Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I will give way shortly; I will make a little bit of progress.

Those children are desperately trying to catch up on learning that they missed throughout covid, and again they are unsure about whether they will be able to get to school. There are also the businesses throughout the land whose sales and productivity are suffering. They are terrified that, at a time of high inflation, their livelihoods are at risk along with those of their employees.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Could the Secretary of State give us a little more indication of how he will consult on and agree minimum standards in the railway industry?

[Grant Shapps]

I will set out in a bit more detail the way in which the legislation will work in a while, but, briefly speaking, secondary legislation by regulation will be used in each individual sector to come to the right balance. I will explain that in more detail, if my right hon. Friend is patient.

Energy Security

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

How big are they? It is convenient that the World cup is on because the right hon. Gentleman will be able to envisage this. Single turbines are seven football pitches in scope, as they turn. They are not buildable onshore, which is one of the reasons why the cheapest way to build them offshore to produce energy offshore is to build these mammoth turbines, which go together in groups of 200 or even up to 300. However, I am sure he knows all of this and that, rather than discussing the actual solutions, he likes to throw up the chaff.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned onshore, I just want to note that the energy White Paper and the net zero strategy have both said exactly the same as we have been saying this week, which is that onshore can happen where it has local consent. I do not know why this local consent principle is so difficult for him to understand. There it is: we are delivering on the renewables, on the nuclear, on the energy independence and sovereignty that this country needs, and there is nothing from the Labour party.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Over the last 48 hours, wind has generated as little as 1% of our electricity, and it was at 2% when I checked this morning, while of course most of the homes we represent use gas for heating. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need to get on with issuing more production licences for domestic oil and gas, which cuts the carbon dioxide involved and will enable us to keep the lights on, which we cannot do when the wind does not blow?

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend is characteristically correct that we cannot always rely on a single form of electricity generation. As the French have found out, we cannot always rely on nuclear. I think France has 71 nuclear power stations in its fleet, but about half of them are down at the moment, so it cannot rely only on nuclear. I was discussing this very fact with my opposite number yesterday. I know that my right hon. Friend welcomes the £700 million development approval cash that we have put into the first new nuclear since the 1980s, and he is absolutely right that we need a broad spread of different energy forms to ensure that we can provide the cheap power we require at all times.

Britain’s Industrial Future

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I would have hoped that, as a Conservative MP, the hon. Lady would have been talking to her own colleagues. I hope that her ministerial colleague will have heard what she said, and that she will join me in calling on him to respond to the requests of the steel industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) can sit there and heckle all day—he does quite a lot of that—but the honest truth is that we do need cross-party working to deliver for steelworkers. I am happy to support the call of the hon. Lady, as I am the calls of my colleagues who have spoken in this debate.

On the automotive sector, it must make sense for the Government to support workers at one of the most productive car plants in Europe. That is why the Government should be working with BMW at Cowley to give it assurances that they support electric car production in the UK. They should be working with the car industry to support the transition to electric vehicles, not sitting on the sidelines while our great automotive sector falls behind our European competitors. While we have one gigafactory in operation, Germany has five, with a further four in construction. France and Italy are set to have twice as many jobs in battery manufacturing as us by 2030. The precarious future of Britishvolt is incredibly worrying for the local economy, risking up to 8,000 jobs, but it also further jeopardises our gigafactory capacity as a country. As part of our plans for a national wealth fund, Labour will part-finance the creation of three new additional gigafactories by 2025, with a target of eight by 2030.

Turning to shipbuilding, a successful strategy means making and buying more ships here in Britain, such as the Fleet Solid Support Ships, rather than seeing lucrative defence contracts built abroad. It is, of course, a very important way of supporting our steel industry. Investing in sovereign defence capability is a matter of national security as well as being good for jobs, 6,000 of which are at the UK’s high quality shipyards from the Fleet Solid Support Ship contract alone.

A hallmark of each iteration of this Conservative Government has been to act in the heat of the moment and lurch from crisis to crisis. The revolving door of Ministers, the seemingly endless soap opera, the unedifying sight of Conservative MPs eating bugs in the jungle mask a much deeper problem. The Conservatives are unable to offer British industry the bedrock on which it needs to grow. They do not have an industrial strategy that can last the term of a Minister let alone the turn of the century. Whether that is ideological opposition—the mistaken belief that Government should get out of the way—or pure incompetence, it is clear that the Conservatives are failing British industry.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

rose—

[Bill Esterson]

I suspect the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that it is the former.

[John Redwood]

I support what the shadow spokesman says about wanting more made here; I quite agree. On the gigafactories that Labour is now sponsoring, what demands would it make of those putting forward the idea? The issue is: should they not have some customers and a plan that will work. What does he want from them?

[Bill Esterson]

The Government really should have done their own due diligence before investing. If the German, Italian or French Governments have made those investments because they have a strategic interest in their car industries, it must make sense for us to do the same here.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

I will have to check the exact number. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention Aberdeen’s leadership. With our support, Aberdeen is a hydrogen hub and there has been the creation of hydrogen hubs in Teesside, Harwich and all around the country. We are investing in another industry of tomorrow—green and blue hydrogen. His question is revealing. The motion suggests that the Government are doing nothing at all about hydrogen, but far from it. We are investing in the infrastructure for the hydrogen of tomorrow.

[John Redwood]

Is there a danger that the UK could end diesel and petrol vehicle production too early compared with competitors—before we have a large electric car industry up and running? Would that not be bad news for our industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on a lively and informative speech. It was great to have a positive vision for the future from him. He rightly reminded us that many of the exciting new technologies and opportunities available to modern industry and business are being grasped by both the private sector and the Government working together. I congratulate him and his Department on that work. However, I urge him and the Department to greater efforts in the range of more traditional industries that are still very much industries of the future. We have a choice. If we make the right decisions on taxes, regulations, support frameworks and orders, we can produce more such things at home. If we make the wrong decisions, we will end up importing too many of them.

I start with energy. The Minister’s Department has a crucial role in organising our energy and the transition that it wants as well as ensuring that we have enough of the traditional energy forms when they are crucial to heating our homes and turning our factories. In this period of transition, we can do more to extract more of our own oil and gas. That is greener than importing it, because, in burning gas that comes down a pipe from the North sea, far less carbon dioxide is generated than if the gas were extracted somewhere else, transformed into liquid form and transported—at least half the CO₂ is saved that would otherwise be generated. More importantly, that is a safer supply. Even more importantly, if we are still to have high taxes on it, we will collect those taxes. At the moment, the more we import, the more dead money goes out of our country to pay somebody else’s taxes, doubly burdening our industry with the extra cost of what are sometimes extreme market prices to secure the supply—when there is not a long-term contract—and extra transport costs that must be put into the equation for effective delivery.

I urge the new ministerial team to take up from where the old team were moving to and understand that there are quite a lot of good proven reserves out there now. Production licences could be granted in a timely way, and we could have more of our own import substitution and more secure supplies for the future. It is possible to work with the industry on existing fields so that maintenance schedules can be kept to a minimum and output can be maximised, particularly over a difficult winter. We all know that if anything goes wrong with the UK and European gas supply over the winter, it will be our industry that gets caught first; industry is very reliant on plentiful gas supplies for much of its important processes.

