing so, reduce the impact of the climate and nature crisis on future generations in Britain. To those who say that Britain cannot make a difference, I say, “You are wrong. Stop talking our country down. British leadership matters.”

We also know that climate and nature action has huge potential upsides, and not just for future generations. It has the potential for better lives today in energy security, lower bills, cleaner air, good jobs, better health and wellbeing, and improved access to nature. This Government believe in sticking to our traditions as a country of climate and nature leadership. Indeed, turning away now, at this moment of all moments, when the threat and opportunity are clearer than ever, would be the greatest dereliction of duty and betrayal of future generations.

That is why one of the Government’s five missions is to achieve clean power by 2030 and to accelerate to net zero across the economy. It is why at COP29 we announced a 1.5ºC-aligned target for 2035, based on legislation passed under the last Conservative Government. It is why we are driving forward on our commitment to protect 30% of our land and seas for nature and to halt species loss by the end of the decade. It is why we made the most significant investment in clean energy, climate and nature in the UK’s history at the spending review, which will drive jobs across the country.

Because the actions we need are not just about Government, we are also determined to help communities take climate and nature action in their own area, whether that is driving the expansion of local and community-owned clean energy projects through Great British Energy or supporting mayors and local government to accelerate action. At COP30 and beyond, we are determined once again to use the power of our example to work with others to uphold the objectives of the Paris agreement, including with ambitious climate targets, action to accelerate the clean energy revolution and the protection of nature and forests.

As I have said, action on emissions is not enough on its own. We must also protect the British people from the impacts that we already see, and sadly, the greater impacts that we are likely to see in the future. This work, led by my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, requires action across society, from homes and buildings to critical infrastructure and our natural environment. We are now delivering Britain’s largest ever flood defence programme, investing £7.9 billion over the next decade in flood barriers and nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration. That comes alongside pioneering local nature recovery strategies, with measures such as tree planting and peat restoration, which deliver adaptation and nature recovery together. In my Department, as we drive forward our plan to upgrade millions of homes, we have consulted on expanding the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which can offer cooling as well as heating.

However, I must be candid with the House: we know that this is just the beginning of the reckoning that we need on how our country needs to adapt across all parts of society in the years to come, and this Government are determined to put climate resilience at the heart of our decision-making.

We have been at our best in the House when we have worked across parties on these issues. I want to thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the Climate and Nature Bill, and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for our discussions earlier this year in the run-up to that Bill, as well as the other co-sponsors, who highlighted the need for today’s statement. Let me also take this opportunity to pay tribute to current and former Members across the House for their tireless advocacy on climate and nature.

The safety of our citizens, our natural world and the country that we pass on is not a Labour cause, a Conservative cause, or the cause of any other party; it is a British cause, a cause of us all, and a cause that requires all of us to consider our responsibilities to the generations of today and the generations to come. I commend this statement to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Members do not give way when making or responding to a statement.

We are proud to have been a world leader, but it is not a race if no one else is running. If we are leading the way, we need to make sure that it is a path that others will follow. We must decarbonise in a way that creates energy security and prosperity, rather than forcing industry abroad and impoverishing British people. Why is that so hard for the Labour party to understand?

We see in the Met Office’s report that the demand for cooling has approximately doubled—a strong case for introducing more air conditioning into homes, which would improve comfort and reduce the burden on the health system during heatwaves. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to expand the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which, as he says, offer cooling as well as heating, may I urge him to speak to the Mayor of London and get the ridiculous restrictions on air conditioning units in newbuilds in London removed? We must move away from this poverty mindset on reducing energy usage. Paying for solar panels to be switched off, while refusing to absorb the excess demand to cool homes, is truly ridiculous.

It is time to take the global scale and nature of this challenge seriously. Offshoring manufacturing, like ceramics, does not solve global warming, but it does make Britain poorer and Brits unemployed. To build this Government’s 1.5 million new homes, we will use more bricks that at any time since the second world war, but thanks to this Government, fewer than ever before will be made here in Britain. While the Secretary of State admired the fast-paced build out of new renewable generation, new nuclear and low-carbon energy on an unseen scale on his recent visit to the People’s Republic of China, perhaps he was able to reflect on the factors enabling that: the opening of two new coal-fired power stations every week, and the cost of industrial energy in China being less than a third of our domestic cost. We cannot innovate, manufacture, and create growth and prosperity while our energy costs are killing manufacturing. I am afraid that this Government’s plans will drive up the underlying cost of energy for industry, and Britain will pay the price.

Only a year ago, Labour candidates were trotting out lines on how they would cut bills by £300. Since then, network charges, which account for 22% of an energy bill, have risen by over £100 as a result of the rush to build out the grid for new renewables. Cornwall Insights, an independent energy analyst, has called for the Secretary of State to be

“transparent about what the money is being spent on”.

Its principal consultant has urged the Secretary of State to be honest with the public about the impact of net zero policy costs on bills.

Of course, a clean, secure and reliable power source exists in the form of nuclear. We welcome the announcements of the commitment to Sizewell C and the small modular reactor programme, but the lack of ambition, the refusal to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor—preferably on Anglesey—the decision to decommission the UK’s stockpile of plutonium, the selection of only one small modular reactor technology, and the refusal to repeat the 24 GW ambition that we set out for the nuclear industry are frustrating. We could do so much more. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting Wylfa for a new gigawatt-scale reactor in the future?

It is indeed time for a policy of radical honesty. Global warming is a global challenge, and I am afraid the Secretary of State’s plans will have a negligible, or even negative, impact on global emissions. Sadly, he is driven by ideology, not by the practicalities of facing this challenge while growing the economy. We are telling the difficult truths; the Government are running from reality.

[Ed Miliband]

I will be honest, Mr Speaker: I just feel incredibly sad when I listen to the hon. Gentleman—and not in a good way. The trouble is that we are now in a situation in which the shadow Secretary of State goes into hiding when there is a statement about the climate crisis, because it is just too embarrassing to try to articulate the Opposition’s position.

The central chasm at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s response is that he and his colleagues have taken the decision to abandon 20 years of bipartisanship on climate. Theresa May’s promise to deliver net zero by 2050 was one of the great strides forward, but he is now trashing that and saying it was a disaster. Let us be honest: it is grossly irresponsible. We are expected to believe that the Conservatives oppose net zero because they know, 25 years in advance of the target, that it cannot be achieved, but they cannot possibly know that. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee says exactly the opposite in its latest report. The hon. Gentleman says he is worried about costs, but all the evidence suggests that delaying action costs more, not less. The CCC says net zero will cut energy bills and the cost of motoring.

We do not even know whether the Conservatives want a net zero target at all, or no net zero target ever. The hon. Gentleman said something the other week—I read his interviews with care in my spare time—about reaching net zero by 2050 not being based on the science, but he is absolutely wrong. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says:

“In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030…reaching net zero around 2050”.

The point is that net zero was a target that Theresa May adopted, driven by the science.

What are the Conservatives? They are anti-science, anti-jobs, anti-energy security, and anti-future generations. I have to say that I cannot put it better than Theresa May—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) should be quiet, because he used to work for her. This is what Theresa May, the Conservative Prime Minister just five or so years ago, has said:

“Those of us who advocate accelerating our progress towards net zero emissions are labelled fanatics and zealots. Ironically, the name-calling often emanates from ideologues at the political extremes or from populists who offer only easy answers to complex questions.”

I could not put it better myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Select Committees look at the evidence, follow the evidence and make recommendations on the basis of the evidence. Today, we have heard from the Secretary of State the evidence from the Met Office about the seriousness of the threat, the reality of the nature of the crisis and the fact that that will only grow. The shadow Minister missed something because he needs to acknowledge not just the costs of taking action but the costs of not doing so. The Secretary of State read out those costs: £200 billion or 8% of GDP if we get 3° of warming, according to the OBR.

Those opposing climate action in this place can also see the evidence that cheaper driving and home heating are already available to many people, and we should be making them available to as many people as possible. They also know that switching to low-carbon electricity as much and as fast as we can will make this country safer by getting control of our energy generation and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree that the patriotic approach is to work together to cut emissions for financial, security, nature and climate reasons?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. As I have experienced over the last 20 years, we have not had a culture war on climate, because the Conservative party and the Labour party chose to say that this really matters. The Conservative party has apparently abandoned its belief in climate action at precisely the time, as the CCC has shown—in carbon budget 7, for example—that this is the way to reduce costs for people.

I would make another point. I notice there are young people watching in the Public Gallery and elsewhere. What message do we send to them by saying, “Look, we just can’t act on this”? It is such a betrayal of future generations, who have genuine anxiety about what world they are going to inherit from us.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I thank both the Energy Secretary and the Environment Secretary for today’s momentous statement, which I trust will be the first of many annual climate and nature statements. I also thank them for recognising the role of Zero Hour and the campaigners behind the Climate and Nature Bill—the private Member’s Bill that I am proud to have brought to this House, with cross-party support. I warmly welcome the move to more joined-up thinking between the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and applaud the willingness of the Government to work across the House, even if that willingness is not always reciprocated.

However, this statement has missed a trick. The Secretary of State promised collaboration with campaigners, non-governmental organisations and communities. In reality, engagement so far has been very limited. If stakeholders had been involved, he might have acknowledged calls from the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to remove the threats to nature protection in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, or the Nature Friendly Farming Network’s concern over the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive. He told the Environmental Audit Committee that this would be a “public participation issue”, yet there was no consultation of the Climate and Nature Bill campaigners ahead of this statement. If we want to bring communities with us, we have to include them and listen to them. People across the country are already driving change in their communities, schools, farms and businesses, and to build a better, greener future, the Government should be tapping into that Great British human energy—to coin a phrase.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to be doing exactly that, with policies such as an emergency home insulation programme, solar panels on every new build, investment in cheap renewable energy, support for community energy, local nature recovery strategies and an extra £1 billion for nature-friendly farming. People need hope and a role in shaping the solutions. Despair is not a strategy and action is not optional. It is essential and urgent to protect our health, our economy and our national security. So I ask again: when will the Secretary of State meet me, my fellow Liberal Democrats, Zero Hour and the environmental non-governmental organisations to create an annual climate and nature Bill that is bold and ambitious, brings transparency and hope, and shows that the Government are genuinely bridging the gap between policy and delivery?

[Ed Miliband]

Let me start off in the spirit of continued generosity by reiterating my praise for the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill, and for the Zero Hour campaigners whom I met in a previous incarnation of mine. Their role over a long period, in pushing forward the Bill, has been important. I am very happy to meet her and the campaigners. This will be a continuing process, as I discussed with her, and I am happy to take forward those discussions.

Let me address the substantive point the hon. Lady made about climate and nature, because it is important. What the Government are striving to do is build the low-carbon energy infrastructure that we need in a way that is nature-positive. For example, the nature recovery fund that we are putting in place is absolutely about doing that. Some people do not agree with that approach, but we are trying to do two things: build the clean energy infrastructure required to get us off fossil fuels, which I know she wants to see; and at the same time, protect and restore nature. I am convinced that we can do that.

The point that I will end on is this. I just urge the hon. Lady to think. If we are to fulfil our net zero ambitions—these are stretching targets—we have to build the infrastructure. I say to all Members that the easy thing is to say no, but the right thing to do is very often to say yes to the energy infrastructure we need.

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

I welcome the statement, in particular the importance and emphasis that my right hon. Friend places on how climate change and nature loss are fundamentally linked and contribute to each other. I also remind the House that after the national health service, the thing that this country loves the most is its natural environment. Understanding the vital role that nature itself plays in tackling climate change will be vital in the years ahead. I refer in particular to the importance of saltmarsh. I talk quite often with my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) about the importance of peatland, but saltmarsh is also vital as a valuable habitat. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the light of what he has been talking about today, we will have a properly integrated spatial energy plan, national planning policy framework and land use framework, so that such climate-valuable habitats are properly protected?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I agree with the Secretary of state that it is very important that other countries follow our example. Of the five countries that are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, emitting over 50% in total—the USA, Russia, Brazil, India and of course China—can he tell us how many have adopted similar legislation? What hope does he have that those five in particular will follow our example?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Let me give him three examples from those five. India has a target of 500 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and a target of reaching net zero by 2070. China has nearly half the world’s renewable capacity, is committing to peaking its emissions by 2030, and has a target to reach net zero by 2060, but of course I want it to do more. Brazil has set out an ambitious nationally determined contribution. I think I am right in saying that as of March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% of electricity generation in the US. He is right to ask this question. Not every country is going at the same pace, and there are countries that are more sceptical, but there has been a decisive shift across the world on this matter; when I was Climate Change Secretary from 2008 to 2010, net zero was not even talked about. There has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I share the Secretary of State’s despair at the fact that the consensus on these matters appears to be dissipating. Does he agree that this is incredibly damaging for investment in the sector? Investors really need to see that whoever is in government, and whatever happens in elections, they have a Government who are committed to this agenda. Does he agree that it is completely wrong to say that Britain is the only country taking this issue seriously? In fact, China is absolutely leading the way in investing in the necessary technologies. We need to catch up and ensure that everyone knows that Britain is open for business in this sector.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend, who speaks with such expertise on these matters, is 100% right. The biggest enemy of investment is uncertainty. That is why I appeal to all parties to stick to what we have legislated for in this country, in order to give that certainty.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I rise not to call the Secretary of State an eco-warrior, as Members of this House are so keen on doing from time to time; in fact, I agree with him on the scale of the climate and nature emergency. I do not want to spoil the cross-party support here, but the fact is that when the Labour party was in opposition, it promised an investment of £28 billion in the just and green transition. Will he apologise to the people of Scotland—no, to the voters in Scotland—for reneging on that promise?

[Ed Miliband]

What I will say to the people of Scotland is that the Acorn carbon capture and storage project has been talked about for years, and it is happening because of a Labour Government. We have a publicly owned energy company, Great British Energy, and we have our clean industry bonus. This is a Government who are actually delivering for the people of Scotland, and those across the UK.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please! I need Members to help me get colleagues in. All colleagues from all sides of the House want to get in on this statement. Without your help, that will not happen.

[Ed Miliband]

That bit was great, though. My hon. Friend is so right: that is not where the British people are on this issue. The British people want action on climate, not a culture war. Frankly, wherever they live in the country, people want to pass on a liveable country to their kids and grandkids.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

Those of us who advocate for the North sea oil and gas sector are not climate change deniers. We are realists who understand that we will need oil and gas for years to come; that we would be replacing our domestic supply with imports that have four times the carbon intensity; that China emits in 10 days what we emit in a year; and that we will not transition to cleaner energy if we make ourselves poorer. I recognise what today’s report says, but does the Secretary of State accept that increasing our use of imported gas will only make us more carbon intensive in the future?

[Ed Miliband]

We have to get our use of imported gas down, and that is why we have to build clean energy infrastructure. This is what the Conservatives just do not seem to understand. If they go around the country opposing our clean energy infrastructure, it keeps us stuck on fossil fuels for longer—and look where that took us: to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that my constituents know more than most what it means to host clean energy infrastructure. However, the failure of the cross-party consensus is giving rise to quite a lot of concern in my area, where we face job losses at Prax Lindsey oil refinery. Can the Secretary of State reassure the hundreds of workers who face a very uncertain time that this is the result not of a move towards clean energy, but of mismanagement by the company’s owners?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks about an important issue, and I am deeply concerned for those workers and their families. There are serious questions to answer about the running of that company, and how it ended up in this state. On the day that the insolvency happened, I wrote to the Insolvency Service to ask it to look into this matter, because those workers have been badly let down by the company.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Nobody knows better than farmers the reality of climate change and the importance of tackling it immediately, so it is bizarre that their expertise is being ignored. We should stand with them. Extreme weather conditions are a threat to animal welfare, agricultural productivity and farming business survival. We desperately need a food security strategy. Already, we produce only 55% of the food that we eat in this country. How will the Secretary of State help our farmers to be resilient against the twin threats of drought and flooding?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great expertise on these matters, partly because of his constituency. He is right about the threat to farmers’ livelihoods from the climate crisis, which I talked about in my statement, and the need for food security, which my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes incredibly seriously. Indeed, the land use framework is partly about making sure that we have the land we need for our food security.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for this statement; I have waited 14 years for it, and I look forward to such a statement being given to the House in each of the next 14 years. One of the key drivers of climate change is deforestation. One of the key drivers of deforestation is cattle ranching and soy production. One of the key drivers of cattle ranching and soy production is City of London finance, which is used to bankroll what is happening. What restrictions can he place on the financial giants of the City to make sure that we stop this at source?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about the role of the City of London. There is also its potentially positive role. We are consulting on a mandatory transition plan for large companies and financial institutions, including in the City of London, precisely so that we can make sure that investment goes to the right places.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, including what he said about the importance of Britain showing leadership and rebuilding cross-party consensus. Even if we have not quite got cross-party consensus on the need for a transition to a green economy, does he agree that the fact that we have seen hundreds of deaths in London alone in the second heatwave of the year, that our farmers are facing the driest start to a year in my lifetime, and that people around the country have suffered from floods in recent years means that our need for resilience in the face of a changing climate cannot be a political football? If so, would he support a sixth Government mission—a mission to protect the British public from changes in the climate?

[Ed Miliband]

On that last bit, that is very much part of our mission to tackle net zero. The first part of the hon. Member’s question was very important. We hear what some folks say in the House, but we see what is happening all around us. It is not like we are gazing into a crystal ball, because some boffins have told us that something bad might happen in the future. This is happening now. If anyone had said 15 years ago that we would have wildfires in Surrey and in Scotland, people would have said, “You’re mad. There’s no way that’s going to happen. We’re not going to have wildfires in Britain.” The hon. Member spoke well about something very important. We need to look with our own eyes at what is happening.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Energy Secretary’s statement. Adequate electric vehicle charging infrastructure, depot charging and onshore power for shipping are all critical to the Government’s net zero challenge, and businesses and providers across the transport sector who are making investment decisions need a route map. What steps is he taking to prioritise grid connections? Will he commit to reforming the grid queuing system, so that projects that are essential to decarbonising our transport sector are brought forward more quickly?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks about an important subject. We are dealing with the grid zombies and the zombie queue. The reordering of the queue is designed to open it up to projects like those she talked about. The energy Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks)—is having a series of roundtables with the Department for Transport on precisely that.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has said that he wants to tell some hard truths, so can he tell the House directly—without spin and waffle, and without dodging the question—how much in cash terms it would cost the UK to get to net zero, who would pay the cost, and how much the UK getting to net zero would reduce global temperatures by?

