Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 2025

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 General Committees

[Kerry McCarthy]

The shadow Minister went through his list of questions rather quickly. I will try to respond to some of his comments and answer a few of the questions, but apologies if I did not catch them all—I was trying to scribble away. We intend for the AR7 window to open on 7 August, and we will publish a final Government response very shortly, which will cover all the areas consulted on in March. On the administrative strike price, the shadow Minister cannot expect me to tell him now what the strike price will be. Ahead of every allocation round, we review our evidence base to ensure that it reflects the market environment. The administrative strike price for AR7 will be published ahead of the round opening—as I said, that round will open in August.

The shadow Minister talked about one of his favourite subjects: curtailment payments due to there not being grid capacity for wind. He will know, because he has been told this before in answer to previous questions, that we absolutely understand that issue, and we are prioritising increasing grid capacity to prevent it. Chris Stark, the former chair of the Climate Change Committee, is heading up mission control, and he is working every day—and possibly most of the night—to ensure that we give priority to the right projects in the grid connection. It is like towels on deckchairs; we weed out some of the projects that we know will never come to fruition, and we ensure that we invest in grid infrastructure so that we can make the most of the renewable energy being produced.

The shadow Minister asked why we are not investing in gas and nuclear. He has not been paying attention; he should know that there was a big announcement on nuclear. We are now also looking at small modular reactors. We have awarded Rolls-Royce preferred bidder status for that contract, which is attracting a lot of interest from around the world, to see if it can follow suit.

I am not sure it is worth our rehearsing the conversations about the cost of getting to net zero. I was going to say, “We are very much of the opinion”, but it is not an opinion—we know that the best way to bring down consumer bills in the long term is to get to clean power by 2030. We know that renewables will be cheaper for consumers and less volatile. Home-grown clean energy means that we will not be reliant on imported oil, gas and renewables. They are not only greener but faster to deploy and cheaper to build.

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

The Minister says that making the transition by 2030 will be the best way to stabilise and reduce prices, but even if we go full steam ahead with SMRs, or large nuclear replacement of the ageing nuclear capacity at the moment, none of that will be onstream by 2030. What does she suggest will be the baseload provider for periods where it is dark and the wind is not blowing?

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is a whole factor. There is solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, and increasingly storage. We have nuclear as part of the mix now, and we have said—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Not for 20 years—not yet.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We have nuclear production in this country—[Interruption.] We have nuclear power as part of the mix. Obviously, the investment we have just announced does not come into effect for a while, but we have that as part of the mix. We have said that there will be 95% clean power with gas as a back-up if needed. We are not putting all our eggs in one basket by any means whatsoever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 General Committees

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

I have nothing further to add on the meat of the debate than what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk put forward. I rise to explain my delayed arrival to the Committee; I was a Teller in the Divisions in the Chamber, but I came as quickly as I could. I did not mean any rudeness to you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I am sorry for the delay.

[The Chair]

That is very polite, and it is on the record.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is part of a whole set of things this Government are doing, including lifting the onshore wind ban, releasing private investment and dealing with solar projects that had frankly been sitting on desks for far too long, with nearly 2 GW consented. In fact, more has been consented in nationally consented projects in three months of this Government than in 14 years of the last Government. Doesn’t that tell a story about dither, delay and inaction? So my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is part of a whole series of investments, both private and public, that this Government are unleashing and putting in.

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

I am pleased that there is an announcement on the funding of blue hydrogen at Ellesmere Port, but what about Bacton, the gas terminal in north Norfolk? What are the Secretary of State’s plans to support blue hydrogen projects at Bacton, which would be ideally suited for the southern North sea? Also, having looked at the numbers, which seem a bit light, could he please confirm that it is still Government policy that we should capture and store between 20 and 30 megatons of CO₂ by 2030?

[Ed Miliband]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.

Gas-fired Power Stations

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman asked whether new power plants will be hydrogen or carbon capture, utilisation and storage ready; we will legislate to make that a requirement. He asked how much there will be; around 5 GW, but that is dependent on so many interrelated things, such as the growth of low-carbon and flexible storage, which, as he referred to we are a world leader in developing and supporting both in innovation and through the capacity market. He suggested that none of that was clear yesterday, but it was made crystal clear.

We are a world leader, having announced £20 billion for CCUS. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because he has been around a long time, that in 2003 the then Labour Government said that carbon capture, utilisation and storage was urgent and that there was no route to 2050 without it, but then they proceeded to do nothing about it. This Government are getting on with it. We are putting our money where our mouth is and developing technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen, in a way that the Labour Government failed to do—as they did with renewables, to boot. All they do is talk about climate, but the truth is that the greatest climate risk to this country is if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) destroys the market and starts some state-run quango, which will wreck the renewables growth that we have seen.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I welcome the announcement. The independent Committee On Climate Change recognises that we will need unabated gas in the electricity market right up until 2035 and beyond, and more widely that even in 2050, 25% of our energy needs will come from hydrocarbons. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is exactly the right way to maintain lower energy production costs, while still meeting our net zero targets?

