Energy Grid Resilience
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think we can all stop that now.
Centrica operates the Rough gas storage site, which provides about half of the UK’s current gas storage capacity. Centrica stands ready to invest £2 billion of its own capital to redevelop Rough into the largest long-duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen, which would improve resilience and protect customers from price spikes. To unlock this £2 billion, the company needs assurances and clarity from the Government, not least over regulatory support and a workable cap and floor mechanism. Will the Minister set out what progress has been made in discussions with Centrica to develop this cap and floor mechanism? Given that the Government can make decisions quickly when they choose to, as we saw with British Steel, why has a decision on this mechanism been allowed to drag on for months?
Michael Shanks
I congratulated the hon. Lady yesterday on her remarkable marathon; I think she ran it two hours faster than I did, which leaves considerable room for improvement on my part, but congratulations to her again. She is right to raise this point, and I have answered questions on it before. I have met Centrica on several occasions to discuss various things, including that proposal, but it is a commercial matter for Centrica to bring the proposal to us. The Rough storage facility, which we last talked about in this House a few months ago, was mothballed for a number of years under the previous Government. We are looking in the round at the role it could play in energy security and at the value-for-money arguments. We want to ensure that value for money for the public is protected alongside the security of energy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out the huge amount of private sector investment that is coming in with clean energy. This is why, in the industrial strategy, clean energy is one of the growth-driving sectors where we have seen 10% growth in the economy. We are also seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs, which the Conservatives now seem determined to oppose. We will introduce the clean energy of the future, and that is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030. That will bring down bills, give us energy security and create really good quality jobs.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Before I answer the hon. Lady’s substantive question, I want to offer her my huge congratulations on smashing to smithereens on Sunday the previous record held by a female MP in the London marathon.
Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network with diverse sources of supply. The national energy system operator can balance the system in a wide range of scenarios, including potential disruptions to offshore infrastructure.
Harriet Cross
The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?
Michael Shanks
I will not comment on individual investment cases, but in every single case the Government make an assessment and we look at the national security implications seriously, just as the Conservatives did when they were in government. I would just gently say that the reason the supply chains in this country are as weak as they are is that they were underfunded and under-invested for years by the Conservatives. There could have been a decision, at the point when they took ambitious steps to move towards clean power, to build the supply chains here, but they chose not to do so; they chose to tow things into our waters instead. We are reversing that, but it cannot happen overnight.
North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support
Harriet Cross Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing the debate. To say that it is really important does not really do it justice; what we are seeing in the North sea—job losses, investment drying up and companies folding or choosing to end their UK operations—is not us being alarmist or pessimistic or over-exaggerating. As most of us in this room understand, although that is sadly not the case across the House, those are the cold, hard facts.
Across the UK, approximately 120,000 people are employed in the oil and gas sector, of whom approximately half are in Scotland. The average oil and gas worker is in their mid-40s. This is their transition—not a future transition—and it matters now. In the UK, one in every 200 people is employed either directly or indirectly in the offshore energy sector, and that is significantly weighted towards oil and gas work. Those people work offshore on rigs and floating production storage and offloading units or onshore as geologists, geophysicists and petrophysicists and in our crucial supply chains. That increases to one in 25 across Scotland, about one in five in north-east Scotland and one in three if induced jobs are included.
The impacts of a poorly managed transition will be felt not just in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire or north-east Scotland; the entirely of the UK will suffer. No other UK cluster has the energy capability of north-east Scotland—the skills, supply chains, university specialisms or experiences. If we in north-east Scotland lose our brightest, best, most innovative and most experienced energy workers in the transition from oil and gas to renewable energies, they will be lost to the whole of the UK.
We must not pretend, or mislead ourselves and others into thinking, that transferring to renewable energies is in any way incompatible with continuing to produce oil and gas from the North sea. It is not. More than that, continuing to support our domestic oil and gas sector will only help any transition to renewables to succeed. Will we still need oil and gas for years to come? Yes. It seems that that point is largely uncontested, and the Government have certainly confirmed it. So why—I still have not heard a coherent answer to this—are they effectively ensuring that we do not have a viable oil and gas sector? Removing investment allowances, increasing and extending EPL levels beyond those for any other mature basin and banning new licences do not support the sector, help domestic supplies or protect jobs.