We must be careful about carbon accounting. I think a lot of us feel that it does not make a lot of sense to say that the heavy gas-using industries and other fossil fuel-using industries in the United Kingdom, such as cement, glass, ceramics, steel and so on, will be penalised because they are generating carbon dioxide in their process, only to substitute imports of those same products that will certainly produce more CO₂, not only because of the long-distance transport, but quite often from the processes as well, as this country has often gone a bit further in more efficient processes than some import substitutes. So that, too, is an area that we need to look at very carefully.

On the car industry, I would like to expand a little on the intervention. Again, a difficult transition is under way and it can only go at the pace that the customers are willing to let it go. At the moment, as we have been hearing, a relatively small minority of the cars built in this country are full electric cars—something to do with price and range, and people getting used to the idea of the electric vehicle—and so during the transitional period we again have a choice: either we produce the diesel and petrol cars that people still want to buy, or somebody else does that and we end up importing them. Again, I do not think that that is a good course. I would not want to be ahead of some of the other leading car producers in the world in definitely ruling out producing vehicles that still sell well, when we have put a lot of investment collectively into developing more fuel-efficient vehicles, which have much less coming out of the tailgate.

My final brief point builds on one that the Minister eloquently made in certain contexts. We can do a lot more, as the Government are trying to do, with sensible purchasing of our own products. Of course, we do not want to buy products that are less good quality or too expensive. There has to be competition within the UK market to reassure the Government they are getting value, but just as we have always done with things like warships, so we can do for more essential products. We should give the home base the best chance and, if necessary, help people come in as major investors with their factories in order to do so.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Ind)]

As a former Secretary of State for Wales, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the very exciting global centre of rail excellence that is being built in Onllwyn in my constituency. It will be the only testing centre for futuristic trains and infrastructure in the UK. The Welsh Government have put in £50 million. Does he agree that his Government should honour their commitment to put in £30 million, so that it can be finished on schedule by July 2023?

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady has made her own point very well and I trust Ministers will answer. I have not been privy to the documents on this particular project, so I have no idea how I can answer that and I do not know what the background is to the timing and the opportunity that may be presented. However, in general terms I am all in favour of more opportunities for Wales, as well as for England and the rest of the United Kingdom.

In summary, yes Minister, let us have more of it. Let us have more, cheaper energy produced at home. Let us have more steel, bricks and ceramics produced at home. To do that, it will require some actions, inspired purchasing and the right tax and regulatory regime so that we do not penalise ourselves needlessly over net zero and end up burdening the world with more CO₂ and ourselves with more imports.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly support the Bill and congratulate the Minister on his presentation. I hope that the Government will urgently reform the energy directives and regulations that have made us cruelly import-dependent such that we now have to buy excessively expensive energy on the world market when we should drive for self-sufficiency.

[Dean Russell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is ultimately about ensuring that we are doing the right thing by people across the country. The truth is that the Bill is a framework, and this is not the time to debate the minutiae and the details as there will be plenty of opportunities for that in Committee, the future stages and statutory instruments. We should welcome the Bill’s framework, which is about taking back control for the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the hon. Member’s position. I simply say that, if we were to lock ourselves into a permanent debate on this matter, it would produce many of the negative consequences that have already come from this process. I appreciate that, from an SNP perspective, it does not see uncertainty as a problem, because its plans would, in many ways, produce even more uncertainty. However, I do not think what he suggests is a serious way forward. I am happy to have that argument because I do not think that it is a practical set of proposals.

The past four weeks in British politics have been nothing short of a disgrace, but the UK’s problems predate the past four weeks. As we heard earlier in Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, at the heart of the poor economic performance over the past 12 years is the fact that our business investment has been too low. Even before the mini-Budget set fire to the British economy, the UK had the lowest rate of business investment in the G7, despite having the lowest headline rate of corporation tax.

Business is crying out for stability, for long-term political commitment and for consistent policy. That is why we on the Opposition Benches have published our industrial strategy and why the chairman of Tesco recently said that only Labour is on the pitch when it comes to growth.

The Conservatives’ imaginary view of business leaders who want deregulated, unpredictable, pure market forces simply does not sit with the established facts. Business likes certainty, but the Bill throws thousands of pieces of legislation into the grinder with no idea which and how many of them will survive. Why would a business have any confidence in our country when it has no idea what the rules will be that govern every part of its operation in 12 months’ time? Once again, this is a matter of trust. After the chaos of the past few weeks, Government Members are foolish to think that any business leader would now trust them with this seismic task.

[John Redwood]

Can the Opposition spokesman name a single regulation or directive of the EU that he thinks should either be repealed or could be improved?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I certainly can. I have always said, for instance, that Solvency II could be improved by having to do the regulation on a basis in this country. If we look at the Government’s approach to that area through the financial services and markets legislation, we see that they are taking exactly what might be termed a more sensible approach, going on a sector-by-sector basis, putting forward positive proposals, rather than following the sunset clause procedure, which is so reckless and uncertain. I say genuinely to the right hon. Gentleman: please have the humility to look at the damage done in the past four weeks, and the role of Government Members in that, and perhaps think, “What if we are wrong, and what are the consequences if we are?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is always a discussion to be had about whether a few days in a Committee of the whole House or upstairs in Committee provides better scrutiny. People sometimes reach different conclusions on that, but there will be a proper opportunity for a Committee stage upstairs, and I think that is perfectly reasonable.

I want to go back to the fundamental point about the supremacy issue. Let me reiterate that anyone who opposes the Bill is in fact re-fighting the Brexit battle.

[John Redwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the great work that has been done on the draft legislation. Does he not find it an odd paradox, or contradiction, that many Opposition Members come to this place apparently to form laws but do not believe we can ever make a law that is good, and we need to rely on EU law in so many areas where I think we can actually do better?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is wise, as always. But it is even odder than that, because there is this very strange view that laws that came in without any scrutiny at all—regulations of the EU that became our law automatically—cannot be removed without primary legislation. That is just bizarre.

The laws with which we are dealing came in under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. Either they came in with minimum scrutiny but could not be amended or changed, or they came in with no scrutiny at all. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) disagrees with me on this, but we are not using this procedure to repeal Acts of Parliament. Even though these measures have the effect of introducing EU law, an Act of Parliament has had full scrutiny in the House, and to be repealed it deserves full scrutiny to be taken away. That is the correct constitutional procedure.

Energy Prices Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The point of the Bill is to bring in support from 1 October. It has already been done in GB for domestic users and it will be retrospective for Northern Ireland. That is what the Bill is trying to achieve.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The way out of this problem is far more domestic capacity, so that there is a bigger supply in due course. That requires investment. Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that although there will be temporary subsidies, price controls and surrogate windfall taxes, sufficient incentives and signals will be sent to industry that we really do need the investment and that it will be worthwhile?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Yes, indeed. This is a temporary measure. The legislation runs out; there are various sunset clauses that will affect it. We need more of our own supply. Some will be renewable, and some will be oil and gas. We need to ensure that cheap energy flows in this country for the good of the economy.