[Ed Miliband]

All those details are set out in the Climate Change Committee report. The right hon. Member can look for herself. [Interruption.] They are set out in carbon budget 7. Actually, the cost of getting to net zero has been coming down. When I set the 80% target, the cost of getting there, according to the committee, was higher than the cost now of getting to net zero. I make the point gently that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of action.

[Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for his statement. I share his view that we have a responsibility to generations to come, and my constituents want to be part of a just transition. Is he committed to a just transition that protects jobs and prevents decarbonisation through de-industrialisation?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we take this journey, we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect existing industries and workers and give them a smooth transition. We do that by ensuring that we have levers that the Government can use, such as Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and our clean industries bonus, to intervene and create the jobs of the future. To give the example of the North sea, 70,000 jobs have been lost there in less than a decade because it is a declining basin. The answer must be to create the jobs of the future, and that is what the Government are determined to do.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

The impact of climate change is being felt today in my constituency. At Pegtop farm, there is a race to bring in the harvest after such a dry, hot spring, and yields are expected to be less than half of what they would normally be. On 23 and 24 September last year, we had extensive surface flooding, which flooded many homes. What share of the flood defence budget will deal with surface flooding, rather than river flooding? How would the Secretary of State characterise the relevant responsibilities of national and local government, developers, water companies, insurers and householders?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Member asked a complex question, so I might volunteer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to write to him on that, so that we get it right. I know—because he was whispering the answer to me—that he takes this seriously.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State not just for his statement today, but for his continued commitment to tackling the climate and nature crisis facing us. He said that this is something we must all tackle together, and there are huge parts of our communities, the faith communities, that want to do exactly that. While we welcome Great British Energy’s roll-out of solar panels on hospitals and on schools, can he outline any support that is available for religious buildings that want to do the same?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

Following the successful roll-out to schools and hospitals, we have had a lot of requests to expand the scheme and I am very enthusiastic about doing so. It is something we are looking at.

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

I am as passionate as the Secretary of State about achieving net zero across the world and about the decline in species in our natural environment, but that cannot be the only thing we worry about. I do not know whether he has had time to read the “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report produced last week, but it shows that the cost to the public Exchequer of achieving net zero will be 21% of GDP. We know that an argument is going on inside the Government and inside the Labour party about this very issue. This is a question of balancing the risks, because if the Government run out of money because they are overspending, there will not be any money to spend on reversing climate change.

[Ed Miliband]

I have read the report, and the bit that the hon. Gentleman did not mention is where it says that if we end up in a 3°C world, we will add 56% of GDP to net debt. That is the cost of inaction. This is the point. Nick Stern—Lord Stern—produced a report in the 2000s which said that the costs of inaction were greater than the costs of action. This Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal risks report sets out very clearly that we will lose 8% of our GDP by 2070 if we do not act. Of course there is a cost to acting, and the report sets out different scenarios for public and private investment, but the evidence in that report could not be clearer about the costs of inaction, and they are far greater than the costs of action.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I was privileged to host a net zero roundtable in my constituency involving many people from a wide variety of backgrounds, who were all appalled to see net zero becoming a political football and part of an ongoing culture war on the right. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the important work of organisations such as Humshaugh Net Zero and the North Tyne climate action group in bringing together widespread support for net zero, bringing it into our communities and embedding it across the body politic?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for Hexham and it is with great pleasure that I recognise the role of those groups. He and I have talked on a number of occasions about the importance of climate action to so many of his constituents, and I look forward to working with him on these issues in the months ahead.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Last week, 20 of my constituents from the Climate Coalition, the Mothers’ Climate Action Network, Our Grandchildren’s Climate, the Hampstead Neighbourhood Forum and the Camden Fixing Factory came to see me. They were very clear that COP30 will be a pivotal moment to restore momentum on tackling climate change and to tackle the misinformation that is on the rise not just online but in mainstream political parties. Can I ask the Secretary of State what leadership the UK will be showing at COP30 to ensure that we tackle this misinformation? More importantly, what is he doing to ensure that powerful international partners who may not be on the same page as us when it comes to climate change are coming along with us on this journey, because it is only collective action that will solve this serious crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues, and she is absolutely right. This is about what we do to engage with other countries. We had an environment dialogue with the Chinese Minister a couple of weeks ago in London. I engage with China, India and Brazil, all of which are absolutely key; Brazil is obviously the host of COP30. She is right to say that COP30 will be a crucial moment when we will show that we are continuing to take action, and that is what we are determined to do.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As a sponsor of the Climate and Nature Bill, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon. He is right to highlight that this is a national crisis, and many of us across the House are right to point out that it cannot be ignored and that inaction has too great a cost, but he will be aware that the costs are politicising this issue for many people in this country. Legislation is before the House regarding where and how pension funds are invested. Can he assure the House that he is talking to Treasury and local government Ministers to ensure that the maximum amount from those pension funds—particularly, but not exclusively, the local government pension fund—can be invested in green energy projects? That will widen the investment base and therefore hopefully reduce costs, depoliticising the issue and resulting in the greening of our energy generation that we all want to see.

[Ed Miliband]

I warmly thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his sponsorship of the Climate and Nature Bill. He is the voice of good sense—I hope that is not the kiss of death—on the Conservative Benches. He raises an important issue about pensions and pension investments, and it is one that I will take up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the fact that my local hospital will have solar panels on it thanks to this Labour Government, saving thousands of pounds that can go directly back into frontline services. What more can he do to ensure that public buildings like hospitals and prisons have solar panels fitted so that we can lower costs and contribute to our climate goals?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is completely right, and it is a scheme that we want to expand. It has been incredibly successful, and it is a no-brainer—using the natural resources of the sun to cut energy bills and release money for frontline services.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

The statement from the Energy Secretary sounded like a desperate attempt to save his own job, but he is right that the British people need protecting: they need protecting from the Energy Secretary, because businesses that I visit say every single week that his madcap ideas are killing growth, business and jobs. But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he can answer one simple question, which he has already refused to answer: by how much would the Earth’s temperature be reduced if the UK became net zero tomorrow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

The answer, which the hon. Member just does not want to accept, is this—[Interruption.] If he just listens, the answer is this: I believe in British leadership and in Britain’s ability to make a difference. The truth is, as I said in my statement, that when we passed the Climate Change Act 2008, 60 countries followed. When we legislated for net zero, many other countries followed. He talks Britain down; I believe in Britain.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank God there is somebody in this Chamber trying to actually save the planet! Net zero makes good common sense for lots of our constituents when they recognise that this is not just about climate security—those of us who have faced floods in our constituencies know how expensive that is—but about national security and the cost of living. Moving towards sustainable electricity would put both Rosebank and Putin out of business, but the Secretary of State will know that, on current plans, bill payers will be wasting £8 billion a year switching off wind farms by 2030 if we do not take action. How can we stop this transfer of wealth from citizens to corporations, so that we can invest in community energy?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The infrastructure we inherited was in a shocking state, and there was a failure to build grid infrastructure. The best thing we can do is accelerate building that grid infrastructure. If we can do that, we can reduce those constraint payments, and I look forward to support from all parts of the House on this.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Secretary of State rightly says that British leadership matters and that the choices we make as a country will have an impact on future generations. I do not doubt his personal commitment to tackling climate change and delivering net zero, but is he sure that all his Cabinet colleagues are on the same page as him, not least the Chancellor of the Exchequer given her unwavering commitment to expanding not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, Luton, City and Stansted, despite the advice and concerns of the Climate Change Committee?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes. I can tell the hon. Member that we have never had a Chancellor of the Exchequer so committed to these issues because we had the biggest investment in clean, home-grown energy in our history in the recent spending review.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

Welwyn Hatfield stands to be a big beneficiary of the social housing warm homes plan. It won a grant of £6 million, meaning that hundreds of homes will be upgraded and retrofitted, which will see bills and emissions coming down. Our colleagues from Reform have a flair for language, and they talk about “net stupid zero”. I am interested to know what language my right hon. Friend would use to describe a party that opposes a policy that will cut emissions and bills for people living in council homes in my community.

[Ed Miliband]

We are just advocating common sense. Why not use our natural resources to have warmer homes and cut emissions? I think that Reform Members are the extremists, frankly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The real driver of this statement is the fact that the Secretary of State is losing the argument with his colleagues, who are now challenging the impact of his policies on economic growth. He is trying to cover up the cost, which the OBR revealed last week will be £30 billion per year and £800 billion over the period. Businesses are struggling with power bills that are bankrupting them, and consumers are resisting the net zero demands to fly less, eat less meat and buy cars that they do not want. Does he not see a connection between what he says about young people’s anxiety and his disgraceful scare tactics today, all of which are to enable him to say that Britain is taking the lead? All I say to him is this: since the Paris agreement, emissions have gone up by 30%, so he might be leading, but he does not have too many followers.

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have been arguing about these issues for about 20 years, so I think that I am unlikely to persuade him. We usually have good-natured discussions about this, but on the idea that this is scaremongering, we can see with our own eyes what is happening, as the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) said earlier. What the right hon. Gentleman is advocating would be a total betrayal not just of future generations but of today’s generations.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State has been a global leader in this space for 20 years. We all know about the Climate Change Act 2008, but without his singular intervention at COP15 in Copenhagen, the world would not have agreed and would be on a worse climate trajectory today—the whole House needs to hear that. We now need significant afforestation and the repair of the world’s ecosystems—be they peat bogs, permafrost or seagrass—so what plans does he have to lead in that space at COP30 in Belém?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is very kind. To be frank with him, when I met a group of young people earlier today, I felt a sense of responsibility, because no country is yet doing enough on these issues and we need to do more. They are fearful about the world that they will inherit and look to the Government to show leadership. The issue that he mentions is important, and we will ensure that we make it part of our agenda at COP30.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Hosepipe bans rightly anger my constituents. The bans frustrate them and me because they speak to decades of failure to put in place provisions to prepare so that the changing climate is liveable for our children. How can people be expected to support large-scale house building, which those same children will need, when water companies fail to fix leaks, pollute our rivers and too often fail even to provide clean drinking water?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned a review of the whole system of regulation of the water companies. I think I am right in saying that a new reservoir has not been built in Britain for 30 years, but we have plans for nine new reservoirs as part of our action to address the issue the hon. Lady raises.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I had the real pleasure of visiting York Road nursery school in my constituency this morning to celebrate its securing Eco-Schools green flag status—with distinction no less. As well as being a sobering reminder of my inability to hold the attention of four-year-olds for very long, it was a powerful reminder that future generations will bear the brunt of our failure to take this crisis seriously. The truth is that we do not have to look to the future to see the cost—my local farmers are beset by flooding, for example. We in Hitchin are already feeling the pain of the failure to take climate change and the nature crisis seriously and to tackle them head-on. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that we will not shy away from tackling climate change at source, and that we will invest in mitigation schemes to tackle the issues that we are already facing right across our towns and villages?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s school on what it is doing and on its green flag status, which is really important. It shows that local action can really make a difference. Globally, I can give him the assurance that he seeks. What is so important—I say this to Members across the House—is that people look to Britain and say, “Are you going to lead? Are you going to show the power of example?” That is what we have done over 20 years, under Governments of both parties, and we need to keep doing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Llinos Medi.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Diolch, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd. Climate change is a huge threat to food security. In 2018, losses in the Welsh livestock sector due to extreme weather reached £175 million, which is equivalent to 9% of the total Welsh agricultural output. Farmers need support to protect their livestock and crops. Will the Secretary of State listen to the concerns of the farming unions about the removal of the ringfence for Welsh agricultural funding? It could mean less money for climate adaptations, at a time when they are most needed to safeguard food security.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises an issue that I believe is essentially about devolved funding, but the wider issue she raises about the costs facing farmers is so important. We are not talking about theoretical events or theoretical future costs; they are happening now. Farmers are facing those costs, and the hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that.

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

When I speak to young people in Kettering, and in fact when I have conversations with my friends, they tell me that they are worried about the future of the world that we have inherited. With that in mind, the climate delay rhetoric coming from the Tories and Reform is both deeply irresponsible and really disappointing. Can the Secretary of State outline that only if we work with urgency to take action will my constituents see the restoration of our natural world—a world that we can pass on to the next generation?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. This is an obligation that we owe to young people. We hold the planet in trust for future generations. The young people of today speak for themselves, but they also speak for future generations. Frankly, we owe it to them to act when the evidence is before our eyes.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The Met Office report and the Climate Change Committee have made it clear that we are unprepared for climate change, with progress on food security and nature restoration either insufficient or limited. The Lang partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative farming and nature-friendly farming methods for more than 30 years. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in DEFRA to ensure that farmers like the Langs can farm productively and sustainably and be resilient to climate crisis?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituents on what they are doing to find regenerative ways of farming. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary takes the matter incredibly seriously, and we have structures in place that can help to incentivise that, but I think he would say that of course we need to do more on these issues. The hon. Lady has put it very eloquently.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a pertinent statement when the planet is in such a critical condition. I also thank him for his domestic and global leadership. The BioYorkshire project will create 4,000 jobs, helping us to see a green transition but also ensuring that we have future agriculture at the highest level of science. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this Government, unlike the last, fund that sufficiently so that we can see a real transition in farming and in other areas of climate-mitigating science?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising what sounds like an incredibly exciting project. On all sides of the House—well, on a number of sides of the House—we can hear fantastic examples of what local people are doing. In a sense, that should be our inspiration. Government is trying to do its bit, but local people in communities across Britain are doing theirs as well.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Tackling climate change is a top topic among children and young people when I visit schools and colleges across Telford. Switching to renewables is a top topic among employers; it will help to reduce the cost of their energy supply. Renewables companies tell me about the fantastic, well-paid jobs that are available. Climate security, environment security and energy security are national security. Does my right hon. Friend know a single reason why this is not a key mission to rebuild Britain and protect our planet for generations to come?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right, and the emphasis that he places on national security is important. Our exposure to fossil fuel markets, controlled by petrostates and dictators, leaves us exposed, and that is what the previous Government did. This is an energy security issue and a national security issue, and that is why we need clean, home-grown power.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State outlined, the climate crisis is also a nature crisis, especially in nature-depleted cities such as London. In recognition of that, Ealing’s Labour council has imaginative plans for a new regional park from Horsenden hill in the north, to Warren farm in my constituency, creating new habitats, wetlands, and rewilded areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Government’s new nature recovery fund could help to support initiatives such as Ealing’s regional park, and that in contrast to the piecemeal approach of the previous Government, the fund will allow a more strategic and effective approach to restoring our natural environment?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right, and if we think about the recent hot weather, access to green spaces is a massive issue. It is also a massive issue of inequality, because in certain parts of the country people have such access, and in certain parts they do not, so the project that my hon. Friend talks about sounds incredibly important.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for placing this issue on the agenda. Nothing could be more existential or vital than tackling our climate and nature crises, because we live within the natural system, not outside it. We and nature are in this together, and nothing could be more important, or better for building the foundation of how we shape our communities and economy into the future. Industry understands that, and I have had the chance to convene industry and bring forward ideas such as the diversification of technologies, which we support, and the build-up of strategic national clean energy reserves. Would the Secretary of State meet me to discuss those ideas that are coming from industry?

[Ed Miliband]

We definitely look forward to discussing those ideas, and my hon. Friend is right about the interlocking nature of the climate and nature crisis, and climate and nature solutions. Those things go together. There are big economic opportunities, and my hon. Friend is a great champion of them.

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that rural and coastal communities are on the frontline of the climate and nature crisis, and that investment in clean energy, nature recovery, and resilient infrastructure is essential not only for protecting areas such as South East Cornwall, but also for unlocking new jobs, strengthening my local economy, and ensuring our future national security?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend was a fantastic champion of these issues in her previous incarnation, as she is in her current incarnation. I know her constituency, and I could not agree more with the work she is doing.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Rugby borough council and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust are hosting a “Nature in Focus” event this Sunday, and partnering together to buy trees for farmers to plant. In December 2024, my right hon. Friend joined me to visit the Urban&Civic-led Houlton development, where we saw Francis Jackson Homes fitting air-source heat pumps to its new build homes. We talked of our hope to go further, so does my right hon. Friend agree that through the future homes standard, which ensures that the vast majority of new builds will have solar panels, we are showing that a Labour Government and Labour-led councils believe in the concept of government and taking responsibility, and that we can change things for the better for future generations?