OEUK suggests that 50% of domestic oil and gas needs could be supplied from the North sea until 2050, but only if there are policies to allow oil and gas to be extracted. Brent oil is today at $68 a barrel—almost half the $123 a barrel it peaked at in 2022, and below the EPL price floor of $71 a barrel. Why does the Minister expect North sea businesses to continue in the UK when they are being penalised for their product, despite the Government’s saying that we need it? As others have asked, how can the UK arms of multinational companies compete for funding and investment with energy sectors in other countries, which are so much more supported and encouraged and which offer far greater returns? When investment goes abroad, jobs follow, or are lost. It is that simple. I say it again: our oil and gas sector is vital to the UK’s energy transition.
When I speak to people involved in or with the sector, the vast majority talk about timing. Timing is the most crucial thing in supporting the energy transition, and I would like the Minister to reflect on it in his remarks. For offshore wind, for example, the RGU Energy Transition Institute estimate is an increase from approximately 11,000 jobs in 2024 to 46,000 in 2025. On the face of it, that looks great—35,000 new jobs—but more or less all those jobs will come on stream post 2030, by which time, on the current trajectory of job and investment losses, we are expected to lose 60,000 oil and gas jobs, 50% of which will be in Scotland. No skills passport will bring those jobs back. That is not a fair or just transition; for north-east Scotland, it is a disaster waiting to happen.
The issue is not just when the jobs need to come on stream; it is the type of jobs, as well as whether companies in the north-east will have remained afloat in the interim. At the moment, there are two main categories of jobs: the vast majority of our energy work is in operational activities, such as the day-to-day operations of the industry, while the remaining third—roughly—are in the capital expenditure, such as the building and manufacturing of kit. However, the manpower requirements for running and operating a rig far exceed those of, for example, a wind farm. Until the UK can increase its manufacturing base for wind infrastructure, allowing jobs to be created in capital work rather than just operational work, there is no prospect of transferring tens of thousands of workers from oil and gas to wind or other renewable energy sectors.
Similarly, timing is vital if companies are to keep their order books, if not full, then at least ticking over with traditional oil and gas contracts—again, assuming that the Government’s policies are changed to support the sector—before offshore wind contracts truly pick up. I recently spoke to the chief executive officer of a supply chain company, who had very real concerns about a void in contracts, which the company would not be able to get across, in the next two to five years. What company can retain a workforce if it has no work? These companies are vital to the transition, and we cannot afford to lose them to an expediated, unmanaged decline of oil and gas.
The RGU estimates that 80% of the oil and gas supply chain is transferrable to adjacent sectors, but the reality is that the supply chain will survive only if the transition is managed. If we run down production too quickly and before wind is effectively scaled, the capabilities and expertise will be lost. I end with a brief quote from the North Sea Transition Taskforce, which warns:
“Unless governments act swiftly, there will be no transition; the old North Sea will fade away, along with the skills of individuals and the entrepreneurial skills of businesses in the North Sea supply chain.”
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this critical debate and for her compelling speech, in which she laid out the situation in her constituency in terms of the number of job losses and the increasing poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) did later, she also talked about the loss of skilled workers and jobs to overseas countries.
Managing the transition from a North sea dominated by oil and gas to a North sea with a future for commercially viable renewable energy is critical to the UK’s reaching its climate targets by 2030. The North sea can have a new and bright future if we get things right, which will enable us to strengthen our energy security, reduce skyrocketing energy prices for our households and businesses, secure the UK’s global leadership in floating offshore wind and, importantly, rebuild our manufacturing and port capacity while delivering transitional skills, pathways and jobs for the highly skilled workers and for the thousands of people currently employed in the supply chains for oil and gas.
We Liberal Democrats are opposed to the new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank, and we want the Government to commit to the winding-down of the oil and gas industry, as was agreed among all countries at COP28. The reality is that new drilling will not provide jobs or protect workers in a declining basin.
Harriet Cross
It is estimated that Jackdaw could provide 5% of the UK’s gas needs. Would the hon. Member, and the Liberal Democrats, prefer that we imported that LNG from elsewhere instead?