The legislation will enable the Government to provide support to consumers across the UK who are not on the main gas grid. This will benefit consumers who use alternative fuels to heat their homes, such as heating oil, as well as those who live on heat networks. Eligible households will receive a £100 payment this winter through alternative fuel payment powers, which are introduced under the Bill. The Government will be setting out the support available for non-domestic consumers on the same basis.

The important point on the £100 payment is that it is designed with reference to changes in the price of heating oil from September 2021 to September 2022 and aims to provide support which is equivalent to that received by people who heat their homes using mains gas. I know right hon. and hon. Members are interested in how those figures have been calculated, so I will place more information in the House of Commons Library detailing the basis of our calculation.

In addition, measures in the Bill will extend the energy bills support scheme to UK households that would otherwise miss out on the automatic £400 payment as they do not have a domestic electricity contract. That may be because they receive their energy through an intermediary with a commercial connection, or because they are otherwise off the electricity grid. The Bill will also ensure that in cases where intermediaries receive support from the schemes, they are required to pass it on to the end users as appropriate.

For example, the legislation will provide powers so that landlords are required to pass on support to tenants. His Majesty’s Government are taking action to provide equivalent support to heat network customers. This includes measures that will ensure heat network suppliers pass on the support they receive to their customers. In addition, the Bill provides for the appointment of an alternative dispute resolution body, which will handle complaints raised by consumers against their heat network if it has not passed through the benefit.

Let me turn to non-domestic schemes. As well as helping households, the Government are taking action to provide support to businesses, charities and public sector organisations through the energy bill relief scheme. We will provide support to non-domestic consumers as soon as possible to help businesses and other organisations with their energy bills this winter. The Bill is vital for the implementation of the scheme, which will provide a price reduction to ensure businesses are protected from excessively high bills. Initially, the price reduction will run for six months, covering energy use from 1 October. After three months, the Government will publish a review, which will consider how best to offer further support. It will focus in particular on non-domestic energy users who are most at risk to energy price increases. Additional support for those deemed eligible will begin immediately after the initial six-month support scheme.

In addition to those unprecedented support schemes, the Bill will contain measures that will allow us to protect consumers from paying excessively high prices for low-carbon electricity. The provisions will limit the effect of soaring global gas prices by breaking the link between gas prices and lower cost renewables. This will help to ease the pressure on consumer bills in the short term, while ensuring energy firms are not unduly gaining from the energy crisis. In addition, the Bill will enable the Government to offer a contract for difference to existing generators not already covered by the Government’s contract for difference scheme. This voluntary contract would grant generators longer-term revenue certainty and safeguard consumers from further price rises.

Taken as a whole, the Bill will ensure that families, businesses, charities, schools, hospitals, care homes and all users of energy, receive the urgent support they require owing to the rising costs of global energy prices. In addition, the legislation takes important steps to decouple the link between high gas and electricity prices, which will ensure consumers pay a fair price for their energy. I hope that Members, right hon. and hon. Members alike, will agree that this is a vital and timely piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today that this scheme should be time-limited to six months and that a different scheme should be developed against the possibility that energy prices remain very high for the months thereafter. I do not think that we can go on indefinitely at the rate of the cost of this particular scheme over the winter. If this continues, we need to target the support much more clearly on the many people and families in this country who could not afford the bills otherwise and leave those who have rather more money and are using rather more energy on luxuries to pay more of that for themselves. We have time to sort out a scheme that we can target better. I am sure that this Committee, and the dialogue that will continue, will make sure, through pressure from Back Benchers and Front Benchers, that we do not leave anybody out. It is very important that everybody has proper support one way or another so that they can afford their energy bills this winter and beyond.

I am also sure that the long-term solution is more domestic energy. We cannot carry on relying on unreliable imports, which can, at times, force our country to pay extreme prices on world markets to top up our gas or electricity because we do not have enough for ourselves. We are a fortunate country with many opportunities to produce fossil fuel and renewable energy. We have been a bit lax in recent years in not putting in enough investment, so I hope that the Secretary of State will look again at the incentives—as I am sure he will—and at the predictability of contracts and investment, so that Britain is a great place in which to invest for these purposes, and so we can exploit more of our energy and have more reliable supplies, even generating a surplus in some areas so that we can help Europe, which is very short of energy and does not have many of our natural advantages.

My concluding point is that we cannot go on for too long with a complex net of subsidies, price controls and interventions without damaging the marketplace more widely and sending the wrong signals, so I am glad that this measure will be short-term. We need a better system for the future so that there can be plenty of support for those on low incomes if energy prices remain high, but also much more investment to solve the underlying problem.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Energy Security Strategy

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the British energy security strategy.

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I am grateful to Members for participating in this important debate. The issue of energy security has never been so important. Putin’s onslaught on the Ukrainian people, the obscene profiteering of the oil and energy giants and the petrol retailers’ opportunist price hikes have led to soaring energy bills, with Ofgem warning that up to 12 million households could be plunged into fuel poverty this year. Too many of my constituents are grappling with the terrible dilemma of whether to heat their homes or put a warm meal on the table. Meanwhile, Putin’s efforts to weaponise Russian gas and oil have forced Europe to reckon with the challenge of charting a course towards energy independence. All the while, the window for avoiding climate catastrophe is rapidly closing, with the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stating clearly that we must decarbonise at a speed previously thought to be unimaginable.

The forthcoming energy security Bill is one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever to be brought before Parliament, but the strategy outlined by the Government fails to come near the task of tackling the scale of the crisis we face. The energy security strategy offered the Government the opportunity to harness the potential of our wind, tide and sun and deliver a greener and more independent energy system. However, while the Government have gone beyond their manifesto commitment and even the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee with the target of delivering 50 GW of offshore wind power by 2030, that scale of ambition is not matched for other renewables. The Government’s refusal to support new onshore wind developments is particularly disappointing, given the massive public support for new wind farms.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What back-up would we need if we became even more dependent on wind? There are days when the wind does not blow and then we get no wind power.

[Mick Whitley]

I will try to cover that later in my speech.

Onshore wind can meet the growing demand for electricity as our economy decarbonises, but also, importantly, it could help us to transform the economic fortune of left-behind communities, with the potential to boost the UK economy by more than £45 billion and create 57,000 new jobs. By accelerating the development of the 649 individual solar and wind farms that have already been granted planning permission, we can eradicate the need for Russian gas imports entirely. Putin’s ransom demands can be safely ignored.