[Ed Miliband]

I wish my hon. Friend luck with the event on Sunday, which sounds important. He is absolutely right: for millions of people the whole warm homes plans is about cutting their energy bills, creating warmer homes and cutting emissions—and they go together.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Today’s Met Office report says that we need to put in place a highly localised network of rain gauges, as extreme rainfall can be very dangerous. In July 2021, Stockbridge in my constituency faced flooding after a torrential downpour one afternoon, following several days of soaring temperatures. A network of rain gauges will help to analyse the impact of climate change, and also help communities such as Stockbridge to prepare. Will my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s plans in that regard?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend draws attention to what sounds like an important recommendation, and as somebody whose constituency saw two once-in-100-year flooding events within about a decade, I know from local experience how serious such issues are. I am glad she has drawn my attention to that recommendation, and we will look carefully at it.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

I welcome this Government’s focus on the urgency of the climate crisis, and I know that many climate activists in my constituency will as well, because the evidence is unequivocal: only sustained reductions in greenhouse gases will slow global warming and the only way to that it is to accelerate the transition to net zero. Will the Secretary of State commit to staying resolute in the face of opposition on the commitment to net zero? Does he agree with me that as the first country to industrialise, the UK has a special responsibility to show global leadership in this area?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. As the Prime Minister says, action on clean energy and net zero is “in the DNA” of this Government. I was in the last Labour Government, but now we have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who are more supportive of this agenda, and who have moved it from the margins to the mainstream more than anyone else before.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, particularly his encouragement for Members from across the House to support the Government’s efforts—and those of any future Government who maintain that commitment—to reach net zero by 2050. Does the Secretary of State agree that the announcement by the newly elected Reform county council in Kent that it will axe all investment in net zero is not only a betrayal of my constituents in Dartford and residents across Kent, but particularly of young people, who deserve to inherit a sustainable planet?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not aware of that announcement, but it sounds like it is anti-job and a betrayal of future generations and will make people poorer.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his important statement. I say to him gently that I was a Mili-fan before it was cool. When I visit schools in my constituency of Harlow, including the wonderful Freshwaters primary academy, which I visited on Friday, and the Downs primary school, where one young child asked me about the declining number of blackbirds, the No. 1 issue that students raise is climate change. What would the Secretary of State say to young people in Harlow about the action he has taken to protect my constituents, who will face the cost of inaction?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I am not quite sure how to deal with them—it is a tough one. It has been so interesting to hear hon. Members from across the House talking about these issues in relation to the strong feelings of their constituents, so I reassure people in Harlow, including young people, that this Government are absolutely committed on these issues, and we are determined to ensure that they inherit a liveable planet.

State of the Climate and Nature

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Today, I am making a statement on the state of climate and nature, on behalf of myself and my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This is the first of its kind and provides the British public with an assessment of the climate and nature crises we face and the action that this Government are taking in response. This follows the publication of the Met Office’s “State of the UK Climate 2024”, which shows that the UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events.

We have also today published the “Environmental Improvement Plan 2024-2025 Annual Progress Report” and the first report on the protected landscapes targets and outcomes framework, which highlight the steps the Government have taken over the last year to clean up our water and air, reduce waste and restore nature.

Alongside this, the UK Government special representative for nature is today launching a report on “Unlocking benefits for people, nature and climate: Actions to jointly address climate change and biodiversity loss”. This report showcases how the Government are implementing joined-up solutions to meet their global commitments on climate change and tackling biodiversity loss.

Government action

The Government have restored the UK as an international leader on climate change and are reversing nature’s decline after years of neglect. In this year’s spending review, the Government secured the largest investment in clean power in a generation, as well as record levels of funding for nature restoration. This puts the UK on the path to clean power by 2030, bringing bills down in the long term, and creating thousands of good jobs for our country, while restoring our natural environment and tackling the climate crisis.

By taking steps like making homes more energy efficient and planting trees, we are mitigating the crises we face while also helping to cut bills and improve access to nature. At the same time, we are also committed to improving the resilience of our communities to adapt to the climate change that is already happening. We have announced the largest flooding programme in history, which commits a record £7.9 billion capital investment over 10 years to protect hundreds of thousands of homes, small business, and vital infrastructure. To help us improve further, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced that it will explore how stronger adaptation objectives can be set to improve preparedness for the impacts of climate change, which will be crucial to an ambitious and impactful fourth national adaptation programme due in 2028.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to update Parliament on the actions on climate and nature that we agreed with the sponsors of the Climate and Nature Bill. The first action was to deliver an annual statement on the state of the climate and nature. Alongside today’s statement, we are moving at pace to take the other actions forward:

Nature recovery: In June we announced that the Government will introduce a Bill by the end of the year to enable ratification of the “biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction” agreement. The Environment Secretary has also appointed 48 county and combined authorities to lead the creation of local nature recovery strategies. Last week, Essex and Leicestershire’s responsible authorities became the latest authorities to publish their strategies.

Consumption emissions and carbon leakage: We are ensuring that our UK decarbonisation efforts lead to a true reduction in global emissions, through developing the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism to tackle the risk of carbon leakage, and encouraging a circular economy, both domestically and internationally, which will reduce waste and emissions. Today, we are also launching the production and consumption transformation centre, a new partnership between the Universities of Leeds, Lancaster and Sussex, co-funded by UK Research and Innovation and Government.

Public engagement and participation: We will continue to engage with the public through this statement and beyond. Our net zero public participation strategy will be published later in the year and will lay out our objectives for engaging the public.

Improved join-up between JNCC and CCC: Finally, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Climate Change Committee have committed to a data-sharing agreement to help tackle these intertwined crises. This partnership will bring to bear a wealth of expertise in an integrated way, helping Government shape the right solutions for climate and nature.

The fight to protect our home is a deeply British cause. It is about protecting our way of life and our natural world from significant dangers. Only by bringing down carbon emissions, protecting nature, and working internationally can we deliver energy security today, and climate security for future generations.

[HCWS817]

Electricity Market Review

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about the review of electricity market arrangements.

The central challenge that we face is the urgent need to get off expensive, insecure fossil fuels and to deliver an energy system that meets at least double the level of current electricity demand by 2050. In doing so, we need to design the electricity network to ensure that infrastructure is built in the right places, so that we can effectively provide power where it is required. As a result of previous failures to do so, power now goes to waste, costing consumers in higher bills. That is one reason why reform is needed.

The task of this review is to help deliver a fair, affordable, secure, and efficient clean power system. The key question has been whether to proceed with zonal pricing or a reformed national system. Under zonal pricing, we would split the country into different zones relying on price differentials to guide investment decisions. Under a reformed national price system, we would rely on more deliberate strategic co-ordination in advance of investment—planning our network and areas of intended generation more closely and then delivering.

I have applied three tests to this choice in the time since the Government took office: first, what is the fairest approach for families and businesses, both now and in the long term; secondly, which reform can deliver energy security and will best protect consumers and ensure bills savings as soon as possible; and, thirdly, what will do most to ensure the investment, jobs, and growth that we need across the economy? On the basis of these tests, I have concluded that the right approach is reformed national pricing. Let me set out why.

On the fairness test, under reformed national pricing, there would be one national wholesale price, as now. As I have said, under zonal pricing there would be different wholesale prices in different zones. Lower prices will tend to occur in zones with more renewable energy and a smaller population, and higher prices in those with less power and more people.

This would be a significant departure from the current system, which, while it has some differences in network costs, means that wherever a person lives, they pay the same wholesale price for each unit of electricity. The challenge will be obvious to the House. People and businesses could find themselves disadvantaged through no fault of their own and many would see that as unfair. Such a postcode lottery is, in my view, difficult to defend.

The Government have considered whether it would be possible to mitigate these effects under zonal pricing. We have concluded that, while it might, it would be a very complex and uncertain process. And it would be even more challenging to do so for large businesses, given the way that they purchase electricity. Therefore, firms in higher priced zones, such as the midlands, Wales, and the south of England, would therefore face damage to their competitiveness. That is why we have seen so many business groups express such concern about zonal pricing. Indeed, today’s decision has already been welcomed by UK Steel, Make UK, the British chambers of commerce, Ceramics UK and others.

The next test that I applied is which system can best help deliver energy security, protect consumers and ease the cost of living crisis as soon as possible. Long-term reform is essential to cut costs and save money for consumers compared with the status quo, but there is a key question as to what happens in the meantime. The clear advice of my Department is that moving towards zonal pricing would take around seven years to complete in full—assuming no delays. Over that seven-year period, the costs of financing essential investment in our energy system would be likely to rise to accommodate investor uncertainty, at a moment when we urgently need to replace retiring assets and build a clean energy system to boost our energy security. This risk premium would be paid for by consumers in higher bills in the coming years. There is also a danger that it would leave us stuck on fossil fuels for longer by deterring investors from bringing forward the investment that we need for our energy security.

By contrast, reformed national pricing could be delivered more quickly and at lower risk. Indeed, some elements of a reformed national pricing system are already under way, including building network infrastructure, and we intend to proceed with other measures, such as reform of transmission charges, as soon as possible in this Parliament. Having studied this in detail over months, I see real risks that zonal pricing would deter the investment we need and that bills would rise in the transitional period.

The third test is the investment and growth we need as a country. Many businesses make decisions to invest based on the energy costs that they face. The industrial strategy took a crucial step forward in lowering the costs faced by businesses, and clean power will help get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, which has so damaged our country’s businesses.

We know that the biggest enemy of business investment is uncertainty, and the risk of zonal pricing is that it would create very significant uncertainty. Imagine a business seeking to invest not knowing for a number of years what zone it would be in and what price it would pay. This would harm investment not just in the energy sector but well beyond it, and it would inevitably risk reducing investment in our country precisely when we need it and undermining the tens of thousands of good jobs in constituencies across the country that our clean energy mission will support.

On the basis of those three tests, I believe that the best choice is to proceed with reformed national pricing. The key elements will include: effective planning through the strategic spatial energy plan to be published next year; national pricing reforms, such as making transmission charges more effective and predictable and taking relevant powers through Parliament to do so; and making changes working with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to improve the operation of flexibility and the balancing of markets.

Under reformed national pricing, we will build the transmission network we need to the benefit of all consumers, and we will be more directive and co-ordinated in how we plan our energy system. Each upgrade that we deliver will reduce constraint costs and ensure that consumers benefit from clean power. My Department will set out a reformed national pricing delivery plan later this year. Taken together, I believe that these steps can help to deliver a more affordable, fair, secure and efficient energy system and will address the problems that the REMA process set out to solve without the unacceptable risks I have outlined.

These steps build on what we have done over the past year to turbocharge our drive to home-grown clean power. We have consented three times more solar in 12 months than in the previous 14 years. We have lifted the onshore wind ban and consented enough offshore wind to power the equivalent of 2 million homes. We have backed the biggest expansion of new nuclear in half a century. We are kick-starting new industries in carbon capture and hydrogen. We are giving nearly 3 million extra families £150 off their energy bills next winter and upgrading up to 5 million homes to help cut bills.

Every energy decision that this Government make is in pursuit of protecting the British people from fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators by delivering clean, home-grown power that we control. It is in that spirit that we have chosen reformed national pricing. We are doing everything we can to ensure energy security, protect consumers and get bills down, and to ensure that businesses can invest for the future. This is underpinned by a commitment to fairness across the country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

This is the first time I am at the Dispatch Box opposite the shadow Secretary of State; I congratulate her on her new baby boy and welcome her back to the House of Commons. I know from my own personal experience that crying at night is challenging, but who is surprised, given the state of the Conservative party?

I think the shadow Secretary of State and I have a number of differences. The fundamental difference is this: she wants to gamble in the fossil fuel casino—she wants to gamble on fossil fuel prices. That is what the Conservatives did when they were in office, and it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that it is not true. It absolutely is true, and I think she needs to get out there more and hear what people have to say to her. It ruined family finances, it ruined business finances and it ruined the public finances. And what do they do? Do the Conservatives come along, after their worst election defeat in 200 years, and think, “Well, maybe we got it a bit wrong. Maybe we should think again”? No, they double down on a failed strategy. That is the first point.

The second point is this. The shadow Secretary of State says that we have a problem of constraint costs—that it is really a problem that we do not have the infrastructure that the country needs. She is absolutely right, but who was in charge for 14 years? Don’t just take my word for it, by the way. I notice that her colleague the shadow Energy Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), is not in his place, but he said that it is absurd that, after 14 years of Conservative Government, we are now in a situation where it is more difficult to build critical national infrastructure than it was before they came into power and that it costs more. That is what we have got: the grid system was massively backed up, the planning system was in disrepute, and the network and transmission infrastructure was not built.

The third point is that the shadow Secretary of State now says, “Okay, well let’s forget about the past. Ignore my record—airbrush it out. Let’s build the grid.” Too right we should build the grid, but she is opposing new clean energy infrastructure all around the country. She is going around saying, “Oh, it’s terrible. We shouldn’t be having this happening.” So at the level of strategy and what is the right thing for the country, at the level of her record and why we are in this position, and at the level of what she is doing now, I am afraid she is in the wrong place.

Now, what are we doing? We are actually changing all of this. In the period that the shadow Secretary of State has been away, we have seen a whole set of decisions made that the Conservatives talked about but never delivered. On nuclear power, they talked a lot about Sizewell and small modular reactors and all that, but they did not actually deliver it. We are—with over £40 billion of private investment in clean power unblocked and a record-breaking renewables auction.

By the way, the shadow Secretary of State says that I am somehow on the side of the wind developers. No, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am on the side of UK Steel, Make UK, the British Chambers of Commerce, Ceramics UK and businesses across the country who have said that this is the right decision for the country. [Interruption.] She mentions bills. Let me address that directly. My strategy and my belief is that a clean power system can bring down bills for good, because that is that way that we lower wholesale prices and get off the rollercoaster. Home-grown clean power is the answer for Britain, and I suggest that, now she is back in her post, she does some hard thinking about the past, about strategy and about what is right for Britain.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am sure the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that I very much welcome what he has announced. He set out three priorities: fairness, lower bills—including and especially in industry and business, where my Committee heard as recently as yesterday that energy bills are causing real concerns and something of a crisis in certain industries—and attracting investment, not least ahead of auction round 7.

I was saddened that the shadow Secretary of State was so critical of wind generation. I have her letter of 12 March 2024 to my predecessor as the Chair of the Select Committee setting out her terms of reference for the consultation that the Secretary of State has responded to. She placed great emphasis on the importance of investing in renewables, so it is a great shame to see her change of heart.

Under the reformed national system, does the Secretary of State envisage increasing opportunities to use demand flexibility, and to use it as fast as possible, as a key way of bringing down energy costs for domestic and industrial consumers?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise on these matters. I will come to his question, but let me say first that I like to talk about issues on which both parties have been enthusiastic. We have the second largest offshore wind generation in the world. It was started when I was Secretary of State with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, and it was continued under the last Government. It is extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State is now abandoning that and saying that offshore wind is somehow the problem. It is not the problem; it is the solution.

My hon. Friend is right about consumer-led flexibility. The key point about that is that it is voluntary, and it is a way for consumers to save money. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned Octopus Energy, which is one of the pioneers of this. We are in the foothills of what we can achieve here, whereby consumers are empowered, through things like batteries, solar panels, heat pumps and smart meters, to control when they use energy much more easily, to their benefit and the benefit of the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for sharing his statement in advance. He is right: making the UK a clean energy superpower is the smartest and most strategic way to free ourselves from our dependence on expensive, volatile fossil fuels. However, as we have heard, accelerating the transition to renewables alone is not enough. The Government have to ensure that the clean power mission ultimately brings down customers’ bills and creates a fairer system for households and businesses.

Energy bills in the UK are among the highest in Europe. Our high costs exacerbate cost of living pressures and increase fuel poverty. They also undermine our international competitiveness for industrial and commercial consumers and risk driving some businesses overseas. The Liberal Democrats have long called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale price of gas so that families in the UK are not left paying over the odds for clean, British-generated electricity just because of volatile global gas prices. We will be looking closely at the details of the Government’s plan following the review of electricity market arrangements.

The Secretary of State outlined his three tests. To ensure that British consumers are not exposed to an unknown level of risk, will he publish his cost-benefit analysis and set out what impact the changes will have on customers’ bills? We will also be looking keenly for the much-needed joined-up approach between planning for renewable energy infrastructure through the strategic spatial energy plan, and the land use framework and local area energy plans, which, worryingly, are a bit out of sync.

Renewable energy can be the cheapest, most secure source of power, but for many people, seeing—and feeling it in their pocket—is believing, and under the current system, many are struggling to see it. Alongside the changes announced today, I hope the Secretary of State will consider other Liberal Democrat proposals, just as they did when putting into practice our proposals for rooftop solar on all roofs. We would like to see free insulation and heat pumps for people on low incomes and the introduction of a social tariff for energy to protect the most vulnerable.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. There is not necessarily a monopoly on good ideas. On the whole idea of new build housing having rooftop solar installed as standard, the last Labour Government were going to do it in 2016, but it got abolished by the previous Government. It is an absolute no brainer. It actually unites people whether they like solar on land or not, so it is really good that we are doing that.

On decoupling, absolutely—that is part of what clean power 2030 will do. Gas will set the price much less often than it does at the moment, and we will be moving to contracts for difference rather than renewables obligations, which means that the reductions in price will feed through to consumers. That is key. We will publish the cost-benefit analysis later in the year, as our document published today states. The hon. Lady is right about the SSEP, which, to be fair, was started under the previous Government and will be published next year. That will be a crucial way in which we guide where the new infrastructure is built, precisely to get over the problem of the disconnect between the generation we need and the network infrastructure.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

As a member of the Select Committee, I enjoy that I can give a wry smile every single week when academics, non-governmental organisations, consumer groups and industry say they had so much delay and faffing from the Conservative party and now we are getting on and delivering.

On zonal pricing, it is fantastic to see that we are giving some certainty to the market, and I thank the Secretary of State in particular for setting out that we are going to start tackling excessive transmission charges. In Northamptonshire, Green Hill Solar is bringing forward a massive opportunity for clean power right on my doorstep. Does the Secretary of State agree that that type of investment, and the certainty that the statement brings, will create quality technical jobs locally in Northampton and reduce people’s energy bills?

[Ed Miliband]

On my hon. Friend’s point about certainty, which is really important, global inflation has affected the offshore wind sector. I take it from the comments by the shadow Secretary of State that we should just say, “Well, let’s not bother with offshore wind, then. Let’s just stick to gas.” We just have a difference of view. I think that would be such a mistake. It would leave us so exposed, and we know what happened in the past.