Pippa Heylings
As I consistently said during the debate about the new oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank, none has provided the jobs predicted, which were all offshored to Dubai. On the gas dependency that we have talked about, it is critical that we make sure that we have homegrown energy so that we can take Putin’s boot off our necks. That is the way.
After 50 years of intensive extraction, the North sea is now an ageing and expensive basin. The transition away from oil and gas production is already under way, with reserves in terminal and irreversible decline. Jobs in the UK’s oil and gas industry have more than halved in the past decade: 227,000 direct roles have disappeared, despite the issuing of 400 new drilling licences and record profits for the major oil companies. Moreover, losses in supply chains far outnumber those in the industry. That is neither fair nor just. We must act now to ensure that the transition ahead supports the workers and communities who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross so eloquently said, have powered Britain for generations, and ensure that they are not left behind.
The future of the North sea can be bright: we boast some of Europe’s best sites for renewable energy. Our current installed capacity of 50 wind farms already accounts for about a quarter of global offshore wind capacity, and our offshore wind potential surpasses our projected energy demand, making it key to our energy security. However, the Liberal Democrats have always been clear that the only way to create long-term, secure jobs is to invest in supporting workers to transition into clean energy industries. The unjust transition of the oil refinery at Grangemouth is a clear illustration—a warning of what happens without early Government intervention and investment, showing that such decisions cannot be left to industry alone.
What jobs are we talking about? We are talking about new jobs within the new manufacturing supply chain and our own domestic green energy supply chain. The UK has consistently failed to seize the full economic benefits of our leadership in offshore wind. As we have heard today, the vast majority of Britain’s offshore wind capacity is owned by foreign companies, and the typical North sea turbine still contains three times more imported material than UK-made content. We need to make sure that our turbines are manufactured here and that our port capacity, in both manufacturing and fixed and floating offshore capacity, is enabled, or that will also be given to other countries. That could create an estimated 23,000 good green jobs, both directly and through supply chains.
Onshore Wind and Solar Generation
Harriet Cross Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In just four short weeks, people across England will go to the polls to determine the future of their local communities. At that same time, the Labour party seeks to impose on those very same communities vast new energy infrastructure: huge solar farms and wind turbines with blade heights of 180 metres to 200 metres, destroying swathes of England’s green and pleasant land and going against the wishes of local people. As ever, only the Conservative party is standing up for those communities, and only the Conservative party believes that people in those communities should have a say over their local area. Labour would silence those communities, choosing to impose rather than to seek consent. In four weeks’ time, voters across this country will have that choice before them.
The order provides a route to approval for onshore wind that entirely bypasses the consent of local communities and empowers the zealotry of the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of the concerns of local people.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In my constituency of Gordon and Buchan, the Suie and Correen hills are subject to a planning application for a new onshore wind farm. There is also concern that, because of that, there will be new pop-up infrastructure next to it, whether substations or batteries and so on. One project leads to another and then to another—it overtakes local communities, it means that local landscapes and local businesses change, and there is an impact on farming, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that such projects cannot be looked at in isolation? This has to be about their holistic impact across the board, not just about the individual scheme, one at a time.
Andrew Bowie
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, living, as we do, in the north-east of Scotland and seeing around us the huge increase in energy infrastructure planned for rural communities over the next few years—it is quite daunting. It is therefore no surprise that there has been such vociferous campaigning against the plans, whether those for wind turbines, pylons, energy substations or battery storage facilities, all of which are in the pipeline for our communities. That is why there is such a pushback there and also such concern across many of the communities that will be affected by the change in England over the next few years. That is why we oppose the SI before us.
In their first week in office, the Government approved three solar farms across Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Rutland, against the wishes of the local communities. Today, the Minister seeks to go further still. In increasing the threshold for solar, he pushes for the development of giant solar farms. To be eligible for sign-off by the Secretary of State, solar farms have to be 100 MW in capacity. Currently, the largest—Shotwick solar park in Flintshire—is 72 MW. The change signals a free-for-all for giant-scale solar, and the instrument brings onshore wind over a 100 MW capacity into the NSIP scope. In Lancashire, that means Scout Moor II being in the Secretary of State’s gift to approve. Calderdale wind farm, with 65 turbines covering 9 square miles, is planned for Yorkshire and will be built on grouse moorland and farmland. In Lincolnshire’s prime agricultural land, the breadbasket of England, this means a potential onslaught of proposals, despite the county council’s opposition to large-scale plans.