[Graham Stuart]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. The point is to have a wide range of back-up capacity, but not to use it very much with fossil fuels, and, as I think has long been the case, to ensure that any new gas generation should be carbon capture-ready. We look forward to it being hydrogen-ready, too. We are in a very similar position to Germany and other countries that are looking at exactly that. For instance, I think both Germany and Ireland, as part of their growth in renewables, recognise the need for gas, albeit used less and less, to ensure that the lights stay on and there is appropriate insurance in place.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

We are no strangers to hyperbole in this Chamber, but I think the exaggeration of the importance of this Bill in the debate has surprised even Government Members. To hear Opposition Members, we would think that the Government have made a bold announcement to reject their policies on climate change, to deny the science and to minimise the impact of climate change, and to say that we are no longer committed to decarbonising by 2050. None of that is even remotely true.

Nothing has changed in relation to the Government’s policy on climate change, and decarbonisation in particular. In fact, the Prime Minister recently reaffirmed that. The United Kingdom recently passed the substantial marker of being the first of any major economy to more than halve its emissions. That is a huge milestone, and that is the kind of climate leadership that is important; not making virtue-signalling announcements in this Chamber or elsewhere. Countries around the world look at us because of what we do, and we are decarbonising and leading by example.

I will take no lessons from the Labour party. I looked this up during the debate: in 2010, on Labour’s watch, the economy emitted 495.8 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent; now it is 320 million tonnes and declining. That is as a result of Conservative policies in action, where we accept the science on climate change but take positive actions on the really important thing: it is the amount of oil and carbon we use that is important, not where it comes from.

The Conservative record is incredibly strong, but we still recognise, as does the Climate Change Committee, that we need oil and gas as part of our long-term future. Currently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) pointed out, about 75% of our energy comes from hydrocarbons—oil and gas. That is reducing, but it is on a trajectory to get to about 25% even in 2050 and beyond.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is taking the Climate Change Committee’s name in vain. It does not say that we need new oil and gas. It says categorically that new explorations of oil and gas are not compatible with our net zero obligations. I do not understand why he is claiming something that is different from what the committee says. He compared emissions under a Labour Government with those under a Tory Government. I am no apologist for the Labour Government, but I wonder whether he put consumption emissions into those calculations. Did he work out whether emissions have gone down in the UK because we have outsourced even more of our manufacturing to countries on the other side of the world?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The Climate Change Committee gives us the science, and the political decisions are taken in this House. We are not talking about an increase in exploration; we are talking about a managed reduction of 7% per annum.

Moving on, the question is not whether we have oil or gas, yes or no. We need oil and gas, certainly for the transition period between 2024 and 2050, and even beyond—according to the Climate Change Committee, around 25% of our energy will still come from oil and gas. The question is: where should that oil and gas come from? If we need to supply this economy with oil and gas, it is my belief that we should use UK oil and gas, and there are reasons for that. The first is that the industry employs 200,000 people. I would prefer that employment to remain in the UK economy, rather than export it to Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or other oil and gas producing countries. That is a reasonable position, given that our consumption is required for the future.

The second reason is geopolitical. We need an alternative to Russian gas, and not just in this country. I accept the point made earlier by Opposition Members: that oil and gas is a global market, and that 80% of North sea oil is exported to Europe. But emissions are global and so are the geopolitics. It is right, and in our strategic interest, that Europe should have a viable alternative to Russia for the supply of hydrocarbons. We have seen in the last two years the awful consequences of an overreliance on the Russian supply of hydrocarbons, and more so in Europe—Germany, in particular—than in the United Kingdom. We have become a net exporter of gas to mainland Europe—a little from the North sea, but a lot from Milford Haven. Qatari liquid natural gas is imported into our country and transported by the connectors to mainland Europe. The Europeans are sucking up very polluting liquid natural gas because they do not have a viable, cleaner alternative, which North sea gas would provide.

[David Duguid]

It has been pointed out to me that gas in Qatar is produced at a broadly equivalent carbon footprint to ours, but the compression into liquid, the transportation and the de-liquefaction when it gets into this country quadruple that carbon footprint.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members have no answer to that. In Germany in particular, misguided green policies have led to the extraordinary decision to decommission the low-carbon nuclear industry and replace it with coal-fired power stations. I could hardly make it up. Germany is massively increasing its reliance on imported liquid natural gas, which is much more polluting than the cleaner, more local and geopolitically more stable alternative of North sea gas and oil.

The third reason why I would prefer that we used UK oil and gas is that it pays UK tax. I am not ashamed to say that I welcome that. If we are to extract hydrocarbons that will be taxed, I prefer for that tax to be paid in the United Kingdom, rather than in some other country. Just between 2023 and 2028 it is estimated that those tax receipts will amount to £30 billion. We know how much trouble Opposition Members have trying to explain where they will get their £28 billion of borrowing each year, and how that will raise interest rates, debt and inflation. That would be more than doubled if they got their way and their policies destroyed the North sea oil and gas sector.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman mentions what the Government are spending, not spending and taxing, but could he mention how much they actually spend on subsidies for the oil and gas industry—just a number?