On my hon. Friend’s point about jobs, this is a massive opportunity. I had a chance recently to visit the site of the new Rampion 2 wind farm off the English coast. This is going to create thousands of jobs, as well as jobs in the supply chain. When I talk to hon. Members across the House, I am struck by how many places contribute to the supply chain, and we want more of that. We want those jobs made in Britain. That is the point about GB Energy, the National Wealth Fund and the clean industry bonus, which will be part of auction round 7.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Under the current system, the most expensive generator sets the clearing price for electricity, pushing up prices for consumers and businesses. Can the Secretary of State explain how the reforms that he is setting out today change that by moving to a pay-as-bid system and providing more affordable energy for consumers and businesses?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman asks a bang-on question, and that is why I hope he will support clean power 2030. The key thing is that if we can get these renewables on to the system, gas will set the price much less often. As this is a CFD rather than a renewables obligation, the reductions in price feed through to the consumer. This will have a genuinely transformative effect on the so-called decoupling that he and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson have raised.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this package of measures, which will reduce energy costs. The system left by the Conservatives needed to tackle three things: transmission charges, constraint payments and marginal cost pricing, by which the price of gas drives the cost of the whole system. I therefore welcome the strategic special energy plan, which will see assets built closer to their users and lower transmission charges, which comprise more than 20% of the cost of power. I welcome the new transmission lines and storage facilities, which will reduce constraint payments. These are game changers, but 40% of the cost of power still comes from the marginal cost of gas. Can my right hon. Friend elaborate on what he said in response to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and tell us whether there are any plans to decouple the wholesale price of gas from the system? That is the real game changer.

[Ed Miliband]

I will come to my hon. Friend’s earlier points in a minute, but his last point is absolutely crucial. The last Government looked at this and found it difficult to find a mechanism to do it within the system. A key thing that clean power will do is that gas will set the price much less of the time, and with ROs being phased out and CfDs coming in, that will have a dramatic effect. At the moment, the gas price covers something like more than half the generation, and that will fall to a much lower figure—I can give my hon. Friend the actual figures.

My hon. Friend’s first point about constraint payments is worth dwelling on. If we are worried about constraint payments because the network is not there, we are right to be worried. But if that is our view, we should support the building of the network infrastructure across the country. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are worried about constraint payments and the cost on consumers but that we cannot have the new infrastructure built. That is an issue and it is a choice— I would not call it a dilemma, exactly—that every Member across the House has to make.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

UK households and businesses pay almost the highest energy costs compared with other European countries. As has already been said many times, although it is worth repeating, that is because the cost of electricity is coupled to the cost of gas. I absolutely share the Secretary of State’s ambition to rapidly reduce our reliance on gas. Long, medium and short-duration storage will play a vital role in bridging the intermittency of renewables. What more can the Government do to rapidly increase support for these emerging technologies?

[Ed Miliband]

LDES, as it is known to the super-nerds—long-duration energy storage—is really important, as indeed are batteries. We now have a cap and floor mechanism for LDES. Ofgem, along with NESO, is looking at the applications that have been made, and that will now be driven forward. That is really important. What I always say to people is that we need all the elements of the system. We need nuclear—in my view—we need renewables, we need battery storage, and we also need LDES. All of them can contribute to a clean power system.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear that zonal pricing would not only waste valuable time in the race to reduce our reliance on costly fossil fuels; it would see my constituents in Ealing Southall, many of whom are on very low incomes, and indeed families across London paying more for their bills. Does he agree that this Labour Government’s plan to invest in clean, cheap, renewable energy and to reform energy pricing for the whole country as one is a fairer and more effective way of reducing bills for everyone?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question; she makes two points that are critical. One is the time it would take to get to a zonal pricing system, and the second is the arbitrary nature of who would benefit and how, and the cost differentials. I think we can see that there would be a great sense of unfairness about that. She is also absolutely right that the choice is not reform or no reform; the choice is: what kind of reform? That is what reformed national pricing is all about.

Above all—my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) referred to this—this is about getting on with it. It might be lost in the mists of time, but the Conservatives used to have a target for clean power. It was for 95% clean power by 2030, but they never really talked about it much, and then they sort of abandoned it quietly. The truth is that they used to understand this. We have got to build the infrastructure and the renewable power generation.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

The strategic spatial energy plan must ensure that new large energy projects in Wales work with and not against communities. There must also be a role for local small-scale projects, as these can deliver the large amounts of clean energy we need, with far less impact on our communities and the national grid. Can the Secretary of State say how the upcoming SSEP will put the needs of communities at its heart, and how it will support the expansion of small-scale energy projects?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, if I may say so, about the SSEP and, more broadly, about the role of community energy and, for example, rooftop solar. Even before we introduce the future homes standard, we are seeing an increase in the number of new homes with solar panels on their roofs. We have got community energy—which is much more successful in places such as Germany and Denmark—which GB Energy will be powering forward. Also, I am really interested in how we make it more worthwhile for individual householders to install solar panels. It is right for them and it is a way to cut bills. That is what is really exciting about it. We definitely see small-scale and community energy not just as part of our planning for the future, but as something we want to drive forward.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision today. Zonal pricing sounded like a good idea, but the reality is that the uncertainty about future arrangements was risking investment and would not lead to jobs in green manufacturing in my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith, or indeed across Scotland. To meet the needs of consumers and businesses, we need a more flexible energy network, so can he set out in more detail how he envisages that happening?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. The impact on Scotland is an important dimension here, because Scotland has really exciting plans to drive forward renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. It can be a massive job creator for the future, and it is something we are really focused on. One other issue with zonal pricing is that I fear it would have had quite an adverse effect on the Scottish green economy, which was a point powerfully made by lots of different stakeholders. I can definitely say to my hon. Friend that we are 100% committed. We think that Scotland has a rightful place as an energy capital and an energy powerhouse, and offshore wind is a crucial part of that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Thank you for allowing my question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must apologise to the House and the Front Bench for being a little late.

I appreciate the high-wire nature of the act that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team are trying to deliver, but there are two litmus tests in Scotland that are absolutely crucial. First, private investment is essential to make the journey to net zero happen. Secondly, Scotland is such an energy-rich country, as he referenced, and yet we are paying the highest prices for tariffs and standing charges. Will his statement make it easier for private investment to come in and deliver us towards that journey to net zero, and does he foresee lower energy costs for consumers in Scotland?

[Ed Miliband]

The answer to both those questions is yes. The first point the hon. Member raises is important and goes to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert), which was on the fears that lots of people had that it would dry up the renewables industry in Scotland if we went down the route of zonal pricing. That is why we have opted for the reformed national pricing system that we have talked about. To elaborate on the second point, building this clean power system that can lower wholesale prices, which is the absolute prize here, is the route to lowering energy costs for people in Scotland and across the UK.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Last summer was the hottest on record and this summer may be even hotter still. The world faces a climate crisis. To tackle that, we need to move fast to net zero, and Scotland’s energy sector will be crucial in this country’s achieving that. To do that, we need to encourage—not discourage—investment, and we cannot waste any time. Does the Secretary of State think the decision will help Scotland boost its energy sector and through that, this country’s fight against climate change?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise and passion on these issues. On his first point, it is worth saying something about this, and I hope to say more on it in the next week or so. The impacts of climate change that we are seeing around the world are the new normal, I am afraid, but they are not normal in comparison with the past. We are seeing some horrifying scenes around the world, and the warming of the planet makes them much more likely to happen, so there is real urgency, and he is right to emphasise that. He is also absolutely right that Scotland will play a pivotal role for the UK in answering the questions on energy security and tackling the climate crisis. I believe the announcement today will help in that endeavour.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Yesterday I hosted a roundtable of manufacturers in the rural part of my constituency. They welcomed the Government’s industrial strategy and particularly the measures on industrial energy prices, but they raised concerns about the grid connections in that part of my constituency. Will the Government work with me to improve these grid connections, because the Teesside region has thousands of jobs in clean energy and green industries, and I want all my industries to benefit from that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

The Energy Minister has just volunteered, unprompted— which rarely happens in this House—to meet my hon. Friend, so enthusiastic is he about discussing this issue.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of grid connections. We inherited an absolutely broken system that was massively oversubscribed, with a zombie queue, lengthening delays, and nothing happening, basically. That is why we have ended the first come, first served system and are doing a much more intentional, planned system for the grid. That is good for connecting renewable energy, but the other crucial thing is that by working out which energy projects we need and which we do not, we free up the queue for industrial projects. That is the key, and that is the work that NESO is currently embarked upon. I hope that it will help businesses in his constituency and across the country to deal with the obvious and acknowledged frustration they have on grid connection.

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for opting for a reform system, which will avoid bills going up in my constituency and provide the certainty to drive investment in our energy system. Does he agree that our clean power mission will be vital not only to generating lower bills and better jobs for areas such as mine, but to providing a future and opportunities for people growing up in the area, where a new Mona wind farm has just been approved?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it so well. When I talk to young people who are thinking about the jobs they might do in the future, from nuclear to renewables to carbon capture, I am always struck that, across the board, they know these are the growth industries of the future. There is a huge opportunity for Britain, including for her constituents, and it is incredibly exciting what we can deliver. This is the new case for climate action: it is about energy security, lower bills, jobs and growth, and doing the right thing for future generations.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his vision. On inheriting zombie systems from the previous Government, does he agree that it is remarkable that the Conservatives have shown no contrition whatsoever about the dire state in which they left our energy system? That resulted in the worst cost of living crisis in memory, and families in Ilford South and across the country are still paying the price.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. The Conservatives have shown no contrition or acknowledgment, and they have not learned any lessons—not a single one. They basically say, “We were right and the electorate were wrong.” I say to them gently—or not so gently—that that is a recipe for oblivion, frankly. It is time they took a long, hard look.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), for the extensive conversations that he has had with me and other Welsh Labour MPs on our concerns about zonal pricing, and that we felt it would fail the “fair and affordable” test that the Secretary of State has outlined today, so I welcome this statement. Now that we have had this announcement about reform national pricing, will he assure my constituents and businesses that they will see lower consumer bills as a result?

[Ed Miliband]

That is the key: this decision provides the certainty required. It is the fairer choice. It is the choice that will not lead to seven years of uncertainty, risk premiums and higher bills. It gives us the platform to work with industry to get on and deliver. If I have one message for industry, it is that now is the time for them to step up and come forward with these projects. We are breaking down all the barriers that they face, for example on planning, the grid and uncertainty. Our absolute determination is to get on and deliver for my hon. Friend’s, constituents and people across the country.

Electricity Market: Review

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Today my Department is announcing the final decision of the review of the electricity market arrangements (REMA) programme.

The REMA programme was launched in 2022 to consider how to reform Great Britain’s electricity market to deliver a fair, affordable, secure, and efficient clean power system.

On taking office, we inherited a decision on whether to retain the current national system in which all areas in Britain pay the same wholesale price for energy or undertake a major overhaul to split the country into different pricing zones depending on their proximity to where energy is generated.

The central challenge we face as a country is the urgent need to get off expensive, insecure fossil fuels and deliver an electricity system that meets double the level of today’s electricity demand by 2050. In doing so, we have to design the network in a way to ensure that generation and transmission is built in the right places, so that we can effectively provide power to where it is needed, minimise network constraints, and keep bills as low as possible.

This Government have shown already we are not content to accept the slow and unco-ordinated pace of planning and decision-making of the past. We know reform is needed.

Throughout the decision-making process I was guided by three key priorities: identifying which option would be the fairest outcome for families and businesses in the near and long term; which reform can deliver energy security, will best protect consumers and ensure bill savings as soon as possible, as part of accelerating to clean power by 2030; and, which is the approach that will do most to ensure the investment, jobs and growth we need right across the economy.

We have weighed the options carefully. The Government have decided to reform the system while retaining a single national wholesale price, which I have concluded is the best way to achieve a clean power system that is fair, affordable, secure, and efficient. This will see Government take on more responsibility in planning the system and determining where clean energy infrastructure is located, based on what is needed where in the long-term—rather than the fragmented, ad hoc approach that this Government inherited.

This will complement the fundamentally different approach to building the energy system and infrastructure that this country needs. After years of delay that has seen consumer costs and constraint payments rise, the Government are rapidly making possible the building of the network, reforming the planning system, and finally transforming the grid connections queue to get the projects we need for clean power and growth moving.

These changes will make it possible to bring down energy bills for good, by making the current system more efficient, ensuring low-cost investment into homegrown clean energy projects, and keeping down the costs of running the electricity network.

The key elements of reformed national pricing will include:

Effective planning of renewable energy infrastructure through the upcoming strategic spatial energy plan, to be consulted on and published next year;

National pricing reforms, such as making transmission network use of service (TNUoS) charges more effective and predictable, and taking relevant powers through Parliament to do so;

Improving the operation of flexibility and balancing markets through working with Ofgem and NESO, that will help to reduce the need for constraint payments, which are ultimately paid for by consumers.

Later this year we will publish a reformed national pricing delivery plan, focused on design and delivery and giving market participants and investors clarity on next steps for delivering these reforms. We will also publish the final REMA analysis later this year.

Reformed national pricing will ensure the benefits of clean power are felt by consumers in every part of the country, while giving businesses the stability and certainty they need to continue investing to upgrade our infrastructure to boost our national energy security, create tens of thousands of jobs and grow the economy.

[HCWS799]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

22. What steps he is taking to support rooftop solar power projects.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. You look younger every year, if I may say so. Last week, we launched the new future homes standard, which will ensure that the vast majority of new build houses will have solar panels installed as standard. This will end the absurd situation the previous Government left where new housing was built without solar panels. We are kick-starting a solar rooftop revolution, and the upcoming solar road map will lay out how we are bringing cheap clean power to families and businesses across the country.

[Lee Barron]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Only 20% of schools currently have solar panels. Brigstock Latham’s primary in my constituency does not. That is why its year 5 pupils have written to me asking for panels on their roof. They tell me that this would cut their carbon footprint, reduce bills and help improve their education. One pupil wrote:

“We may be a small school, but we can be big sometimes.”

Will my right hon. Friend support their inspiring campaign and perhaps visit these young community activists in my constituency?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the pupils of Brigstock Latham’s primary school on their incredible spirit. Young people right across the country care about these issues. Also, they are pointing out something really important, which is that we have this free resource of the sun and we should use it. That is why putting solar panels on schools and elsewhere is big project for Great British Energy.

[Dr Gardner]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, businesses such as the Bestway Group, which owns Well healthcare in Meir Park, and Goodwin International in Newstead are keen to invest in rooftop solar, but they cannot get national grid connectivity. In the case of Well healthcare, it will have to wait until 2032. Meanwhile, residents in my village areas are frustrated at the growth of solar farms on agricultural land when there are acres of empty flat roofs on industrial estates. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the many challenges and opportunities for transitioning to clean energy that businesses in my constituency face?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises some important points. The first is on grid connections. With the grid reforms that we are doing, we are going to end this zombie queue where projects are taking up space when they are not going to connect or not going to connect in time. That will open up the future to projects such as hers. On the point about industrial estates, I can give her a sneak preview and tell her that this is part of the solar road map. She makes important points, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) has volunteered to meet her.

[Mr Rand]

Thanks to Great British Energy, Meadway health centre in my constituency is set to have solar panels installed, which will cover its entire energy bills for the summer. My local hospital, Wythenshawe, will also benefit, saving my local NHS trust some £4 million to £5 million a year, which can be reinvested back into frontline services. Despite the doom-mongering on net zero that we hear from the Opposition Benches, does the Secretary of State agree that this shows the power of helping our public services and creating jobs?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on having hit the jackpot with the NHS benefiting from what Great British Energy is doing. He makes such an important point here, which is that the net zero agenda is about lower bills. For example, it is about cutting energy bills for frontline services and putting the money back into those services. Who could possibly be against that?

[Tristan Osborne]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. In my Chatham and Aylesford constituency, Clarion Housing is working with Octopus Energy in Snodland to install roof solar panels and heat pumps in social housing units. Can the Minister confirm how we can expand on such schemes, using the tenant power tariff for example, to reduce energy costs for our most vulnerable constituents?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and this is something that we are working on. There is huge potential in working with energy companies, with social housing providers and others to find ways in which this can be a true part of an anti-poverty strategy. This is something that we are working on, and we will have more to say about in the weeks and months ahead.

[Lee Pitcher]

I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the news that one of Great British Energy’s first major projects will be to install solar panels on schools and hospitals, and I hope that some of the 43 schools in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme will benefit. I have heard from local sports clubs that are keen to be part of the green energy revolution but face installation and funding barriers. Will the Secretary of State consider extending Great British Energy and other schemes to help community sports facilities to go green?

[Ed Miliband]

I love my hon. Friend’s idea; it is such a good one. Local sports clubs and lots of other community organisations can benefit from that project. I will suggest the idea to Great British Energy.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, The Times has told the world how old you are today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale]

Yesterday, a Minister said from the Dispatch Box that only 1% of farmland was being damaged by development, yet solar panels are smothering east Kent’s best farmland. It must stop. Given what the Secretary of State has said, what further steps will he take to protect our farmland and really do move solar panels on to rooftops, car parks and public buildings?

[Ed Miliband]

There are a few questions in there, and I will try to answer them as briefly as I can. Even for the biggest solar ambitions, less than 1% of land would be covered. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need solar rooftops too. That is why we have put an end to years of dither and delay, and last week announced that new homes will have solar panels fitted as standard. It makes total sense.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The solar panels on my roof started working last week, and I am very excited. If you do not have any solar panels, Mr Speaker, maybe you could give yourself a birthday present and ensure that you have an array, too. Mine were made possible by the Solar Together scheme organised by Bath and North East Somerset council. Such schemes are so important to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. Will the Secretary of State ensure that funding for those schemes will continue?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on having taken that step. She makes an important point: lots of people want to do this, but there is an up-front cost barrier. One thing that my Department is doing is working with the private sector, social housing providers, as I have said, and others to ask how we might break down up-front cost barriers so that more people, particularly those who cannot necessarily afford those costs, can benefit from solar power and cheaper bills.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Grand Union Community Energy in my constituency is a non-profit community group that has done excellent work in Kings Langley to raise funding to install solar panels on the roofs of local schools, developments and car parks. It also educates local residents on how they can utilise community energy to reduce energy bills, which we have all seen rise under this Government. What steps are being taken across Government to ensure that community projects such as Grand Union Community Energy are implemented more widely?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his excellent question. I 100% agree with him about the role of community energy providers. I hope that he can persuade his Front Benchers to convert to supporting Great British Energy, because one of things that it will do—we will be happy to work with him on this—is unleash a wave of community energy across our country, doing precisely the things that he talks about.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I am delighted that the Government have seen the light on solar photovoltaics and recognised what an important step they are on the path to the sunlit uplands of homes that are genuinely fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State recognise that energy efficiency is a crucial part of energy security, and will he meet me to discuss how the future homes standard might ensure that every home is truly fit for the future, including by being zero carbon?