I know how much this means to local communities—my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) has also made this point. I represent a constituency that is being subjected to vast swathes of energy infrastructure, and over the next few years approval will be sought for a whole host of new plans that will indelibly change a landscape that people are proud and happy to live in right now.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We are living in the shadow of the former Conservative Government’s failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes. Those failures have contributed directly to an energy crisis that has left households struggling with soaring bills and businesses facing crippling costs. The majority of people polled in this country want to see more action on climate change and saving our planet, not less.
The Liberal Democrats are unwavering champions of renewable energy. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and stop our dependency on despots such as Putin. We welcome the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind, which we have long called for. That was an extremely short-sighted and irresponsible Conservative policy. The planning changes that they made in 2015 and 2016 introduced a de facto ban in England, resulting in a loss to our manufacturing and local economies. The project pipeline for onshore wind shrank by over 90%, and less than 40 MW was consented to and became operational in the intervening period.
Harriet Cross
The supply chain is important for the roll-out of onshore and offshore wind, and the oil and gas sector supply chain will be crucial, but it is being worn away by the rush to end our use of North sea oil and gas. Does the hon. Member agree that preserving that supply chain, and ensuring a managed transition from North sea oil and gas, will be vital to any roll-out of onshore and offshore wind?
Pippa Heylings
We are absolutely and critically supportive of a just transition in the North sea, to move off fossil fuels alongside and parallel to our increased use of renewable energy.
It is therefore right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant investment regime, ensuring that there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, which are already assessed under that regime. The motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW to 100 MW. In one way, that increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivised developers to put in an artificial cap of 49.9 MW, which led to 40% of proposals coming in at that level. Increasing the threshold in local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be required of solar farms, ensuring that, where they are approved, they are nature-friendly. It will also give local voices a greater say in determining the location and suitability of large-scale solar projects up to 100 MW—that is important.
However, local decision making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need a joined-up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the Government’s launching of consultations on both the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plans, which together should determine the most strategic energy mix, how much solar we need, at what scale and where best to locate it across the country.
Great British Energy Bill
Harriet Cross ExcerptsTuesday 25th March 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Act 2025 View all Great British Energy Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I appreciate that a number of Members still want to speak, so I will keep my comments short. The Government’s refusal to support Lords amendment 2 shows the absolutism of their net zero and energy policies. The amendment is not only sensible but morally correct, and in voting against it, the Government are signalling that their ambition to reach net zero trumps everything else. Can that really be correct? If we cannot support those who are suffering from modern slavery, what are we doing? Is the rush to net zero really worth that?
Net zero is intended to prevent people on this planet from going down a route towards a planet that is not inhabitable—that is what we have been sold. What are we saving the planet for, if not to enable people to work in a safe, secure way? We cannot sacrifice that; we cannot condone forced labour by selling our morals to China in order to rush towards net zero. The Uyghur Muslims in China do not have a safe, secure place to work. They are oppressed, and by not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are supporting that oppression. We have rightly condemned slavery in the past. The Government have rightly condemned past slavery, but they are now happy to condone forced labour in China.
It is an unbelievable situation that we find ourselves in, but we are getting used to this sort of behaviour from the Government. We have seen the heartless policies that they have implemented since they came to power, whether that is the family farm tax, the tax on jobs that is putting people out of work, or taxing children’s hospices, which the Government have voted for this afternoon. By not supporting Lords amendment 2, the Government are effectively saying that they are happy to turn a blind eye to modern slavery across the world. That is something that Conservative Members cannot possibly support. Until July last year, those in the Labour party were happy to promote their morals, but it seems that those morals were left in front of the last door they knocked on in July.