There are many of us who had hoped that the Prime Minister might undo the draconian planning restrictions for onshore wind, introduced by the Cameron Government, that have made it virtually impossible to build new wind farms in all but a handful of local authorities. In 2020, the Prime Minister reversed his predecessor’s decision to exclude onshore wind from the contracts for difference scheme. Our hopes for a repeat performance were bolstered in the weeks running up to the publication of the energy security strategy, which appeared to commit the Government to tripling onshore wind capacity by 2035. That would have been a bold, progressive policy and a sign of a Government who understand both the needs of our country and the public mood. However, the plans were strangled at birth by Tory Back Benchers and their allies in the Cabinet, some of whom have happily taken small fortunes from fossil fuel giants and so-called climate sceptics. Now, the strategy explicitly rules out the planning reforms that are essential to unlocking the promise of onshore wind.

It is not just onshore wind that is being ignored by the Government; the UK has half of all Europe’s tidal energy capacity and many experts agree that no country anywhere in the world is better placed to exploit the remarkable power of the tide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing the debate.

Energy security is as important as ever in the face of the climate emergency and the need to get to net zero, but also in the light of more recent events, which have seen energy prices and household energy bills soar. There is some good news: the less we depend on fossil fuels, the better for the climate and household bills. It would therefore be completely wrong of the Government to go back to more fossil fuel exploration. Instead, an even more ambitious plan for the roll-out of renewables is the right way forward.

The opportunities are fantastic and plentiful. I have mentioned just one, which is floating offshore wind. I believe that Britain could be a true global leader in this field, and the Minister will find in me a passionate and true supporter of all efforts to help the development of floating offshore wind in this country. There are fantastic opportunities, and we need to help develop them. There are some barriers as well, but the opportunities are amazing, and Britain could truly be a leader and an exporter of renewable energy.

[John Redwood]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will answer what the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) did not: what would the back-up arrangements be? We have had quite a number of days this summer when wind has generated only 2% of our energy, and we have been using coal as back-up. What is the back-up, and is that not part of the cost of wind?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, because it goes to the core of the argument. There are already models, and they have been around for some time. The idea of having a baseload is old-fashioned thinking, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston) for mentioning community energy. We need much smaller devolved energy supply and production, rather than massive, centralised providers, and the idea of a baseload is becoming more and more obsolete. Indeed, if we had floating offshore wind, whereby the generation of electricity takes place far out in the sea rather than on the shallow seabed, there would be enough energy to meet Britain’s demands.

I believe in going even further and exporting renewable energy. If we do not do it in Britain, other European countries will come forward. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has been to briefings on floating offshore wind, but it is fascinating to see the enormous amount of energy that such installations can produce. If we do not take the opportunity, the technology will be used by other countries and they will become the leaders in that technology instead. I say to the Minister that I am a passionate and true supporter of any Government efforts to support floating offshore wind. It is a new technology, but it is very encouraging and interesting.

Home installations should have been a key part of the Government’s energy security strategy, but they were not. Instead, the energy efficiency of our homes is among the worst in Europe, and the Government are leaving people to suffer with high bills and heating costs. Meanwhile, the Government have failed to invest in more renewables, particularly onshore wind, but as I have just mentioned, I believe that they should be seriously looking at offshore wind and floating offshore wind. They have instead committed to eight new nuclear power stations, and the Minister is aware of my well-known objection to that. The Government have not reversed the effective ban on onshore wind, and the new nuclear power stations will add £96 a year to people’s energy bills.

We have already discussed how expensive nuclear-powered energy is compared with renewables. EDF previously estimated that the cost of funding the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk will add up to £12 a year to household energy bills for every family in the country at its peak. The Government have confirmed that each new nuclear power plant will add around £1 per month to energy bills during construction. There are just over 26 million households in England, Wales and Scotland, meaning a bill of £2.6 billion a year is set to land on households because of the Government’s failure to plan ahead and invest more in renewables years ago. This comes as the energy price cap has risen by just under £700 on average, with further increases expected in the autumn.

The Government recently passed a new law that will allow them to add levies to energy bills to fund new nuclear plants. It is madness, as I keep saying. The Liberal Democrats attempted to exempt at least the most vulnerable from the additional levies, but the Government rejected that proposal. Investing in renewables instead would come at a fraction of the cost currently set aside for nuclear.

There is huge potential for more community-scale renewable energy, which has been mentioned today, and I ask the Minister to respond on that point. We need more community energy and, as has been said, more than 300 MPs are behind it.

The biggest advantage of community energy is in bringing people behind the need to get to net zero. We are going to face many disruptions in order to get to net zero by 2050, and bringing people on board will be the most important thing we can do. Community energy is the best place to drive the movement to get people behind net zero. We have already heard about the difficulties, but nothing is beyond us if we really have the political will to achieve it. My ask of the Minister is to respond positively on how we can remove the existing barriers for community energy.

The measures necessary to tackle climate change will take a big effort and cause a lot of disruption. The Government must acknowledge that there will be disruption, but community energy is one way of making sure that people are fully behind it.

In the past decade, community energy has seen little to no growth. The Environmental Audit Committee has noted that, between 2020 and 2021, community energy increased by a meagre 31 MW, less than 0.5% of total UK electricity generation. An enabling mechanism would not only protect families from soaring energy bill costs, but benefit the economy through job creation. It is clear that it would open a stream of jobs and economic wealth. For example, the 2020 community energy groups across the UK have more than 3,000 volunteers and almost 500 full-time staff. It is estimated that a twentyfold increase would create almost 60,000 skilled jobs, and that is at the lower end of the forecast.

Will the Government include in the upcoming energy security Bill an enabling mechanism, such as that proposed by the Local Electricity Bill, to protect individuals, families and the environment at such an essential time? As we have already heard, there is much support for such a measure. I hope the Minister will focus on answering that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. The fact is that if we took the approach of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), we would not have moved on from the use of coal. In the 19th century, coal powered virtually everything, but then oil and then gas started to power things. We have to move on. There has to be a short, medium and long-term strategy. It is fine if people want to ask me, “Well, what are your plans for next week and the week after that?” We can have lots of plans for next week, but there also have to be plans for the medium and long term, and that is what the energy strategy is about.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I will in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the alternative energy supply if wind drops off. It has to be part of a comprehensive package—that is the issue. Energy has to be available and one does it in a variety of ways. It is not simply about a turbine going down and that being the end of the matter. There are designs available out there, for example in Cape Cod, where a company, developer, Government or state—call it what you will—can ask about an area’s topography and then design wind turbines to maximise the capacity, and that is built into the strategy. That is how it is done—through technological use of the topography, so to speak.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents my views. I was an adviser to the new electricity-generating system at the time of privatisation, when we encouraged and designed a system that carried out a massive switch out of coal and into gas because it was cleaner and a lot cheaper. That was the first green revolution. I hope he will withdraw his slur on me.