[Jerome Mayhew]

A number was mentioned earlier in the debate, but I did not catch it. I am sure that the hon. Lady might have that number in mind. It is right that we support industries in this country, because they create employment, generate economic activity and, in turn, pay taxes. I am not ashamed of that, because it is a good thing.

The final reason why I want oil and gas extraction in this country, if we are to use it, is the balance of payments. That used to be a fashionable economic argument back in the day. When I was a teenager, we used to have announcements on the news about the balance of payments month by month. What has happened to that? The balance of payments is every bit as important economically today as it was back in the 1980s. We run a current account deficit in this country of about £150 billion. That is a huge number, and it will be exacerbated if we choose—and it would be a political choice—not to generate and export a product from this economy to a third economy, but instead choose to import one, exacerbating the balance of payments deficit twice over.

For those four reasons, I am wholly in favour of the ambitions behind this short Bill. Climate change will be solved by reducing demand for hydrocarbons, not by reducing supply. We will solve the demand problem by providing cheap alternatives, which the Government are doing. Members who have contributed were quite right to highlight that. We need renewables.

[Matt Western]

I agree with the hon. Member’s point about reducing demand. The great travesty is that we are still seeing houses built today—I am sure he does in his constituency—where the insulation is not at all deep. That is ridiculous, is it not?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I could not agree more. The future homes building regulations, which require a significantly decreased carbon footprint for modern buildings, come into force in 2025. It is deeply frustrating that they were not brought in earlier. The sooner they come in, the better. We also have the challenge of retrofitting insulation in the 28.5 million existing houses in Britain. Some good points have been made by Opposition Members about the need to improve retrofitting, and there is scope for the Government to incentivise further insulation of private houses, to go with the successful scheme in place already for public sector buildings and housing.

We must also increase our wind power. We have an extremely ambitious target of 50 GW by 2030. The current rate is about 17 GW of renewable wind power generation capacity. We must also increase solar and nuclear, including small modular reactors. We need better technology for carbon capture, usage and storage. We need to accelerate our use of electric or hydrogen vehicles—or, frankly, any other kind of technology that solves the problem—and we need to incentivise the market to step into that area.

We need to take a step back and look at buildings. It is about not just about the operating carbon costs of existing infrastructure, which we are focusing on in both commercial buildings and the residential sector; it is also about the embodied carbon in our construction processes, hence my private Member’s Bill on the measurement of embodied carbon in large buildings and developments. About 50% of the carbon associated with building is in its construction, not its operation.

There are areas where the Government are either ahead of the game or moving in the right direction. They have already been successful in reducing demand for hydrocarbons. I do not understand why Labour appears to put virtue signalling before the economic impact and 200,000 local jobs. I support this eminently sensible Bill.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. This will have to be the final two minutes from the Back Benches. I call Jerome Mayhew.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just going to talk about one new clause, new clause 29, which I oppose. It seeks to prevent further licences of North sea oil and gas. The reason I oppose it is that we have a plan for the decarbonisation of our economy and it is policed, if I can put it that way, by the Committee on Climate Change. In the path to net zero by 2050, we recognise that we have a continuing need for oil and gas at least until 2035, when more than 50% of our energy needs will still come from fossil fuels, and actually up to 2050 included, because it is net zero, not absolute zero. We have to have oil and gas, so let’s get it from the most efficient and environmentally friendly source. The most environmentally friendly source is Norway, but that is not an unlimited resource; the CO₂ equivalent per barrel of oil there is about 7 kg. The additional oil and gas we use comes not from Norway but from Qatar; it is liquid natural gas and the CO₂ equivalent per barrel there is 79 kg, whereas the figure for the North sea is 21 kg—a quarter the level of environmental damage per kilogram of CO₂ equivalent. The consequence of closing down the North sea prematurely would be to increase emissions and make our carbon footprint worse. It would be the triumph of virtue signalling over the practicalities of decarbonisation.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not; I am sorry, but I only have one and a half minutes.

It is logical on environmental grounds, therefore, to support new licences in oil and gas. But there are other arguments. There is the balance of payments—we used to talk about the balance of payments. In 2022, our trade in goods deficit was £63.9 billion. I would rather have our imports of oil and gas coming from the UK and not being imports at all, supporting our balance of payments.

There is the tax income. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that in 2023-24 we are going to get £10.4 billion of tax revenue from North sea oil. That pays for a lot of public goods. We should be supporting that, and we should be supporting business profitability and jobs, because that supports our communities. It also gives time for the phasing of what is described as the just transition to renewable jobs. There is an irony in that the proponents of new clause 30, led by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), talk about just transitions, but it is this longer process away from North sea oil and gas, managing decline, that provides the space for a truly just transition to new renewables employment in this country. I do not support new clause 29 as a result.

[Several hon. Members rose—]