[Ed Miliband]

Let me first wish the hon. Member luck on her leadership bid. Anyone who wants to be a leader of a political party should take the idea under advisement, in my experience. I see the former Liberal Democrat leader, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), nodding. We want the future homes standard to really work. It was a plan that the previous Labour Government had for 2016, but the Conservative Government got rid of it. We want it to make a real difference, and it makes financial sense, because it means that we do not have to retrofit homes at much greater cost.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker—your 40th, I am guessing. I was really impressed that Holy Trinity church in Colden Common, which is a heritage building, managed to increase its energy efficiency rating from F to A. Can the Secretary of State give any advice or guidance to communities who wish to improve heritage buildings, listed buildings and other old properties, which often face planning issues when seeking to install solar panels or insulation, or take other energy efficiency measures?

[Ed Miliband]

Let me congratulate the hon. Member’s community group. This whole set of questions has shown the huge untapped potential in the constituencies of Members in all parts of the House. I will say two things in answer. First, I will take this back to GB Energy, because I think the role of community groups as potential partners is really important. Secondly, he makes an important point on planning guidance. Sometimes the planning rules are okay, but the guidance is the problem, and it creates bureaucratic hurdles. I am working with the Minister for Housing and Planning to make sure the guidance is clear to local councils where there are barriers that they should not be putting in the way.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

4. What steps he is taking to increase grid capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to improve the energy efficiency of homes.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

In 2025-26 alone, we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year, we will set out more details of a warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes, and there will be more details in the spending review tomorrow.

[Lisa Smart]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. My Lib Dem predecessor, the much-missed Andrew Stunell, pushed for the zero carbon homes programme during his time in the 2010 to 2015 Government, having brought in his first Bill on that subject back in 2004. Sadly, those standards were scrapped as soon as the Conservatives were governing on their own. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had those standards been reached in 2016, households would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. The Secretary of State earlier mentioned the future homes standard, which is bringing in welcome steps on solar panels and so on. When will the Government go further to reach zero carbon homes standards with a fabric-first approach?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises an important question. The failure to have a zero carbon homes standard or future homes standard in place has meant that we have built over 1 million homes since then that are now going to have to be retrofitted. That makes no financial sense. It is right to put those upgrades in as standard from the get-go, and we have done a lot of work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and house builders to make sure that can be done in a way that also means we can build lots of homes.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

What is the Secretary of State doing to make it more affordable for households to make their homes energy-efficient? The current model is that those who can afford to outlay some funding then get a taxpayer-funded subsidy, but those who cannot put down those first few thousand do not get that support.

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am working with the Minister for Energy Consumers and others across Government on this as part of the warm homes plan. We have to make sure that those who can least afford it can take advantage of the huge opportunities of insulation, solar panels and batteries.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Warm wishes for your birthday, Mr Speaker—and I am going to talk about warmth, as you might expect. Over the last decade, we have seen so many households living in Dickensian conditions, with dark, damp and cold homes, and having to choose between heating and eating. With the warm homes plan widely recognised as the most cost-effective way of making homes warmer, healthier and cheaper to heat, can the Secretary of State confirm exactly how many homes will be covered? Is the current scale of the plan truly sufficient to meet the challenge we face?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to be ambitious on these issues. Energy efficiency makes such sense for our country. We committed in our manifesto to upgrade 5 million homes and we intend to meet that commitment. I do not want to steal the Chancellor’s thunder, but we will be saying more about that tomorrow.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

11. What steps he plans to take in relation to the Rosebank oilfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Since the last Energy Security and Net Zero oral questions, the Government have confirmed that rooftop solar panels will be standard for all new build homes, delivered the first 11 solar on schools projects, scrapped the absurd 1-metre heat pump rule, secured Royal Assent for the Great British Energy Bill and, alongside Ofgem, delivered compensation for 40,000 victims of the prepayment meter scandal that happened under the last Government.

[Alice Macdonald]

The east of England has a unique energy mix from offshore wind, hydrogen and nuclear. I welcome the game-changing investment in Sizewell C today. Can I ask specifically about wind? A new report from EastWind and Opergy says that in the east of England, we need more than 6,500 extra offshore wind farm workers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the east of England is central to our energy mission, and can he outline how we will deliver those skilled jobs?

[Ed Miliband]

The east of England will be a clean energy powerhouse for the country. My hon. Friend raises an important issue about workforce, and we will be publishing the workforce plan soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

In the dim and distant past, in 2023, the Secretary of State described the Rosebank oilfield as

“a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”.

Does he still agree with that?

[Ed Miliband]

As with any application, there is a process that my Department will go through. We will look at any application in a fair and objective way.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

T3. I forgot to say this earlier, Mr Speaker: a very happy birthday from me and my constituents.I commend the Secretary of State for seeing the need to reform our energy sector, given that people across north Wales are currently paying some of the highest energy bills in the country. Will he assure me that any proposed alternative to the current energy model will not put any one nation or region at a relative disadvantage?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

T8. Standing order charges are making energy bills unaffordable, particularly for those on lower incomes. What steps are Ministers taking to address this?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point about the level of standing order charges, and this is something that Ofgem has consulted on. The complexity is that if we redistribute standing order charges, it can have significant adverse distributional effects, but Ofgem is seeking to have low standing order charges for some customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

T9. Research from Centrica, which is headquartered on my patch, shows that Hive has saved domestic customers half a billion pounds on their energy bills since its inception. Does the Secretary of State agree that smart data, which gives consumers the ability to control their energy use without the need for top-down bans, taxes and mandates, should be a key plank of the warm homes plan?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Minimum half-hourly charges will also help customers to use smart solutions and make savings, and all the evidence collected under the last Government shows that when consumer-led flexibility was offered, people really took advantage of it.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Making community energy the centrepiece of the Government’s clean power plan will foster support for new schemes by putting the public in the driving seat to choose where, and at what scale, projects can fit into local landscapes. To unleash the full potential of community energy, will Ministers consider implementing the long-standing proposals to enable these schemes to sell electricity directly to local people?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

T10. In 2026, Formula 1 will be using a fully sustainable drop-in fuel in all its cars. Does the Secretary of State agree that this provides an exciting opportunity for the UK to lead the world in using research and development from Formula 1 to support the pursuit of net zero for all motorists, and will he agree to meet me and representatives of motor sport to discuss this issue further?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes. That sounds really good.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. At the former Chatterley Whitfield colliery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, the council has launched an ambitious plan to go from black to green, creating a combined digital and eco park that includes an AI growth zone. Will the Secretary of State meet me—alongside my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), who has championed this cause, and partners—to see for himself the potential of our coalfield communities?

[Ed Miliband]

That also sounds really good, and it sounds like a really important initiative. The idea of AI growth zones, which have been promoted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Technology and Innovation, is great, and I congratulate my hon. Friend.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

May I extend an invite to the Secretary of State to come to Aberdeen and meet the highly skilled energy workforce, whose jobs are being put at risk as a result of his policies?

[Ed Miliband]

I absolutely meet North sea workers and companies. What we need to do for them is build the clean energy future so that they can transition. That is about carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and offshore wind, and it is about nuclear as well—something that SNP Members oppose. This Government are going to make the investments to make it happen.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Speaker.

The Minister may know that we used to have nuclear power in Ayrshire, creating many well-paying jobs. Does he think we could see small modular reactors at Hunterston, and what does he think of the SNP’s abject failure to bring nuclear to Scotland, even though it has planned for an independent Scotland to rely on English nuclear?

[Ed Miliband]

The SNP’s is an anti-jobs, anti-investment and anti-clean energy position, and SNP Members should be ashamed of themselves.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

During the last election campaign, the Secretary of State said he would cut energy bills by £300. Could he set out for families and small businesses in Bridgwater the timescale for fulfilling that promise?

[Ed Miliband]

We said we would cut energy bills by up to £300 by 2030, and that remains our commitment.

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

Penn-bloodh lowen, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but I am concerned that far less attention has been given to another low-carbon, low marginal cost, firm baseload power source—deep geothermal. By some estimates, there are over 30 GW of geothermal energy potential in the Cornish granite batholith alone. What are the Government doing to assess and unlock this untapped geothermal potential?

Nuclear Power: Investment

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement about Government plans for investment in new nuclear power.

Sixteen years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary I delivered a statement to this House identifying potential sites for new nuclear. I said:

“We need to use all available low-carbon sources… New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change, and it will be good for jobs too”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2009; Vol. 499, c. 31.]

That was true back then, and it is even more true today. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the cost of living crisis that followed showed how vulnerable we are as a country because of our dependence on fossil fuels, at the whim of markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The imperative of energy security and the demands of the climate crisis mean that we must shift as fast as possible to clean, home-grown power. The demand for that power, as we shift away from gas, is expected to at least double by 2050, so we need all the low-carbon sources possible to meet the demands we face.

The advice from experts, including the Climate Change Committee, is clear: we need new nuclear to meet our climate obligations. This Government support new nuclear because of our belief that the climate crisis is the greatest long-term threat facing our country and our world, not in spite of it; because of the imperative of energy security; and because of the good, skilled jobs that nuclear provides. In Britain today, there are too few industries that offer the secure, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions that the British people desire and deserve. Time and again, I have heard from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities. For all these reasons, the Government are taking decisive steps today to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain.

First, back in the late 2000s, when I was Energy Secretary, I identified Sizewell as a potential site for new nuclear. It has taken 16 years, but I am incredibly proud that today we are announcing £14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C, the first Government-funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s—a strategic partnership with France, with EDF intending to invest alongside us.

I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) and for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) in advocating for this project and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her advocacy for nuclear as a whole. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who is not in his place, when he was Minister for nuclear.

Sizewell C will power the equivalent of around 6 million homes with clean, home-grown energy for 60 years, and will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain, supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction and creating 1,500 apprenticeships—well-paid, highly skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank the GMB, Unite, and Prospect trade unions, which are brilliant champions for the nuclear industry. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion-worth of contracts with 311 companies, and will eventually work with 3,500 suppliers in all four nations of the UK.

This project is good value for money for the taxpayer, because there will be a clear economic return on the investment, and for the bill payer, because all the due diligence we have done demonstrates that the cost of the clean power it will supply will be cheaper than the alternative. We expect the final investment decision on the project, including through the capital raise from the private sector, to be completed in the summer, when we will set out further detail. This is a new generation of nuclear power, promised for years and delivered by this Labour Government.

Secondly, small modular reactors offer a huge industrial opportunity for our country, and we are determined to harness Britain’s nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in this new technology. I can inform the House that following a rigorous two-year competition, today Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK’s first SMRs, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature. This initial project could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around 3 million homes.

In the spending review, we are committing to the public investment needed to get the SMR programme off the ground, with more than £2.5 billion in funding over the period. The project will be delivered by Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned company headquartered in Warrington—an allied company to Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to Government approvals, the contracts will be signed later this year. Our aim is to deliver one of Europe’s first SMR fleets, leading the world in the nuclear technologies of the future, with more good jobs and energy security funded and made possible by this Labour Government.

Thirdly, beyond the immediate horizon, nuclear fusion offers the potential of an energy-abundant future. Britain already leads, thanks to the pioneering work of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, but unlike in the past, we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today, we are pledging to invest more than £2.5 billion in nuclear fusion, including in the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme, which will help to progress the new prototype fusion plant at West Burton. I congratulate the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, on her tireless advocacy for this project, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on their advocacy. This will be the first fusion plant of its kind in the world, and it will be on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Under a Labour Government, Britain will lead the clean energy transition and trailblaze the technologies of the future.

Fourthly, our nuclear ambitions do not stop there. As we move ahead on these projects, we see huge potential right across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector-led advanced nuclear projects—advanced modular reactors and SMRs—to be deployed in the UK. And we will task Great British Energy Nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals, with the National Wealth Fund exploring potential investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is that if it wants to build new nuclear, Britain is open for business.

I can also tell the House that, following the incredible campaigning work of my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), my Department has asked the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Cumberland council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside, delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.

We also know that this is an industry that demands long-term thinking. Therefore, having announced these steps today, we will build on our 2030 clean power action plan and set out our plans for the energy system, including our ambitions and next steps on nuclear, into the 2030s and beyond.

Taken together, the steps that I have announced today will kick off the biggest nuclear building programme that Britain has seen in half a century, doubling down on our nuclear strength to take the latest step forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for our country, this is what it is all about. For too long, our country has not made the crucial investments in energy or infrastructure that we need. The British people have paid the price for this short-sighted failure to invest—in lower living standards, insecurity and declining public services. This week’s announcements signal a decisive change in approach—to invest in the future and make the right choice for energy security, the right choice for jobs, the right choice for climate, our children and grandchildren, the right choice for Britain, and the right choice of investment over decline. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.

Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?

This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?

Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?

Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology.

[Ed Miliband]

I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.

On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.

In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on delivering on his promise from 2009 and confirming Sizewell C, along with the vast array of commitments to a bright nuclear future for this country. The Select Committee looks forward to our inquiry in the autumn into the future of nuclear; we will be taking evidence and making recommendations to support the work that the Secretary of State has set out. We visited Sizewell C, and I also visited the nuclear physics department at the University of Liverpool. I learned in both cases about the jobs that will be available across the country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he sees this as the start of both gigawatt construction of new nuclear and a big expansion into SMRs and AMRs, which are still a nascent technology, to support a very good future for nuclear generation in this country?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks very well on this subject. I agree with him about the huge jobs potential from new nuclear and the timelines. My priority when we came into office was to get these things over the line, because there had been so many promises made by the last Government. Long-term promises were made under Boris Johnson for 2050, but they did not deliver anything towards the 24 GW target. My priority was to get on and deliver these things and get them over the line, which we are doing. Then we can look at what the energy needs are going forward and how we meet them. I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear has an essential part to play, alongside all the other clean energy technologies; electricity demand is going to double by 2050, so we need all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I cannot help but wonder whether the Secretary of State imagined when he stood at his Dispatch Box back in 2009 that he would be back in 2025 still announcing funding for the same project.

We support investment in clean, home-grown energy. Small modular nuclear reactors have real potential to reduce our dependence on foreign gas—from tyrants like Putin—and help bring down bills, so we welcome the Government’s backing of the nascent technology of small modular reactors and their choice of Rolls-Royce, which is recognised as a first mover across all of Europe. That is where the focus should be—not on large-scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades and so often go over budget. We have to ensure that this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is very real. The Government must be transparent about how this will be paid for, because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security is to invest in home-grown renewables such as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, and to upgrade our national grid to deliver that clean power. We look forward to seeing more detail on the long-overdue reform of the outdated first come, first served grid connection system, which is holding back renewable energy projects and could even delay the roll-out of new SMRs. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction, but the real test is in the delivery of cheaper bills, stronger energy security and a modern energy grid fit for the future.

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I feel bad about mentioning this, but she has slightly airbrushed out the role of the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was Energy Secretary for a period, but we will “Trotsky”—to use a familial term of origin—that out of the record.

I sincerely welcome her support for this programme, and she puts the case very well: it is a lesson to some of the Opposition Members sitting behind her that we need all the clean energy technologies; we should not choose between them. Being in favour of nuclear does not mean that we are against wind. I am the biggest enthusiast for offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and all these technologies. Let us have all of them, to get off fossil fuels and meet our electricity and energy demand.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday; you were born only a few months after the opening of Calder Hall, the world’s first civil nuclear power plant, so you share that.

The Secretary of State has made the major decision, which is incredibly welcome in west Cumbria, to unlock up to 200 acres of land at Moorside for clean energy projects, including new nuclear. This issue has been stuck for many years, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts on it, the decision he made and the work he has done with the Cumberland Nuclear Future Board to make it happen. Will the Secretary of State continue to work with me and local partners to drive the project through so that we get something delivered at the site? Secondly, can he say more about the regulatory taskforce that is being undertaken at the moment so that we can cut through the bureaucracy and build reactors more quickly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

To reassure you, Mr Speaker, you look much younger than the Calder Hall nuclear power station.

[Mr Speaker]

And it is being decommissioned—that is even worse!

[Ed Miliband]

Absolutely right—there will be no decommissioning of you, Mr Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on showing incredible leadership for his constituents on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him and other colleagues on these questions. He is right about the potential; he is also right about the regulatory question. We have some of the highest standards of regulation in the world, but it is always right that we look at how we can improve standards of regulation and avoid changes in regulation during the course of projects, which is crucial for success. That is the work we are getting on with.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Member for part of what he said, if not most of it. We have a fundamental disagreement. Solar and wind offer cheap power for our country—why would we possibly say no to that? The biggest threat to the countryside is the climate crisis, and solar and wind alongside nuclear are the way to tackle it.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I, too, wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I very much welcome the statement, which is about the future-visioning and future-proofing of our energy security and production. I particularly welcome the £2.5 billion investment in fusion, including for the STEP—spherical tomahawk for energy production —programme at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. I thank Ministers for their work to secure that, which is very welcome indeed. The process has already started, with the tender outcomes for the construction and the design and technology to be announced later this year. I am championing British companies, which are very much part of that process.

I am excited about the thousands of jobs and skills in new infrastructure that will be developed because of this programme. The work has already started on the skills partnership, which is stretching right across regions including the east midlands, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. That partnership is working with our further education colleges, our universities and the advanced manufacturing centre in Rotherham. Does the Secretary of State agree that left-behind, red wall areas such as mine are where we need investment to revise our energy production and our industry? This is where we start, and I want to see more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this?