Several hon. Members rose—
Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kerry McCarthy
I think I have made it clear that there are ongoing conversations about that, and that we take national security incredibly seriously when we consider investment decisions. On what the hon. Member said about producing more oil and gas here for our own use, I think he needs a lesson in how the energy markets work—there is no guarantee that it would be used here.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The issue is the Labour Government’s rush to decarbonise by 2030, which means that this country does not have the capabilities to fulfil all the requirements to deliver on these projects. Until we do, we will always be reliant on overseas powers and people, such as the Chinese Government and Chinese manufacturers, to deliver what we need in order to decarbonise. Are the Government prepared and happy to sacrifice our national security and our energy security to reach that 2030 target?
Kerry McCarthy
It sounds very much like the hon. Member is making the case for an industrial strategy that ensures that we can match demand with supply. That approach was particularly missing from the previous Government.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.
On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a really important question, which Members from right across this House will agree with. The situation we have inherited from the last Government is that Germany has almost twice as many renewables jobs per capita as Britain, Sweden almost three times as many, and Denmark almost four times as many. Through a combination of Great British Energy, the national wealth fund and a clean industry bonus, we are making sure that we do not just build offshore wind in this country, but reap the huge industrial opportunity from it.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Court of Session’s judgment on Rosebank and Jackdaw was to do with their consents, not their licences? When he comes to consider his decisions on those consents, he should do so on the basis that these are existing, not new, licences.
Ed Miliband
That is an individual planning case, so I will be careful about what I say. What I will say to the hon. Lady is that the last Government made an unlawful decision, according to the court. We are going to follow due process.
ECO4 and Insulation Schemes
Harriet Cross Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: building the supply chain and the workforce will be critical to delivering the pace and the scale of our ambition. We are already putting in place training schemes to build up the next generation of installers, and we are working with local and regional government on how to build our supply chain. A key part of the warm homes plan will be working with a range of organisations from local to national level to build the supply chain and ensure that, through that, we are delivering quality jobs that pay a decent wage. This is a big opportunity. There is an opportunity for consumers, but we also believe that this is good for the economy, including particular local economies, and working with local and regional government to ensure that we realise that is a priority.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she confirmed that the 39 suspended companies are suspended from providing new solid wall insulation under the scheme. Are they also suspended from providing other sorts of insulation, such as external, loft and cavity wall insulation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have suspended the 39 companies, and under Government schemes they will not be doing any work on solid wall insulation. The vast majority, particularly those installers that TrustMark believes are risky, are prohibited from doing other work. Where we have evidence that some of the companies are delivering loft insulation, for example, and other measures to standard, they are allowed to do that, but we are keeping this closely under review. TrustMark is looking at the 39 companies constantly, and there is a big onus on the requirement on those companies to deliver and remediate the work in order to be able to any further work.
Gas Storage Levels
Harriet Cross Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that as well as building an energy system that will deliver generation capacity for the future, we need to work as fast as possible to reduce demand. Part of that is about moving away from gas to heat pumps. That is important not just for our energy system and climate, but for individual households in reducing their bills. We already see a huge shift in the uptake of heat pumps across the country. There is, of course, much more to do on that if we are to reach our target, but the Government are committed to that, and it is important for households right across the country. I echo his points on insulation. Those in fuel poverty are more likely to live in houses that are cold. The more we can do to create warmer homes—that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), is doing—the better for everyone.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last week was the coldest week of the winter. Also last week, 41.9% of our energy mix was gas and just about 25% was wind. We have heard about issues with gas storage, and the Government are penalising the oil and gas sector by extending the windfall tax, not allowing new licences, and removing investment allowances. It feels like this Government are not taking our energy security seriously. Can the Minister reassure the House that that is not the case, and that he will engage with our oil and gas companies to ensure that we are secure in our energy today, despite what they are trying to do for the future?
Michael Shanks
I can give that assurance. Indeed, every month I have been in this job, I have been in Aberdeen, meeting oil and gas companies to discuss the issues. We are not going to agree on everything, but I have been very clear that there will be a long future for oil and gas in the North sea. Yes, we absolutely have said that we do not want to issue any new licences for new fields, but we will not revoke any existing licences. That means that there will continue to be work in the North sea for a long time to come.
I repeat that it is categorically untrue that our electricity or gas supplies have been at risk over the past week. We have robust systems in place, and they worked exactly as they should. Consumers lost absolutely no supply over the last few days, nor will they in the weeks and months ahead.