[Peter Dowd]

If telling the truth is a slur, I certainly will not withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman has to come into the 21st century. The system is not working. We have a privatised, market system that, quite frankly, is not working. The problems we are now having because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine just reaffirm that the model is not working and that we do not have the disparate energy supply that we actually need.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) said on market reform, so I will not go into that. He also raised the issue of tidal power. My constituency is on the Mersey and overlooks a lot of turbines, but for a long time, since I was a member of Merseyside County Council 40 years ago, we have also been trying to get the Mersey barrage. There are lots of examples of barrages working well across the world—I did have a list of them, but I do not have it to hand—and they are priced relatively well. That is also case in other countries that are pushing the green agenda. The Netherlands are using their topography, as are the Spanish. The Japanese are now virtually in the position where they can have 100% efficiency with wind and a variety of other sustainable energy plans. India, Australia, France, Germany, China and the USA are moving ahead. Yes, the UK is doing well, but we are not doing well enough. We have to move on as much as we possibly can.

One of my concerns is the Government’s approach to community energy companies. A letter from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to a colleague says:

“The right to local energy supply already exists under the Electricity Act 1989 and Ofgem, the independent energy regulator, has existing flexibility to award supply licences that are restricted… Changing the licensing framework to suit specific business models risks creating wider distortions elsewhere in the energy system, which could increase costs for other consumers and further unintended consequences.”

I do not believe there is any evidence whatsoever for that—quite the contrary—so it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about it. In my opinion and that of many other people, that letter is not factually correct. For example, in a local network, energy loss through the system is significantly lower. That has not been factored into the Government’s strategy, but it should be.

The Secretary of State’s letter effectively pooh-poohs the idea of local community enterprises on the grounds that they will distort the market—well, if we do not have a distorted market at the moment, what precisely do we have? We are here today to push the Government to create an energy market that serves the country. I do not want to go into the issue of nationalisation and public ownership of the energy sector, because my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has already done so, but at the very least we have to have a good look at it, because the market is not working. It is as simple as that, and I would challenge anybody who tells me it is. We have to move on, and as the coalition Government said in their July 2011 UK renewable energy road map—we came to a bump in the road somewhere between 2011 and now—

“The nations of the United Kingdom are endowed with vast and varied renewable energy resources. We have the best wind…and tidal resources in Europe.”

That is as true today as it was 10 years ago, but I am afraid we are not using all the advantages we have as a nation. We have almost an inbuilt potential energy supply, but we are not using it. It is about time that the Government get to grips with that and use what we have now, not just in the future.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome any measure to buttress our energy security. Ministers are right to be alert to the difficulties we face. I am concerned about this decade. Once again in this debate, we have heard many ideas about nuclear, wind and solar—new technologies that may make a great contribution in the next decade—but our task today is to reinforce all the things that the Minister is doing to keep our lights on for the next three or four years. Our more immediate task is to see what contribution the United Kingdom can make to getting Russian gas and oil out of the European system. We need to make our contribution, providing more of that supply from our domestic sources as part of our war effort. We need our people, who want to keep the lights on and the boilers running, to feel secure that we will make our contribution in case Russia turns the taps off.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is simply not true that renewable energy projects will take until next decade to be developed. In fact, many of them are waiting; it is just that they cannot be connected to the grid. Can the right hon. Gentleman correct what he has just said about renewable energy projects?

[John Redwood]

I am afraid that the hon. Lady, and other Members who have made similar contributions, do not understand that I am dealing with the problem of intermittency. In order for all the extra wind they want to be useful, there needs to be a way of timesharing the wind power. We already have days on which wind and solar together produce less than 10% of our electricity, and most of our constituents are not using electricity to drive or to heat their homes, so that is a very small proportion of our total energy.

The vision of wind requires mass battery storage—we seem to be years away from the technology and the investment required to do that—and/or conversion to hydrogen. Green hydrogen would be a perfectly good answer, but again, we are years away from the investment, the practicalities and the commercial projects that could turn that wind energy into hydrogen. My constituents would love it if they could get hydrogen today. They do not want to have to rip out their gas boiler; they would quite like to be able to route more hydrogen through the existing gas boiler and make their contribution to the green revolution.

However, MPs have to be realistic. Our prime duty is to ensure that our constituents can live in relative prosperity, keep the lights on and have access to decent energy for their requirements. At the moment, most of our constituents get to work and to the shops using a diesel or petrol van or car; most heat their homes and water with a gas, oil or coal boiler. Very few use electric technology for that. If there was the great popular electrical revolution that they have bought into, and they could suddenly afford the electrical products and liked them, we would have a huge problem, because we would be chronically short of electricity generating capacity.

The true electrical revolution on the scale that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) would like would require an enormous investment in new electrical capacity. If everybody went home tonight and plugged in their car, which uses more electricity than the rest of the home, and heated their homes using electricity, there would need to be a big increase in capacity. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is shaking her head. She wants to get real! Does she really want to cut off her constituents because she so hates them using gas?

[Wera Hobhouse]

This is about choices. We cannot forever get stuck in the past, as we have just heard. We need to look forward to the future. Investment in renewables is the only way I can see as the right way forward. Yes, that needs adaptation; yes, that needs our constituents to come along. However, it is a necessity. We cannot bury our heads in the sand.

[John Redwood]

Once again, the hon. Lady is in denial. She will not answer the intermittency problem. Does she ever look at the hourly and daily statistics on the grid to see, quite often, how little of our power is renewable-generated? That is because of physics and weather. We have to find technological answers to that. Now, there are technological answers, but at the moment they are not being adopted. They are not commercial and they have not been trialled properly; there may be safety issues and all sorts of things.

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, they have.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman says that they have been trialled. Why are they not there, then? Why can I not turn on my hydrogen tap now? There are all sorts of commercial issues and issues about how to route it to every home and so forth.

[Peter Dowd]

The right hon. Gentleman is so fixed on this idea of commerciality. There will potentially come a point when the taxpayer—for the sake of argument—decides that the Government are going to invest. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an ideological obsession with the Government not doing that. However, in the current situation, does he not agree that the state might sometimes have to do just that?

[John Redwood]

But that is happening. We already have one of the most over-managed systems because successive Governments have put in all sorts of subsidies, tax breaks, interventions, price controls and all the rest of it to try to send those signals. That is why we have the current mix—it is not the exact mix the market would have produced.

I fully accept that there is often a role for Government when we try to develop new technologies. I have no problem with that. However, it does require agreement on what that technology is, agreement on the scale of the effort needed and realism about how many years it would take. It is all very well for the Members present to say that they have a vision of everybody using an electric car and having a heat pump. However, if their constituents cannot afford it or do not want it, it does not matter what Members think—they have to deal with the world as it is. We cannot lecture our constituents into having a heat pump. They will have a heat pump when it is affordable, when it is a good product and when they think it makes sense, and they are nowhere near coming to that conclusion at the moment.

The crucial question in this debate is what more the United Kingdom can do at this critical moment. We have to help our allies and friends on the continent who are gas short and oil short and want to get Russia out of their supply system but cannot do so because it would collapse their industry, while Russia is financing a war by selling its oil and gas into Europe as well as elsewhere. I think there is a lot more we can do.