[Ed Miliband]

On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the SMR announcement, which is great news for Sheffield as Rolls-Royce is already doing significant work at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. When I met Rolls-Royce recently, it said that 70% of its bid could be built and produced in Great Britain. How will the Government hold Rolls-Royce to account for that and ensure that the announcement delivers great jobs and great investment right across the UK?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her incredible advocacy on this issue, including at the AMRC. She makes such an important point: this will be taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that as much as possible is built in Britain. I make absolutely no apologies for saying that. The answer to her question is that as we negotiate terms with Rolls-Royce over the coming months, that will be a key part of our discussions.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This £14 billion splurge on English nuclear power plants comes on top of £22 billion for English carbon capture and storage, while there is nothing for Scotland’s Acorn project. With Grangemouth allowed to close and the fiscal regime ruining the north-east’s energy jobs, this latest announcement shows that Scotland is not an afterthought—Scotland is not a thought at all. If nearly £40 billion can be found for English energy projects, why has money never been found for Scotland’s carbon capture project?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

Maybe a change in the SNP’s position is coming. Absolutely, if the hon. Lady wants, let us have a discussion about Scottish nuclear power stations. We are in favour of the Acorn project and will say more about that in the coming weeks. But on nuclear power, SNP Members have really got to think again. They are sticking their heads in the sand. This is about jobs, investment and clean energy. They should really rethink.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

If I had known it was your birthday, Mr Speaker, I would have brought you down a Chorley cake, but never mind. As you know, my constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations. As the Secretary of State is aware, I am pushing for Heysham also to host new nuclear. Will he tell me how today’s announcement supports nuclear communities such as mine and will enable the next generation of nuclear across the country?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To get slightly into the weeds, the new planning framework that we are consulting on opens up possibilities for new nuclear. Today we have set out the public money that we can commit to new nuclear at this stage. We are seeing this a bit in the US and in other countries with a 50% increase in nuclear investment last year globally. My message to the private sector is that if it is interested in partnering with us and saying to us, “We want to build in places other than those where you’ve put the public investment,” we are absolutely open for business and dialogue.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that it was originally proposed to build a third nuclear power station, based on a Chinese design, at Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency. Is a third station—it will not be Chinese—at Bradwell still a possibility, or could it be allocated an SMR?

[Ed Miliband]

Good nuclear sites, including Bradwell, are always going to be possibilities as far as I am concerned. We are not going to have China building our nuclear power stations, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this with my Department, we will be happy to do so.

[Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)]

It is clear that this Labour Government are putting pounds behind promises to deliver clean energy and good, skilled jobs in all parts of the country. With that in mind, given its importance to north Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great British Energy Nuclear will prioritise Wylfa?

[Ed Miliband]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question. Wylfa is an incredibly important site that has huge potential for our country. Obviously, over the months ahead Great British Energy Nuclear will look at the role that Wylfa can play in relation to SMRs and large-scale nuclear.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

The Secretary of State’s message to the private sector is, “If you want to build new nuclear, Britain is open.” Companies have told me that they need decisive and committed leadership from the UK Government to be confident to invest in a new project at Wylfa. I have raised that 11 times in the Chamber, yet today there was no mention of Wylfa. Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the UK Government support the delivery of new nuclear projects at Wylfa?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, we do. Again, we are open to discussions with the hon. Lady and other colleagues.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I will not say “happy birthday” to you again, Mr Speaker; perhaps we can arrange to sing it next time so that we do not all have to repeat it.

The Secretary of State’s statement is welcome. The other welcome news today is the Government’s commitment to £460 million of investment at Sheffield Forgemasters. That is primarily for defence nuclear, but it also provides extra capacity for civil nuclear. There is a bit of concern about Rolls-Royce’s link with Czechia, so will my right hon. Friend commit to using forgings from Sheffield Forgemasters in the first-of-its-type SMR in this country and build the supply chain so that the vast majority of jobs are provided for British workers?

[Ed Miliband]

I definitely believe that Sheffield Forgemasters has an incredibly important role to play in our civil nuclear programme. Contractual details for Rolls-Royce and our discussions with the company are for a bit down the road, but in my view, Forgemasters is central to our plans.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Oldbury in my constituency is one of the sites under consideration for SMRs, and I have been told many times that it has many factors going for it, including GB Nuclear’s ownership of it, the nuclear expertise in higher education locally, its existing nuclear history and the potential for co-ordination with the Berkeley site. Given that the old nuclear power station has already been decommissioned, the local community wants to know what the future looks like. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Oldbury is still in the running and will he give a timeline for the decision?

[Ed Miliband]

As part of the process that we go to from here, Great British Energy Nuclear will look at what is the right place for the SMR fleet and, absolutely, Oldbury is one of the candidates.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish you a happy birthday, Mr Speaker. What a wonderful day today is proving to be. As a proud Derby MP, I am delighted to welcome the selection of Rolls-Royce to deliver the first of the UK’s small modular reactors. We know that the Secretary of State, his ministerial team and the Mayor of the East Midlands are champions of clean energy jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s decision is good news for the country and for Derby? Also, in backing home-grown SMRs, what will the benefit be for UK workers and those in the east midlands region?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Derby and for Rolls-Royce. It is important to say to the House that this was a fair and open competition, conducted at arm’s length from Ministers. Rolls-Royce came out as the winner and I am incredibly pleased about that. The possibilities for Rolls-Royce are huge in what it can do for SMRs in this country, in the export opportunities and in the jobs in the supply chains. That is the thing about nuclear: it is about the jobs not just at the top of the tree but right across the supply chain that we have the potential to create.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

While I fear that the development of Sizewell C may prove to be a multibillion-pound investment in yesterday’s technology, I welcome the commitment to SMRs in so far as it goes, which is probably the way forward for tomorrow. We have to get from where we are today to there. Why are we going to spend billions of pounds and accumulate masses of wastage importing carbon fuels from overseas instead of developing our own North sea resources?

[Ed Miliband]

On the nuclear point, there is real potential at Sizewell. I understand the implication of his views on that: to learn from what happened at Hinkley—because it is a replica of Hinkley—and therefore to cut the costs and do it quicker. The aim is to deliver it cheaper and faster. On the wider picture, we may have a difference of view. Mine is that we have to get off insecure fossil fuels as quickly as possible. That is why nuclear has a role and renewables have a role, but the existing North sea fields will be kept open for their lifetime, so oil and gas will continue to play a role in our energy system.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. New nuclear has the potential not only to power communities across our country, but to create jobs in every constituency. That is why it is particularly extraordinary to hear SNP representatives argue against those jobs. Will the Secretary of State confirm how many new jobs will be created by today’s announcement and what conversations he has had with workplace representatives to ensure that those are genuinely good jobs, with good terms and conditions?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that in all respects. Sizewell alone will create 10,000 jobs at peak and 1,500 apprenticeships. For good safety and other reasons, there is a strong trade union tradition in the nuclear industry, which we intend to uphold. As for the situation in Scotland, it genuinely beggars belief that the SNP would turn its back on such a huge opportunity.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, and having championed the nuclear industry for 20 years in this Parliament, even when it was not popular on either side of the House, I very much welcome today’s announcement, because I have seen over 60 years in my constituency the economic impact of the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Returning to the subject of Scotland, we see the SNP’s intransigence, which is costing Scotland jobs on the nuclear front. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if we will not have nuclear power stations, we can at least have jobs in the supply chain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his long-standing advocacy on the issue, including when it was not popular. He makes a very good point: we need to see a change in Government in Scotland, to a Labour party that will advocate for nuclear. The supply chain in all four nations of the UK can play a crucial role in the nuclear renaissance that we are announcing today.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Secretary of State for today’s announcement, which represents a massive boost for my constituents in Erewash and a huge vote of confidence for Rolls-Royce just down the road in Derby? How does he foresee the announcement affecting the availability of apprenticeships for kids leaving my local schools in Ilkeston and Long Eaton?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises such an important point. There is a good tradition of apprenticeships in nuclear. I have seen it at Hinkley Point C and we will see it at Sizewell. I am sure, and I will make sure, that we will see it in the SMR programme as well. These are fantastic opportunities for young people and opportunities that we intend to make happen.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Will the Secretary of State tell the House a bit more about the regulated asset base funding model for Sizewell C? In particular, will he assure the public that the construction phase of Sizewell C will not be funded by increases to people’s bills, given that it will be well over a decade—potentially nearer two decades if we look at Hinkley Point—before it produces any new electricity?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the RAB system that was passed through this House involves the role of bill payers. We believe that that is the right system and will cut the cost compared with Hinkley Point C. The hon. Gentleman appears to oppose many different forms of clean power. He opposes transmission infrastructure for offshore wind and solar, he opposes solar farms, he opposes carbon capture and storage, and I guess he opposes nuclear. I have an all-of-the-above position on clean energy; he seems to have a none-of-the-above position.

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

I am delighted that Rolls-Royce has been selected to deliver SMRs in the UK. It really is time for us to stop delaying the new fleet of nuclear power stations more broadly. The Secretary of State will remember that he came to my constituency before the election, to the Barnoldswick Rolls-Royce site, and heard that it now supports 400 jobs, whereas pre-pandemic it was 900. This is a huge opportunity for us to create good skilled jobs in all parts of the country, so will he reassure me that the Government as the customer of Rolls-Royce will demand that those jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick and all over the UK and that we stop the offshoring of manufacturing?

[Ed Miliband]

I was incredibly impressed by what I saw at Barnoldswick. I had to maintain a position of neutrality when I became Secretary of State as to who won the competition, but I am incredibly pleased that Rolls-Royce won the competition fair and square. My hon. Friend makes an important point about making sure that the jobs go to places such as Barnoldswick. I am sure that Rolls-Royce will want to do that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Capula, based in Stone, is an example of a great British company that has been supplying the electricity-generation industry in this country for many decades. To get the very best for British jobs, how can businesses such as Capula link in at the very earliest stages with the Government as they start to plan how the investment will be made?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue; let me take this away. As we embark on this golden age for nuclear, we need to make sure that the supply chain really benefits. Perhaps he could furnish my Department with the details so that we can think about how such companies can benefit?

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s announcement. I have been speaking to people from across my constituency—cleaners, hospitality workers and others—who desperately need the cost of bills to come down. How will the projects announced today, and the other steps the Government are taking to counter the impact of uncertainty in global energy markets, help to stop people in Heywood and Middleton North being out of pocket?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that this is about planning for the long term to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, which are insecure. We saw what happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Let me give the House one fact: if the Sizewell C plant had been up and running at the time of that crisis, bill payers would have saved £4 billion in 2022-23 alone. That is the security that new nuclear can give us.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the Secretary of State what guarantees are in place to ensure that these jobs go to local people rather than to overseas contractors? Also, what investment in training and skills will be provided to make sure that they go to local people on the ground?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that Members on both sides of the House have raised in different ways. It is absolutely part of what we are going to do to make sure that these jobs come to the UK. There are commitments around 70% of the supply chain spending being in the UK, and my Department will ensure that there is accountability on the part of the companies that will be benefiting from public money, to ensure that we see the maximum benefits across the country in the UK.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. Unfortunately, it is not for viewers in Scotland. Scotland was once a pioneer in nuclear energy, and it should be again, but due to the SNP Scottish Government’s outdated, backward and frankly bizarre opposition to nuclear energy, they are turning away billions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-skilled jobs. Does he agree that this is yet another way that the SNP Scottish Government have lost their way?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is so right about this. People in Scotland will be looking at these announcements and saying, “Why isn’t it us who are benefiting from this? Why are we not even in the race?” We have lots of Members saying that they want their area to benefit, yet the Scottish Government and the SNP are saying that they want no part of it, and no part of those jobs. That makes no sense.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I also welcome—[Interruption.] It is very unusual for me to welcome anything from the Secretary of State but I welcome this announcement, because nuclear is an important element in providing the baseload for electricity across the United Kingdom. He mentioned delivery five times in his statement, but this is an announcement not a delivery, and there is a period when we will still need the baseload to be provided. Can he tell us how he intends to ensure that the baseload is provided in that interim period, and what discussions he has had with the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland about the suitability of SMRs for supply in Northern Ireland?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have been discussing these energy issues for about 17 years since he was the spokesperson on this, and agreement is rare between us, so I really welcome what he says. I would say to him that these are the steps we have to go through to deliver, and they are incredibly important. To reassure him on his point about the Economy Minister in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister will be meeting them next week. We believe that this can benefit all four nations of the United Kingdom, and it is 100% our intention to make that happen.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing our future energy supply and, by doing so, taking control of our energy, protecting family finances and tackling the climate crisis. In addition, I am keen to learn about the Department’s assessment of new technological developments to reduce energy waste, in particular through developing underground thermal energy storage solutions. I am aware of organisations in that sector that are keen to share opportunities with the Government, so what is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of thermal storage solutions in reducing energy loss, avoiding curtailment fees and maximising the benefit from energy generated?

[Ed Miliband]

I know that my hon. Friend has been strongly advocating on these issues in terms of the exciting possibilities for his constituency. My suggestion is that a Minister from my Department—perhaps the Minister for Energy—should meet him and the company concerned about the potential involved.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The announcement today is good news as far as it goes, but the baseload that it will provide will not be on tap for many years to come. How does the Secretary of State propose to fill that gap? Will he now look again at the UK-Morocco power project, which needs a decision soon and could be delivering electrons by the turn of the decade? Does the announcement today affect the likely contract for difference and strike prices eventually reached with the proposed operator?

[Ed Miliband]

We are looking seriously at the Xlinks project. The right hon. Gentleman is a tireless advocate for it, and I respect him for that. My answer on the baseload question is that we need a combination of things to meet the power that we need, and there are all kinds of different ways in which we can do that. I would also say that part of the job that we are undertaking is to make sure that we can get Hinkley Point C delivered as quickly as possible, because that can also make an important contribution. On his last point, the decisions today do not affect the decisions on Xlinks. Those are separate decisions.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd?

[Ed Miliband]

This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. While I welcome this fantastic announcement, Scotland will unfortunately not benefit due to the SNP’s ideological block on nuclear power, blocking billions in investment and thousands of well-paid secure Scottish jobs and blocking growth across our Scottish communities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland and, indeed, Ayrshire need a new political direction, and that the only way to get that will be at the ballot box next year?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. I notice that SNP Members have sort of disappeared; they are probably a bit embarrassed. She is absolutely right about this. In a sense, it comes into sharp focus today because we can announce a golden age of nuclear with our investments, but not in Scotland because of the position of the SNP Government. It makes no sense.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Energy security is important, so I welcome this investment in nuclear. One more small modular reactor can power a million homes using just two football pitches-worth of land, while solar needs 2,000 acres of good-quality farmland to power 50,000 homes. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the importance of food security as well as energy security, reconsider the use of good-quality farmland for solar, and concentrate instead on producing nuclear?

[Ed Miliband]

We are operating under the previous Government’s planning guidance when it comes to the best agricultural land. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, we need all the clean energy resources that are at our disposal—solar, onshore and offshore wind, and nuclear. I am for all of the above.

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that the Government will make a statement later today to give an update on the middle east.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Today’s announcement that £2.5 billion will be invested in the small modular reactor programme is fantastic news for the country. It will help bring energy bills down, power homes and create jobs. It is amazing news for Derby, too, because the technology behind the SMRs has its roots in the technology developed at Rolls-Royce Submarines half a century ago. As the Government move forward with investment and delivery, and the Secretary of State approaches the contractual aspects, will he ensure that we build on what we have in Derby, such as the Nuclear Skills Academy, and the good jobs already there, so that we can grow opportunity for the wider region and the country as a whole?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. Derby should be incredibly proud of Rolls-Royce winning the competition, and incredibly excited about the possibilities for young people in Derby and across the wider region. Now we must ensure that, working with Rolls-Royce, we deliver on that promise, and that is what we intend to do.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) asked perfectly reasonable and pertinent questions about the cost of this whole project. Is there a private finance initiative element involved, and what will it cost? How ultimately will we dispose of the nuclear waste, and who will pay the decommissioning costs in 60 years’ time? The nuclear industry does not have a great record on strike price, decommissioning costs or the cost of dealing with waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman asks perfectly legitimate questions. I am glad to say that decommissioning is in at the beginning of the financing model, as part of the overall costs. We will lay out total costs when the final investment decision is made. Similarly, on the regulated asset base costs—I know that he genuinely cares about the climate crisis—all the evidence we have shows that this is our lowest-cost alternative, compared with other low-carbon technologies, so it is a crucial part of the energy mix.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Labour Government on this incredibly important investment announcement. As a physicist by training, I particularly welcome the investment in fusion technology, as well as traditional fission. I am sure that this investment will bring closer the final outcome that we want. Will he ensure that the benefit of this investment is felt across all our communities by using a predominantly UK supply chain, and will he ensure that all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw receive Government support, including the provision of nuclear fuel, the decommissioning and safe disposal of nuclear waste, and even the reuse of currently stockpiled nuclear waste products in future generations of reactors?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: across the lifecycle of nuclear and across the supply chain, there are important economic opportunities. The importance of realising that potential is a constant theme of the questions that we have heard today, and that is what we intend to do.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman asks good questions. On the first, GB Energy Nuclear is a development of Great British Nuclear, which is based in Warrington. On deployment, I am aware of the record of people who promise deployment that is then not delivered, but the truth is that we expect a final investment decision in the next few years, and deployment in the early to mid-2030s—I think that is the fairest way of putting it. I agree with him about the potential. I also agree—this is why I have said that I am open to the role of the private sector—that private sector partners may want to come in and build sooner, and that would be great.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome the investment in our energy security and jobs. I know from my visit to Sizewell with the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that jobs in the nuclear industry are good, well paid and highly skilled. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is in part thanks to the strong relationship between business, trade unions and the Government in that sector, and that there is much to be learned from that relationship in other parts of the energy sector and beyond?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend characteristically puts it incredibly well. The nuclear industry offers us a model of good employee relations, and there is a good, strong role for trade unions in ensuring safety and guaranteeing good terms and conditions for workers. That is a lesson that other parts of the energy industry, including the renewables sector, can definitely learn from.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

New jobs in clean energy are very welcome. Many of the skilled jobs at Hinkley Point C in the south-west are going to young people from beyond the area. Given the social mobility challenges in East Anglia and west Somerset, will the Secretary of State comment on investment in colleges and skills to encourage applications from the local area for those new jobs and apprenticeships?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman puts it incredibly well. That was certainly my impression when I went to Hinkley Point C, when I saw the impact that it has on the local economy. We want to do the same at Sizewell C. There are plans to start a local college, modelling in a way some of the stuff that was done at Hinkley Point C. He is so right about the massive opportunities here, which we must exploit.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

As a child, Sizewell was an important word to me, like Wylfa, Hunterston, Dungeness, Dounreay and Hinkley, because they were places where my father, based in Gateshead, went to work. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the announcement is part of bringing back those fantastic safe jobs, which are so important for Gateshead and the nuclear industry?

[Ed Miliband]

I am glad that my hon. Friend asks that question and talks about his heritage and family history. That reflects something real. The nuclear industry has a great tradition in this country. It went through a sort of extended hiccup, I think it is fair to say, but it is really important that we bring it back. Those are good, long-term secure jobs that people can take pride in. We should absolutely embrace that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on fusion energy and for the east midlands, I say a huge thank you on behalf of my constituents and my region for the two major announcements: Rolls-Royce winning the SMR contract, and the £2.5 billion for fusion energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that such large infrastructure projects offer huge apprenticeship opportunities for my region, and will he commit to meeting me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to discuss how the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station can play its role?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his two-hatted advocacy on these issues. He makes an important point. The potential of the new prototype fusion plant is huge, as is the wider potential of nuclear. I look forward to discussing that with him.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the clear positivity in every word he has said. I very much welcome the news that nuclear energy is to be secured for the United Kingdom, bringing job security and many contracts, and we look forward to seeing how we can all benefit across this great nation. Can he confirm that companies from the United Kingdom will be able to secure contracts to supply materials and manpower? How can Government ensure that each area of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will benefit from this massive investment?

[Ed Miliband]

It is really important that there is a four-nations approach to the supply chain contracts; that is something I am very keen to ensure. There will be thousands of contracts in the supply chain, with huge opportunities for Northern Ireland, and I am determined to deliver them.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Andy Burnham’s Atom Valley mayoral development zone for advanced manufacturing will be based in Rochdale, Oldham and Bury, and it is so named in honour of Ernest Rutherford’s groundbreaking research at the University of Manchester on splitting the atom. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that today’s huge public investment in both nuclear and nuclear fusion will rely on precisely the kind of cutting-edge research that will be done at the Sustainable Materials and Manufacturing Centre in Rochdale?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that question and on the new centre, which is incredibly appropriately named. We should celebrate our history on these issues, and the way to honour our history is by building the future for nuclear—that is what today is all about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to support job creation in the renewable energy sector.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Since the last oral questions in March, the Government have consented to the Rampion 2 offshore wind farm, creating 4,000 jobs; reached the final investment decision on the HyNet carbon capture, utilisation and storage cluster, creating 2,000 jobs; invested £300 million, through Great British Energy, in UK clean energy supply chains; shortlisted 27 hydrogen companies for hydrogen allocation round 2; and created a new £100 million fusion investment fund. This Government are building the clean energy future in Britain.

[Jamie Stone]

The reason I was here on that Saturday when Parliament was recalled is because some of the mightiest structures in the North sea were made from British steel at the Nigg yard. On the question of renewables, may I ask the Secretary of State what we are doing about getting out the skills to fabricate floating offshore wind structures in the United Kingdom?

[Ed Miliband]

That is very much part of our plans. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in March we announced the provision of more than £55 million for the expansion of Port of Cromarty Firth to create offshore wind supply chains in this country, and last week, along with GB Energy, we announced that investment of £300 million in supply chains. We are determined not just to generate offshore wind in Britain, but to take advantage of the huge economic opportunity that it represents.

[Christine Jardine]

I hear what the Secretary of State is saying, but Scotland’s declining oil and gas industries have lost 40% of their jobs in the past decade, and today Grangemouth has warned that it may have to pause important projects involving a switch to greener and more sustainable forms of energy because of what it describes as soaring energy bills and the pressures of income tax. We know that Grangemouth needs investment, but it also needs more than the Government are doing at the moment. What intervention are they planning to protect jobs and the communities that could be hollowed out if Grangemouth is not saved?

[Ed Miliband]

As the hon. Lady will know, we inherited this situation from the last Government, but we set aside £200 million to build the future in Grangemouth and we are working closely with the Scottish Government on precisely that, in a Government-to-Government collaboration. As for the hon. Lady’s wider question about industrial energy prices, we should obviously look at what different sectors are saying.

A lot of nonsense is being talked about steel. UK Steel has said categorically that the difference between our prices and those of continental Europe is a result of our reliance on natural gas power generation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say “Rubbish”, but that is what UK Steel has said, and that is why our clean power mission is right for families and right for business.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Today marks the end of more than a century of refining at Grangemouth. Scotland is once again a victim of industrial vandalism and devastation—and I do not want anyone in this Chamber to dare mention a “just transition”, because we all know that the Conservatives when they were in power, and the Scottish National party currently in Holyrood, have done nothing to avert this catastrophic decision. I put it to the Secretary of State that during the general election campaign the Labour leadership said that they would step in and save the jobs at the refinery. What has changed, and why have we not done the sensible thing for Scotland’s energy security?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is talking about a very important issue, and Grangemouth has a very important role in Scotland. What I will say to him and to others is that as soon as this Government saw the situation that they had inherited, they put money in to help the workers, and they have made that huge investment commitment of £200 million, working hand in hand with the Scottish Government, so that we can build the future in Grangemouth. We are absolutely committed to building the future for Grangemouth communities, and we look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House to do that.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Yesterday was International Workers’ Memorial Day. At a service this weekend in Falkirk, a Grangemouth refinery worker rightly called for oil and gas workers’ skills not to be considered obsolete, but utterly essential for the just transition. What consideration have Ministers given to the urgent policy recommendations in Project Willow to provide accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure and the jobs it promises for Grangemouth?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend, who is also a really powerful advocate for his constituents, is absolutely right. Project Willow was left on the shelf by the previous Government. We put the money in to take Project Willow forward and we are now going to implement it. Absolutely crucial to that is ensuring the skills of oil and gas workers are properly used in the future, including with the skills passport which also lay dormant under the previous Government and which we are powering ahead with.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Through my work on the Select Committee, I have heard repeated concerns from industry leaders that existing workers in their 50s and 60s see no point in retraining because they believe they will see out their careers supporting old technologies. That has a knock-on impact on young entrants to the workforce, who have traditionally learnt their skills from more experienced workers. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to incentivise retraining to support growth in the renewable energy sector?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. That is why we are working with the Department for Education to make sure we do not just have a clean power plan that will help to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and invest in supply chains, which I talked about earlier, but crucially offer opportunities for younger workers and inspire them about the possibilities that are available, and create opportunities for older workers, too. All that work is ongoing in Government.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the UK’s priorities for the UN Climate Change Conference 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to help improve the energy efficiency of homes.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

In 2025-26 alone we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year we will set out more detail of our warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes with energy-efficient technologies such as heat pumps, solar and insulation in order to deliver warmer homes and lower bills.

[Tessa Munt]

I recognise that there are very good schemes for those on lower incomes and that heating homes is really important. For many older properties and properties in conservation areas, as fast as we heat the homes, the heat just goes out the windows. In my area, where there are lots of older homes and homes in conservation areas, it is near impossible to get permission to apply double or triple glazing. Can the Secretary of State sort out this tension between having warm homes and older homes, particularly when he is trying so hard to ensure that homes meet the C grade rating for energy performance certificates by 2030? This needs to be sorted out with planning departments.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. I am constantly on the look-out for small measures and large in the planning system that can obstruct the sensible energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels, that will make all the difference. I say to her and other Members of the House that if they have specific examples of barriers or interpretations of guidelines that are getting in the way—sometimes is not about the rules but about local councils’ interpretations of them—please bring them to our attention, because we are constantly trying to make it easier to make such upgrades happen.

[Sarah Dyke]

Earl, a social housing tenant from Glastonbury, is disabled and has faced multiple barriers that have prevented him from self-funding improvements to the sustainability and energy efficiency of his home, in order to help him reduce his energy poverty and improve his health. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that social housing tenants receive energy upgrades in their homes, and in particular those living in older housing stock, where upgrades might be more complex to achieve?

[Ed Miliband]

It sounds as though the hon. Lady is raising an individual case, and if she wants to draw it to our attention, she can do so. On the more general point, I believe that her local authority has received £6 million as part of the warm homes local grant, so it would be worth talking to it about this. Again—I am sure that I speak for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), on this—where there are specific issues about how particular schemes are working, please do draw them to our attention and we will seek to act on them.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

Royal Shrewsbury hospital in my constituency was delighted to receive a £450,000 investment for solar panels, which will see our local trust save more than £1 million by reducing its energy bills in the lifetime of the project. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating this excellent start to our nationalised Great British Energy company and update the House on the next steps to get us towards that mission?

[Ed Miliband]

I do join my hon. Friend in that. I say to all Opposition Members who voted against GB Energy that many of them will now be getting solar panels on schools and hospitals in their constituencies. Let all their constituents know that those are local MPs who opposed cutting bills for schools and hospitals in their own constituencies.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the £17 million of Government funding for Norwich’s Labour-led city council to improve energy efficiency in homes, which will help tackle fuel poverty and provide much more comfort. Will the Secretary of State welcome Norwich Labour’s leadership on this issue and set out how we will provide more funding to local councils so that they can go further, faster?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point about the crucial role of local authorities in relation to these issues. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done is devolve more funding to combined authorities on this. We want to go further, including in relation to local authorities, because it is local authorities—including my hon. Friend’s, which I congratulate—who know best the particular needs of their own localities, and they are a key part of the answer to the energy efficiency upgrade that we need.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Great British Energy on job creation in industrial communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Last week, 60 Governments and more than 50 global businesses gathered in London for the first global summit on the future of energy security with the International Energy Agency. I heard from country after country the hard-headed case for clean energy’s role in delivering energy security to free us from the global fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. I also heard from many clean energy businesses that Britain was the place where they wanted to invest because of the clarity and speed of this Government’s mission.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Homes in rural areas experience some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the UK. Rural properties are less energy efficient than the national average and many are simply harder to insulate. Will the Minister confirm that my constituents in Penrith and Solway will see the additional challenge of rurality reflected in the Government’s ambitious warm homes plan?

[Ed Miliband]

One hundred per cent—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The Minister for Energy Consumers and I often discuss how we have to ensure that our warm homes plan takes account of the particular needs and challenges facing rural areas.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Voters

“feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices…when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal… Present policy solutions are inadequate and…therefore unworkable… The current approach isn’t working… Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”

Does the Secretary of State agree with his former boss Tony Blair?

[Ed Miliband]

The shadow Minister talks about the Tony Blair Institute report. I agree with a lot of what it says. It says that we should move ahead on carbon capture and storage, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on the role of artificial intelligence, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on nuclear, which the Government are doing. The shadow Minister said only three weeks ago, after his party dropped its net zero policy—this will surprise people, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, Secretary of State. This is topical questions; I do not need a full statement.

[Andrew Bowie]

To be honest, I was looking forward to hearing what I said a few weeks ago, Mr Speaker. It is okay for the Secretary of State to admit when he is wrong. As Tony Blair said yesterday, this strategy is “doomed to fail.” Why can the Secretary of State not see what the GMB and Tony Blair see, which is that clean power 2030 is doomed to fail and it is time for a change of approach?

[Ed Miliband]

That is not what the report says. The shadow Minister is talking absolute nonsense. The point I was going to make was that he said:

“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do.”

Those are not my words but his. Some people say that the Tory party has only one policy. Actually, it has two: it is against net zero and, through the shadow Minister, it is for net zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T4. I welcome the Government’s view that nuclear power is essential to our clean power goals. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that new nuclear can be built wherever that is possible across the country, including in my constituency?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend asks an important question. New nuclear is absolutely part of the energy mix. That is why we announced important reforms to the national policy statement. The previous such substantive reform was based on the one I published as Energy Secretary in 2009. We have updated the statement in order to enable new nuclear to be built right across the country, including in his constituency.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T3.   The power outages across Spain, Portugal and the south of France are a stark reminder of how energy security is key to national security. It is vital that any Government are alive to the risks to our national resilience. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that robust plans are in place in the event of power outages?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady asks an important question. I was in touch with the National Energy System Operator yesterday following the events in Spain and Portugal—the UK was not affected. NESO and my Department take this incredibly seriously. I would also add, given that there has been some comment on this, that we should not jump to conclusions about what happened. Let us see what happened and the reasons for it, and then learn the lessons.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Last month was a fantastic opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State to the Vaillant factory in Derby and to learn about Great British Nuclear’s incredible investment of £1.8 million in solar panels. We know that, done right, the clean energy transition will support communities across the UK and thousands of new jobs. What step is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Derby is at the heart of that opportunity?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right: this clean energy transition is about creating jobs. I was delighted to open the factory, which is creating 200 jobs and is a £40 million investment, manufacturing cylinders for heat pumps. This is an opportunity that this Government are going to seize for Britain.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

T5.   This Secretary of State thinks it is a good idea to fill our fields with solar panels, at a cost of billions of pounds to the British taxpayer. I hate to break it to him, but solar panels rely on sunshine, so why is he now supporting a project to block out the sunshine?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me, and not in a good way. Reform has made its decision; I am not sure what the Conservatives’ position is. Cheap, clean, home-grown power is the answer for Britain, because it gives us energy security and frees us from the petrostates and dictators. We are in favour of it; Reform is against it. Goodness knows where the Conservative party is.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T7.   Electric vehicle sales growth is at risk of slowing down. Many private car and fleet owners would transition to EVs, but patchy provision of public charging for those unable to charge at home and inadequate power capacity for rapid charging on our strategic road network for long-distance drivers are two key reasons for reluctance to buy EVs. What discussions are DESNZ Ministers having with power networks, charging providers and the Department for Transport to address this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady is 100% right—clean, home-grown power is the answer—so that is an unequivocal yes.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T8. Industrial communities such as St Austell and the clay country have been stifled in recent years by soaring energy costs. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that industries such as the proud china clay industry are internationally competitive?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is right: there is a long-standing issue around industrial energy prices. The key is getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, because just as family finances were ruined in the cost of living crisis, it is the same in relation to business finances and public finances. It is an essential part of the answer.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

In my constituency, many elderly and disabled people face very high energy bills due to essential medical equipment and heating needs. What support are the Government providing to ensure that these households are protected from the high cost of electricity?

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

T9.   Next week I will be visiting the site of a proposed project in my constituency that will create the only new interconnector between Great Britain and France, which can be built and operational by 2030, to help deliver the Government’s clean power mission. Ahead of the proposed UK-France summit this summer, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how to expedite conversations with our French counterparts, so that we can move forward with this important project?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue about interconnectors. It is something I have been talking to the regulator about, particularly in relation to France, and indeed to my French counterpart, Marc Ferracci, who was in London for our international energy summit. I am happy for the Department to engage with her and tell her about the work we are doing on that issue.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

During the general election, the Secretary of State repeatedly promised my constituents that if they voted Labour, their energy prices would be reduced by £300—not by “up to” £300. Will the Secretary of State repeat that promise at the Dispatch Box?

[Ed Miliband]

We said we would cut bills by up to £300, and that is absolutely what we are determined to do.

[Jerome Mayhew]

They have gone up.

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman says that bills have gone up, but let me give him a little basic lesson: they have gone up because we are exposed to fossil fuel prices. The only way to bring them down is by having sources of clean, home-grown power that we control.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

T10.   The Pimlico district heating undertaking was built in 1950, the first ever district heating network in the UK. It used to be cutting edge, but it is in desperate need of replacement, so that my constituents can have heating and hot water. Will the Government work with local authorities such as Labour Westminster city council to make sure that all the costs of replacement do not necessarily fall just on residents?

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

When will the Government decide whether to support the UK-Morocco power project?

[Ed Miliband]

I know the right hon. Gentleman has an important interest in this project. We continue to have discussions with Xlinks and obviously we are happy to brief him on those discussions.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Unlike Conservative Members, I really welcomed the £200 million investment last week. It will be integral to creating the good jobs of the future in constituencies that are developing key technologies for offshore wind, like my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. With that in mind, will the Minister and the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see GE Vernova and the hard work that it is doing there?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes is the answer; I look forward to it. My hon. Friend is 100% right: this is about the jobs of the future. Conservative Members might want to turn their back on them; we will not.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

MPs across the Humber region are united in support for the Viking carbon capture, usage and storage project. Can the Government give an update on any progress with track 2 programmes?

[Ed Miliband]

As with Acorn, we think Viking is a really important project. I am very proud of the progress we made on track 1, and we are obviously looking at both Viking and Acorn in the spending review.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again.

[Ed Miliband]

My Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), and I regularly discuss this issue, which relates to one of the first duties of Government. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this a focus for Government, but we will look at what happened in Spain and Portugal to see if there are any lessons to be learned about our resilience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Moon, please. You will not get called again if you carry on like that. I am sure the Minister will know the answer.

[Ed Miliband]

I am delighted to remind the House that it was the Conservative party that left us with energy insecurity, and we are never going to leave this country vulnerable in the way that it did.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, the Government seem to have a three-point plan. Point one is to cover farmland in solar panels, and point two is to block out the sun. What is point three?

[Ed Miliband]

What is the point of the hon. Gentleman’s party?

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced failed ECO4 scheme installations. What support is there for constituents when installations go wrong? Are rogue installers getting paid for work that is not completed properly? What steps are being taken to address such failures?

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

In the 1970s, global warmists wanted to put black dust on the Arctic to block the sun. Now the Minister wants to put black dust on clouds to block the sun again. Is his plan not bonkers? £50 million of taxpayer’s money has been spent, which will only put up energy prices even further.