I urge the Minister to see it as both a patriotic duty and a crucial duty to our allies to work closely with our producers and owners of oil and gas reserves in the United Kingdom and maximise output as quickly as possible. Some of the output can be increased quite quickly; for others, it will take two or three years to get the investments in. Will the Minister do everything he can to expedite it? We owe that to our constituents, because gas and oil are too dear—every little extra that we can produce will make a little difference—and confidence in markets might be affected. Above all, we owe it to our allies, who will otherwise be financing Putin’s war.

Subsidy Control Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. This is what I mean about using other areas of law; other areas testing the value of the use of public money will be better suited for addressing exactly those points, but I very much take the one she makes.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Would it not in future be possible for the Government, when offering a subsidy to companies, to specify that they need to meet certain labour standards so that the subsidies regime would apply?

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am old enough to remember when an energy price cap was living in a “Marxist universe” and now it is Government policy.

The Federation for Small Businesses reports that 45% of members are seeing soaring costs from higher energy bills. Meanwhile, the Energy Intensive Users Group, representing vital industries such as steel and pharmaceuticals, has called repeatedly for “immediate action”.

This is an economic crisis plain and simple. What is extraordinary is that the Government, months into the crisis, have not produced a single solution. Where is the solution? There can be no greater evidence of a Government paralysed by inaction. Millions of families who want reassurance are instead subject to the spectacle of a rule-breaking Prime Minister still too distracted by trying to save his own skin.

Our case today is that millions of struggling families should not be left to face this situation alone and that we should do all we can to act. It is right to look to those benefiting from this crisis to make a contribution.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is highlighting this issue. Does he agree that gas prices are a lot dearer in Europe and the UK than they are in America because we are short of gas here? Would it not therefore be a good idea for us to get more gas out of our North sea to ease the squeeze?

[Edward Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I differ somewhat on this. The real problem is that we have not gone far enough or fast enough on the green transition. The more we are subject to the volatility of fossil fuels—the prices are set internationally—the more we are at risk of the kind of crisis we are seeing at the moment.

If there is one principle that should get us through these tough times, it is that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. Britain’s families and businesses are facing the toughest times, but that is not true of everyone. For the oil and gas sector, the price spike has been a bonanza—a trebling of prices today compared with a year ago. Let us be clear about the effect that is having on oil and gas company profits.

Listen to Bernard Looney, the chief executive of BP. He says this: the rise in prices is a “cash machine” for his company. Those were his words—a “cash machine”. Let those words ring in the ears of right hon. and hon. Members in this House. Let us be clear about who is on the other side of the cash machine: the British people. In other words, it is an ATM from which the oil and gas companies collect billions and into which the British people pay—people like the man in Devon who could only afford to heat one room. He is one of the millions paying into the cash machine for BP.

Once the companies are withdrawing the cash from the cash machine, where is the unexpected windfall going? Let us not fall for the argument that may be made in this debate—that it is somehow going into investment or workers in the oil and gas sector. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says from a sedentary position that it is. Let me tell him that he is wrong. All the evidence is that the companies are so flush with cash that billions are being used to inflate the share price in buybacks from shareholders. BP did a share buyback of over £1 billion in August, but it was so overwhelmed with cash that it did another worth nearly £1 billion in November. Shell has done the same, with a £1.1 billion share buyback in December. But that is not enough: it says it will do another one, worth £4 billion, at pace, in 2022.

This is simply a redistribution of wealth from the energy bills of the British people—those who can least afford it—to the shareholders of those companies. The question before us, then, is one that has confronted previous Governments: should we do something about the situation or say that it is wrong to take account of the windfall in the tax decisions that we make? I say that it is not wrong to take account of it—it is fair and it is right and it is principled.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome this opportunity for us to discuss one of the biggest issues facing the country. April could indeed be the cruellest month this year if more action is not taken to tackle the forthcoming problem, because we are likely to see an unfortunate coincidence of a big surge in electricity and gas bills as the cap is relaxed, an increase in council bills, general inflation that is a bit too high, and a national insurance increase hitting people’s work incomes. I urge the Government to think again about the possible severity of that squeeze on real incomes, as it would have a knock-on effect, reducing people’s ability to spend on other discretionary items as they struggle to pay energy bills. It would therefore slow the economy quite considerably, at the same time as creating this shock to living standards.

The Ministers sitting on the Front Bench are, I am sure, engaged in conversations more widely in Government, including with senior members of the Government who will make the ultimate decisions. Today is not really the day to debate more general taxation issues, although even at this late stage I would like the Government to cancel the national insurance increase, on the grounds that public finances generated a big surge in revenue compared with the Budget forecast last March, and our deficit is around £60 billion lower than they thought it was going to be. I say to the Government that they can accommodate the £12 billion they need to spend—rightly—on health improvements, without that money.

The proper subject of this debate is our energy markets. If we compare the two sides of the Atlantic, we see in Biden’s America, where he inherited a period of successful exploration and development of domestic gas, a market that can more than supply its own needs and has kept prices considerably lower than the damaged European market. President Biden, while clearly putting his country on the road to net zero at COP26, returned home to authorise more exploration and development of both oil and gas wells, and to license more territory in the gulf of Mexico. He took the view that we will have a transition need for gas for this decade or more, and he needs to keep the American market properly supplied.

I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to be sympathetic, as I think they are, to the case that while we still need to burn quite a lot of gas, and while we are awaiting plentiful supplies of renewable or nuclear power that will be affordable and reliable, we must accept that we will be burning somebody’s gas, and it must make more sense to burn our own, rather than imports. Indeed, I would start that case from the green point of view. A while ago I had a useful answer to a parliamentary question, pointing out that the CO₂ generated by importing liquefied natural gas and burning it in whatever we wish to burn it in is more than double the amount of CO₂ generated from burning a comparable thermal equivalent of gas taken from the North sea. There is a very good green case for substituting domestic gas for imported LNG.

[Clive Lewis]

Over the past two years, the North sea oil and gas that was exported doubled. It is not our oil and gas. It belongs to the corporations that bring it out of the ground, and they sell it to the highest bidder. It does not increase our energy security. The right hon. Gentleman made a point about Biden inheriting fracked shale oil and gas in the US, but he failed to mention the ecological costs, which every year run into hundreds of millions of pounds of damage to the natural world. That is the price the United States is paying for its fracking, which I imagine the right hon. Gentleman would expect us to take up here as well.

[John Redwood]

I was not talking about onshore gas at all; I was talking about North sea gas, which comes from under the sea. A variety of reservoir easing techniques have been used for many years and never caused political controversy. I was recommending that we review again the opportunity to explore for more, to develop more and to bring into production the fields that we know are out there. That would also help the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), who would rightly like more jobs or to sustain jobs in his successful oil and gas city, which faces the problems that he described. I was interested in his warning about how a windfall tax could, like last time, collapse investment and reduce the amount of extraction and future investment that we get.

The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) said that not all the gas produced in the North sea would be sold to us. That may be right, but the European market in general is chronically short of gas and the continental market is cruelly dependent on Russian gas, which today we can see is not a good idea. A North sea supply would therefore help when we are trying to ease supply pressures and bring prices down.

The second reason why it makes much more sense to use our own gas—or to extract more of it—rather than rely on imports is that we collect much more tax on it, and we are losing all that tax revenue on imports. The hon. Gentleman should remember that we now import 53% of the gas that we need, and we do not get anything like the revenue that we could if we extracted more of our own. Preferably, we would sell it to ourselves, but even if we exported it—we may well do that—we would still collect the extra revenue. There would also be a benefit in jobs and prosperity, because the industry tends to create quite a lot of well-paid jobs, which is good for the communities that sponsor those activities.

I hope that Ministers will look favourably on the idea that, during this transition, we will burn a lot of gas—as will everyone else—so it makes a lot of sense for the UK to produce gas and offer it on long-term contracts, trying to smooth some of erratic prices that we see because of what is happening on the continent, and make our contribution to greater security of supply for ourselves and—indirectly—for Europe.

Finally—I know that time is limited—electricity is much in demand, and it will be much more in demand if the electrical revolution that the Government wish to unleash comes true. One reason why we had a big spike in gas prices was that the wind did not blow, which added to the need to burn a lot more gas in power stations. That can happen again, because the wind clearly is an unreliable friend, and it is particularly difficult if it goes down at times of peak demand or when it is very cold. We therefore need to ensure that we are putting in enough reliable electricity capacity, because that has a direct relationship with the gas supply and demand issue as well as with gas prices, and I do not think that the current plans have nearly enough new capacity in them.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman]

It may reassure the public, but we also have to take into consideration the fact that to succeed, world-class scientists have been recruited to ARIA to lead in cutting-edge science. That very small staff need to be sure that they will not be tied up answering 101—often spurious—freedom of information requests from the media, who are keen on running stories. We want to make sure the agency is accountable properly but not bogged down in what can be hugely onerous freedom of information requests.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

In that connection, could the Minister give the House some brief guidance on what he, as the accountable Minister, would expect by way of discussion and influence over corporate plans and budgets and onward reporting to the House?

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question, and he will not be surprised to know that it is one I have also been asking since coming to this role. The point of ARIA is to be a new agency for doing new science in new ways, and it has been structured specifically to avoid meddling Ministers, even those with a good idea, and meddling officials, even those with good intent, and to create an agency that is free.

My right hon. Friend asks an important question. As we appoint the chief executive officer and the chair, the framework agreement will set out, a bit like a subscription agreement, the agency’s operating parameters, which will be published in due course. Each year ARIA will have to report on its stated plans. Crucially, as is so often not the case in scientific endeavour, ARIA will report where happy failure has occurred so that we do not continue to pour more money into scientific programmes that have not succeeded, which I know will reassure him. We want ARIA to be free to be honest about that, and not embarrassed. ARIA will be annually accountable through the framework agreement.

Finally, Lords amendment 1 deals with the conditions that ARIA may attach to its financial support. This arises from a series of important discussions in the other place relating to ARIA’s duty to commercialise intellectual property that may be generated, which I am keen to address properly. However, the amendment, as drafted, does not actually prevent ARIA from doing anything; it adds examples of conditions that ARIA may attach to financial support, but ARIA already has the general power to do just that. Legally, the amendment simply represents a drafting change. As such, we cannot accept it, but we understand and acknowledge the importance of the point that the noble Lord Browne had in mind.

It is our firm belief that, although it is not appropriate at this stage to specify ARIA’s contracting and granting arrangements in legislation, we recognise the substance of the concerns underlying the amendment: namely, that ARIA should have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure it is not haemorrhaging intellectual property of value to the UK. I will outline our position on that.

The amendment focuses principally on overseas acquisition of IP relating to the principles on which the Government intervene in foreign takeovers of UK businesses, particularly where those businesses have benefited from public investment in research and development activities. The National Security and Investment Act 2021, which fully commenced earlier this month, provides just such a framework, and it marks the biggest upgrade of investment screening in the UK for 20 years.

The NSI Act covers relevant sectors, such as quantum technologies and synthetic biology, that have benefited from significant public investment, and it permits the Government to scrutinise acquisitions on national security grounds. This new investment screening regime supports the UK’s world-leading reputation as an attractive place to invest, and it has been debated extensively in both Houses very recently. We do not believe that revisiting those debates today would be productive.

Although the NSI Act provides a statutory framework, a much broader strand of work is under way. As Science Minister, I take very seriously the security of our academic and research community. A number of measures have been taken in the past few months and years to strengthen our protections. We are working closely with the sector to help it identify and address risks from overseas collaborations, while supporting academic freedom of thought and institutional independence.

Members do not need me to tell them that intellectual property is incredibly valuable and we increasingly face both sovereign and industrial espionage. It is important that we are able to support our universities to be aware of those risks and to avoid them. The Bill already provides the Secretary of State with a broad power of direction over ARIA on issues of national security, which provides a strong mechanism to intervene in its activities in the unlikely event it is necessary to do so.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

Amendment 10 is also about transparency, this time in the event of a nuclear company becoming insolvent. It is only right that the taxpayer understands the liabilities the Government are willing to pick up in the event of insolvency. Compelling a report on the costs of getting a plant operational again, what its remaining lifespan is and any other liabilities that might not be covered any more due to insolvency, such as decommissioning, might at least focus minds on the merits of continuing to operate a plant or not. Otherwise, we remain in the position where the Secretary of State could be writing blank cheques that Parliament is unaware of.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is raising some important questions about cost and reliability. What is his recommendation as to what the Government should do to make the position better?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Actually, as far back as 2015, Steve Halliday, the then chief executive of National Grid, said that baseload was an “outdated” concept and a false argument, so I agree with that. This goes back to my point that nuclear is too inflexible because it is either on or off, and it is actually nuclear that leads to wind turbines being turned off so often. The bizarre thing is that nuclear has hidden costs because of the energy constraint payments that are made.

To return to the amendments, our amendment 10 relates to clause 32, as does Labour’s amendment 5. I would point out, as I stated in Committee, that I do not support the Labour amendment because I believe that compelling the Government to take over a plant confirmed to have been economically unviable would be throwing good money after bad, which is the polar opposite of the rationale behind our amendment 10. However, to be fair, I certainly support all the other Labour amendments, particularly those about foreign ownership, and I will be happy to support them if they are pushed to a vote.

Finally—people will be glad to know—I turn to new clause 1. This is another attempt at transparency in what could otherwise be the Secretary of State committing huge sums of money via the special administration route. Again, I do not think it too onerous for the Secretary of State to have to report to Parliament on the likely costs of a bail-out of an insolvent company.

In Committee, the Minister argued that it would hamper the process, but given that the SAR process is only being implemented for the first time through Bulb going bust, it is unclear to me why a report to Parliament would unduly delay the anyway complicated process of going through the courts. The Minister stated that the court process would provide enough transparency, but also that the reporting requirement might have commercial implications and affect the Secretary of State’s ability to bring the administration to an end. Both aspects of that cannot be true: there is enough transparency or there is not. It seems to me that reporting to Parliament should not hinder the transparency process, and it should not have commercial implications, so this new clause has been put forward to ensure clear reporting of information to Parliament.