[Ed Miliband]

This is like conspiracy theories gone mad. I feel like we have entered a whacky world. Let us keep our eyes on the prize. As a country, we are vulnerable because of our exposure to fossil fuels. This Government have one mission alone: to get clean, home-grown power, so that we take back control.

Energy Security Summit

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

On 24 and 25 April 2025, at Lancaster House, the UK Government partnered with the International Energy Agency to convene the first global summit on the future of energy security.

The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission addressed the summit, delivering the message that energy security is national security and depends on co-operation with others, acting together to seize the opportunity of the clean energy transition. The summit was represented by almost 60 countries, more than 50 global businesses as well as non-governmental organisations and civil society groups from around the world.

Our starting point for this summit is that in an unstable and uncertain world, there can be no national or international security without energy security. In the years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, we have been reminded in the UK, and indeed across Europe and the world, of a simple truth: that as long as energy can be weaponised against us, our countries and our citizens are vulnerable and exposed.

This summit marked an important moment for countries to come together and discuss what the shifting global landscape means for how we deliver energy security in this era. Many participants emphasised the importance of the energy transition and how this can enable a more secure and affordable system, noting our vulnerability to price shocks from fossil fuel markets.

Political and industry leaders from around the world discussed the diverse energy security challenges faced by different countries, and how energy in all its forms is the basis of human and economic development. Achieving secure, affordable, and sustainable energy for all remains a fundamental priority in the years to come. Many stressed that multilateral co-operation between countries, as well as with international organisations, industry and civil society, is key to tackling shared challenges and ensuring a secure energy system.

The Prime Minister announced an initial £300 million investment, ahead of the spending review, through Great British Energy, in order to win global offshore wind investment in the UK and create thousands of jobs, and a major carbon capture and storage network is ready for construction—boosting energy security and the Government’s plan for change.

At the summit, the Government also established a new mission focused on strengthening global supply chains through the UK-led global clean power alliance. The GCPA will bring together the global north and south, and will draw on and share the UK’s world-leading experience of pursuing clean power by 2030 to speed up the global clean energy transition.

Our decision to co-host this summit reflects the UK’s determination to go the extra mile as a convenor on the world stage—because it is in our national interest. Clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and the leadership we are showing is about seizing the jobs and growth for Britain, and making the UK a clean energy superpower.

[HCWS606]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

21. What steps he is taking to introduce the warm homes plan.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Our warm homes plan will upgrade up to 5 million homes with technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, helping families to lower bills and improve their homes. Last week we allocated £1.8 billion to local authorities and social housing providers to help low-income households and social housing tenants. We will publish further plans following the spending review.

[Euan Stainbank]

The warm homes plan delivers a welcome uplift in resources for domestic energy efficiency. Failures by Governments, energy companies and local authorities over a number of years have left my constituents paying huge energy costs, with poor connectivity, failure to install smart meters or smart meters not working when they are installed, and not-fit-for-purpose electric heating systems in the Braes villages. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do all they can to end fuel poverty, and will he meet me to discuss how to hold accountable those who are responsible for the ongoing issues in my constituency?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. It is about having a tough regulator in Ofgem, it is about smart meters that work, and it is about every decision the Government take seeking to tackle fuel poverty. That is why I was incredibly pleased that we announced the extension of the warm homes discount to an extra 2.7 million families, with an extra £150 next winter to help families. That is what this Labour Government are all about.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I welcome the energy efficiency measures that my right hon. Friend mentions, which will really make a difference to many families in the future, but what can the Government and energy providers do to help families struggling to pay their energy bills today?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise about these issues. She will know that the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), put in place with the energy companies £500 million this winter to help families struggling with their bills. We also want to see Ofgem proceed with the plan to relieve the debts that many families face, because the debt overhang from the cost of living crisis that we saw after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine still blights many families in our country. If we move forward on all those fronts, we can tackle these issues.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I strongly support all efforts to increase energy efficiency and bring down bills. Is the Secretary of State concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of raising the minimum level of energy performance certificates to C for long-term rented accommodation but not doing so for short-term lets and owned properties? Will that not create an incentive in communities such as ours for people to go to Airbnb or second home ownership, rather than providing affordable homes for local people?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I believe I am right in saying—I was checking with the Minister for Energy Consumers—that as part of the consultation on energy efficiency, we are looking at the issue of short-term lets, which has been raised in the past. He is right to draw attention to what we are doing here, because this measure, which the last Government proposed and then backed away from—a pattern we are seeing quite a lot at the moment—will take up to 1 million families out of poverty. It is a basic principle: if someone is renting a home and they pay their rent on time, they have a right to live in decent, warm accommodation.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

2. What recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

4. What progress he has made on achieving clean power by 2030.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

We are driving forward at speed to deliver clean power by 2030. Last week, the Government introduced the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will enable the biggest expansion of the grid for generations, sweeping away the connection delays and the queue that held us back for too long under the last Government and reforming the planning system to speed up delivery. We have also laid out for the first time legislation to provide households near new or upgraded pylons £250 a year off their energy bills for 10 years, as part of our commitment to delivering meaningful benefits for communities hosting clean energy infrastructure.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Does the Secretary of State agree that community energy has a vital role to play in the transition to cleaner and greener power? Will he accept an invitation to come to my constituency in north London to visit Community Energy Barnet, which is working on one of the largest community energy projects in the country?

[Ed Miliband]

I always like visiting north London, and I would very much like to accept an invitation from my hon. Friend. He makes a really serious and important point about community energy. If we look at Germany and Denmark, we see that they have done much better on community energy than us. Great British Energy has an important role to play in this, and we will say more about that in the coming weeks.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my concern about reports of persistent misconduct by Drax, regarding cutting down old-growth forest and burning it at its power station? To be clear, this is a company that chops down pristine forest, ships it halfway across the world to burn it in the United Kingdom and claims that it is sustainable. Will he look again at the large amounts of subsidies that have been approved by this Government for that company?

[Ed Miliband]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.

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

The Conservative party abandoned the economy, the NHS, the justice system and immigration, and now it is joining its Reform collaborators and other climate change deniers in the dunce’s corner. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike this Government, who recognise the triple benefit of the 2030 goal—energy security, a transition to renewables, and job creation—the Conservative party has no solutions for 21st century Britain?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The plans for a green generator at the Peterhead power station in my constituency are shovel-ready, but they depend on approval for the Acorn project at St Fergus. On 12 November last year, the Minister for Industry stated in response to a question from me that more information would be available on the track 2 projects “in the coming months.” Given that four months have passed, can the Secretary of State provide an updated timescale and outline what the next steps will be?

[Ed Miliband]

I support the Acorn project; it is really important. For reasons that the hon. Member will understand, the right time to make decisions will be at the spending review in June.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

6. What discussions he has had with energy suppliers on support for consumers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

19. What steps he is taking to support the development of carbon capture and storage technology.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

The £21.7 billion of funding to which we committed in October will kick-start the carbon capture, usage and storage industry, supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands through the east coast and HyNet clusters. We continue to engage with important future projects, such as Acorn in Scotland and Viking in the Humber, and we will make further announcements following the spending review.

[Matthew Patrick]

As my right hon. Friend will recognise, Merseyside is a clean energy pioneer, a hub of carbon capture and hydrogen technology. The climate emergency is the challenge of our generation, and that challenge will be met only through the collective endeavour of communities across our country, including mine in Wirral West. How are the Government helping our communities to deliver good, local energy projects?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is entirely right about this. We have learned over the last decade and more that this is the biggest jobs opportunity of the 21st century. Nowhere is that more true than in the investments we are making in carbon capture, usage and storage, and I am confident that my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. A couple of weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry produced an important report that showed that last year, the net zero economy grew three times faster than the economy as a whole. The House should let that sink in, because it tells us that if we turn our back on the net zero economy, we turn our back on business, jobs and investment.

[Richard Baker]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is huge potential for carbon capture and storage to play a key role in our green energy ambitions for Scotland? As we look towards the spending review, does he agree that the Acorn project presents an excellent and efficient opportunity to invest in CCUS, and to reduce the carbon impact of industries across Scotland, because it will repurpose existing pipelines?

[Ed Miliband]

I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is a fantastic advocate for the Acorn project, of which we are hugely supportive. Track 1 projects were agreed in last year’s Budget—a fiscal event, a fiscal moment—and the Government are considering those projects ahead of the next phase of the spending review, which will come in June; but I do not think that anyone doubts the potential value of the Acorn project, not just to Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

No one who cares about the future of our children and our grandchildren will gainsay the importance of carbon capture, but does the Secretary of State not understand that he is undermining that good work—notwithstanding his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden)—by continuing to subsidise the Drax power station, which is cutting down forests in Canada, turning the wood into pellets, and shipping it thousands of miles across the Atlantic to burn here? That makes nonsense of what he is trying to achieve.

[Ed Miliband]

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect. The situation that we inherited from the last Government meant that we had to consider matters such as security of supply and how we could secure the best deal for bill payers. That is what we did, and that is why we made the statement that we made on Drax. On longer term, however, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We need to move away from unabated biomass and consider all the possibilities to enable us to move towards net zero, and that is what this Government are doing.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the six students from Bourne community college who came to Westminster yesterday to present their report on the future of hydrogen storage as a net zero approach to aviation? Does he agree that students engaging with science, technology, engineering and mathematics are excited about the potential of clean power and carbon capture, and that proper funding for STEM in our schools will provide us with the next generation of scientists and engineers who can help us to achieve these goals?

[Ed Miliband]

I join the hon. Lady in warmly congratulating the six students from her constituency whom she mentioned. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House when I say that when we meet young people who are engaged in the potential of clean energy technology to transform our country and our world, it is an incredibly important reminder, both about its potential for jobs, and about our duties to future generations.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that by 2050, we need to be removing 10 billion tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year if we are to stand a chance of keeping below the 1.5° target. It is clear that carbon removal, and not just carbon capture and storage, will play a critical role in our avoiding a climate disaster. In the face of the Conservative party once again embracing climate denialism, what steps will the Government take to support the research, development and deployment of carbon removal technologies to ensure that British companies become leaders in this emerging sector?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I can tell him that the Minister for Industry held a roundtable with a whole range of industry voices on this precise topic last week. He is right about this issue. There is scepticism about CCS in some parts of academia and elsewhere. All the evidence that I have seen from the Climate Change Committee, the IPCC and others, including the International Energy Agency, is that CCS technology has a crucial role to play on something like 20% of emissions. He is also right to say that carbon removal is the next stage of that journey, and it is something that my Department is heavily engaged in.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

10. Whether he is taking steps to maintain the role of nuclear energy within his energy security strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to support workers’ rights in the renewable energy sector.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

For this Government, good pay and conditions for workers and the role of trade unions must be at the heart of the renewable energy sector, because that is the only route to a fair transition. Since we came to office, EDF Renewables has announced recognition agreements with four major trade unions. We applaud it for its decision, and we want others to follow suit. Through the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, we are also working with industry and trade unions to support fair pay, terms and conditions in the sector.

[Anneliese Midgley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The Employment Rights Bill is an historic step forward for workers, but these rights must go hand in hand with good jobs. What action is he taking to strengthen the UK’s manufacturing capacity and supply chains to ensure that communities such as mine in Knowsley benefit from the transition to net zero?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for her constituency, and on this issue of manufacturing jobs. If we look at what this Government are doing—from GB Energy to the national wealth fund and the clean industry bonus—we see that this Government are determined to ensure that we manufacture in Britain. We care about where things are made, and we will make those good manufacturing jobs happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.

[Steff Aquarone]

The Bacton energy hub in my constituency is undergoing a green transition, which I support because I believe in protecting our natural environment and boosting our economy through net zero—two things the Conservatives seem to have abandoned. Green hydrogen at Bacton needs wind power to be brought in from the coast. Will the Secretary of State help to make that happen, and will he visit Bacton with me to see the potential for himself?

[Ed Miliband]

This, among many others, is a very, very important potential project and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for it. Green hydrogen is absolutely part of our energy mix in the future.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

T3. I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy. I recently met representatives of Newcleo, a company developing small modular reactors using lead-cooled fast reactor technology that uses depleted uranium and plutonium: waste materials of which we have an abundance from our existing nuclear programme. Will the Secretary of State detail what he is doing to ensure that the industrial strategy takes account of all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw, including the wide variety of technologies on offer?

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?

[Ed Miliband]

I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.

[Andrew Bowie]

The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?

[Ed Miliband]

It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T4.   I welcome the plans brought forward last week to provide money off for people living near new energy infrastructure. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another thing that the Conservatives promised, but never had the ability to deliver?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?

[Ed Miliband]

As we discussed earlier, the CCC raised an important issue that we need to look at. The key question on this so-called rebalancing is that it must be looked at in the context of understanding the principled case, while also ensuring that if we go down that or another route, we do so in a way that is fair. That is the work that my Department is engaged on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

T6.   Does the Minister agree that community ownership projects will be crucial to achieving our world-leading net zero goals, and will he come to Edinburgh to see some of our fantastic community power projects?

[Ed Miliband]

Yes, that sounds really good. Community energy is a crucial part of our energy future.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State and I are near neighbours. Will he take a short car journey to Gainsborough to visit the new fusion site at West Burton? It is probably the most exciting development in green energy that we have ever had in this country, creating unlimited jobs and unlimited green energy. Will he join me in Gainsborough?

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not necessarily agree on everything, but on this we do agree. The transformation of the West Burton site from a fossil fuel-fired power station to a fusion power plant is an incredibly exciting project, and we should all be battling for it.

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister may be aware that SSE is supporting more than 1,000 new homes in rural Scotland to aid energy infrastructure development. Does he agree that the SNP Scottish Government’s failure to get a grip on our rural housing crisis is a major barrier to infrastructure development, and will he urge SSE to expand the scheme into my constituency, where we have key projects around the communities of Killearn, Lochearnhead, Tyndrum and Crianlarich?

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T9.   Kent county council plans to introduce 10,000 on-street car chargers over the next decade. To put that in context, Kent has a population of 1.6 million people. At this rate, Kent will have burned down by the time we all have electric on-street car charging. What can the Secretary of State do to speed this up?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Rolling out electric car infrastructure is incredibly important. If he writes to my Department, we will ensure that he gets the best possible reply.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Will Ministers consider exercising the community electricity right within the Infrastructure Act 2015 to require commercial renewable energy developers to offer communities the opportunity to part-own schemes developed in their area?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. As an energy nerd, I am really interested in this 2015 power, which, despite my nerdery, I did not actually know about. We are actively looking at this really important power, which was put in place by the previous Government.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

In response to a written question to me last week, the Minister confirmed that no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented to that will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land. In my constituency, the East Park Energy solar farm is close to 75%, but the overarching national policy statement for energy states at paragraph 5.11.34:

“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification.”

Can the Minister confirm whether nearly 1,500 acres of best and most versatile land is too much good-quality agricultural land to sacrifice?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman will know that any nationally significant project goes through a proper planning process, and it would not be right for me to comment on that. None the less, I am sure that the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues that he has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is the central plank of the Humber 2030 vision. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to meet the Humber Energy Board, and if he does not will he join me in doing so?

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?

[Ed Miliband]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the ongoing work to deliver new nuclear investment in Hartlepool. Billions of pounds are on the table, which will mean jobs and skills for generations to come. Will he meet me to discuss how we can get this deal over the line?

[Ed Miliband]

New nuclear is an essential part of our future energy plans. My Ministers and I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those plans.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?

[Ed Miliband]

I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO₂ market to bring investment and jobs to our region?

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it so well. This is the economic opportunity of our time. Our investment in carbon capture and storage shows what is possible. Today’s desperate request for attention from the Opposition is anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-investment and the wrong choice for Britain.

Clean Energy: North Sea

Ed Miliband Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)]

Today my Department is launching a consultation on our plan for the future of energy in the North sea.

For decades, the North sea’s workers, businesses and communities have helped power our country and our world. This consultation sets out how we will ensure they power our energy future—continuing oil and gas production for decades to come, while seizing the opportunities of the clean energy revolution.

We know that the North sea is a maturing basin and, as a result, jobs in the oil and gas industry have declined over recent years. For this transition to work, we have to manage our oil and gas assets sensibly while developing a plan for the future.

That is why we are consulting on how Government will work with the sector to manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan, as well as how to enact the Government’s commitment not to issue new licences to explore new fields.

This consultation is about a dialogue with industry, workers and communities on building the North sea’s future. The geography and geology of the UK continental shelf (UKCS) are a huge asset in technologies like carbon capture, hydrogen and offshore wind. Britain is well placed to mobilise this natural advantage, but to do so we must put in place policies that will allow us to seize the huge opportunities clean energy presents.

That means harnessing the North sea’s combination of offshore infrastructure, highly-skilled workforce, supply chains and vast natural assets, while ensuring workers have the tools they need to take up new opportunities.

That is what the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is all about. It is the only way to deliver energy security, good, long-term jobs, and a managed, orderly and prosperous transition for the current workforce and communities. At the same time, a science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production is the only way to deliver climate security for future generations.

The Government are determined to co-ordinate the scale-up of the industries which will shape the future of the North sea—including offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, and decommissioning—as the basin matures. This is vital for delivering the best outcomes for workers and communities, energy security, and sustainable economic growth.

That is why we have been moving at pace over the last eight months to put in place the foundations of the future. We have already announced that Great British Energy will be headquartered in Aberdeen, reflecting our commitment that the communities that powered our country’s energy past will continue to power its clean energy future.

In addition, we have overseen a record-breaking renewables auction; kickstarted Britain’s carbon capture and hydrogen industries; worked with industry and unions to move forward on a “skills passport” for offshore workers; and put clean energy at the heart of our modern industrial strategy. This consultation takes the next step.

As part of our commitment to provide certainty to industry, it is being published alongside HM Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs’ oil and gas price mechanism consultation, which sets out how the fiscal regime will respond to any future spikes in oil and gas prices once the energy profits levy (EPL) ends.

We will continue to work in partnership with all those involved in building the North sea’s future—businesses, trade unions, workers, environmental groups and communities—as we develop a plan to seize the opportunities of the years ahead.

[HCWS502]