In conclusion, I have made it clear from the outset that this Bill lacks transparency. Clauses 2 and 3 give way too much power to the Secretary of State to assess what he or she believes to be a value-for-money nuclear project and then commit bill payers to paying for it. While I am opposed to the Bill, I have not even proposed wrecking amendments because the amendments today are all designed to ensure that, first, parliamentarians and, secondly, bill payers know exactly what money is being committed and for what reasons.

If the Government have faith in their arguments that nuclear energy is required and that it represents true value for money, it seems to me that they should willingly accept these amendments and new clause 1. If the amendments get defeated in votes, we will know that it is all about continued backroom deals that they fear will not stand up to scrutiny if they were to report on the actual sums.

[John Redwood]

I welcome proposals that will create more generating capacity in the United Kingdom. As the Minister knows, I am extremely worried that we are already typically 10% dependent on imported electricity and that the current plans envisage our becoming more import dependent, with the preferred route for electricity provision being the construction of more interconnectors. I am worried about this on security grounds, because we link ourselves at our peril into an energy-short system on the continent of Europe that is far too dependent on Mr Putin and Russian gas. I also worry about it because we are short of electricity and gas at the moment, and we see the price pressures that that creates. I think we should be doing more to expand the supply of both electricity and domestic gas.

I think the Scottish National party has made some important points, although it comes at nuclear power from a different perspective from that of the Government. While we could usefully enjoy more nuclear power, it is very important that those projects are timely and cost-controlled, with technologies that will deliver reliable power on a sustainable basis. Does the Minister agree that nothing in this legislation, and nothing that he can now do, can prevent the proportion of our electricity that is generated by nuclear from declining for the whole of this decade? As I understand it, these projects take a long time to get type approval and financing, and a long time in construction. As I also understand it, all but one of our current nuclear power stations is scheduled to close by 2030, and although one large new nuclear power station should come on stream during that period, it will not offset all the capacity that is taken out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

The purpose of small modular nuclear reactors—we are going to be building 10 or 15 of them—is to enable us to bring the price down. Is my right hon. Friend also concerned that 18 major projects in oil and gas exploration have seemingly been put on hold, given that we need those projects and those fields to come online now?

[John Redwood]

Yes. I fear I may be wandering a little from the actual Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but given the general context of energy shortage and the crucial role that gas has been playing in recent months in generating electricity, because we are short of nuclear power and short of wind power when the wind does not blow, I would strongly recommend that we get on with exploiting our own gas reserves. That is greener and cheaper than relying on gas being brought halfway round the world in a liquefied natural gas tanker or on Mr Putin’s gas routed via the continent. That is probably an argument for another day, but I am grateful to the Deputy Speaker for allowing me to answer my hon. Friend’s very good point.

In conclusion, I would like the Minister to set out a little bit more of the context of when nuclear might start contributing to our electricity demand and need, and how he sees the balance of that developing between small nuclear being rolled out at greater scale and the one or two large nuclear projects that might still be around. Also, given the hugely radical electrical revolution that the Government wish to encourage, with switching home heating from predominantly gas to electricity and switching much transport from predominantly diesel and petrol to electricity, we are going to need a massive expansion of total capacity. Would he agree, however, that we are starting from a position where we do not have enough capacity for our current levels of demand and where the nuclear element of that capacity will contract quite a lot over this decade?

[Wera Hobhouse]

As a lifelong anti-nuclear power campaigner, I could not fail to speak in this debate or to represent the views of the many Bath constituents who have written to me over the last weeks and months about voting and speaking against this Bill. We need to get to net zero by 2050 at the latest, but do we need nuclear power to get there, and is nuclear energy a fair deal for our consumers? While nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables. In answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), I believe that we just need to roll out renewable energy. We have the capacity. Britain is a country surrounded by sea, and there is a lot of wind further out. Projects such as floating wind are out there—I speak to that industry a lot. If only the Government had the political will to make that renewable energy revolution happen.

[John Redwood]

What difference would it have made if we had had double our wind capacity in recent weeks when it was supplying only 2% of our total electricity because there was no wind?

[Wera Hobhouse]

As I said, there is the potential for offshore wind, particularly further out where the wind blows all the time—the right hon. Member needs only to talk to the industry about that—if only the Government were prepared to invest much more in that and not just rely on the small projects that we currently have.

Yes, we doubled our offshore wind capacity thanks to the Liberal Democrats in government—some time ago now—but there is still no level playing field for the renewable energy sector. We speak of this again and again. If only the Government were prepared to set a regulatory level playing field, we could see a lot more renewable energy to cover our energy costs.

Let me repeat that while nuclear power is not a carbon fuel, it is enormously expensive, costing twice as much as generation from renewables, and in the end that cost will fall on the consumer. We have seen the disasters of that in recent weeks. Quite apart from the long-term costs of decommissioning, disposal and storage of waste, nuclear is an unusual technology that sees costs rise instead of fall over time. In other words, it has a high need for Government subsidy.

The Government say that the Bill is about saving consumers money by removing barriers to private investment in the nuclear sector, but that is misleading. Their proposed regulated asset base funding model provides no protection for consumers; instead, evidence shows that costs under this model for abandoned nuclear power stations have still been passed on to consumers.

Let us look at what happened in the United States, where a version of the regulated asset base model—early cost recovery—was introduced more than 10 years ago. As in Britain, ECR was sold to policy makers as a way of lowering the cost of capital, thereby making nuclear power more competitive with other sources of generation. However, the lower capital cost was not a true saving. The nuclear renaissance’s 2009 peak consisted of applications to build 31 units pending at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Of those, 29 have been cancelled, and despite expenditure exceeding $20 billion, no new US nuclear plants have gone into service. In South Carolina, ratepayers are having to pay $2.3 billion for a cancelled nuclear plant. While US electricity customers are exposed to paying more than $10 billion for cancelled nuclear plants and another $13.5 billion in cost overruns, no reactors have come online as a result of the US shift to early cost recovery. Florida and South Carolina have repealed the laws allowing early cost recovery, and no states have enacted such laws in the last decade, so why on earth are the Tory Government introducing a failed financial model from the US?

In contrast, the cost of renewables is falling globally. Renewables are significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the cheapest form of energy as the cost of renewable technologies falls. According to the International Energy Agency, the world’s best solar power schemes offer the “cheapest…electricity in history.”

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

I will not give way again.

Renewable energy is the future, and we in the UK are ideally placed to take advantage of the wind and wave power all around us. When UK tidal wave projects were cancelled in the past, that was always on a cost basis. Why do we not look at those projects again? They are truly renewable and truly the future. We could be an exporter of renewables. Onshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Richard Graham]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) first and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

We may be straying a bit from the subject and scope, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will try to come back to the road of virtue as quickly as I can, but the hon. Member raises interesting points about what structure of ownership is required to develop nuclear power stations effectively. To be honest, it was his party that decided to sell—to privatise—British Energy. I think it is too late to try to row back on that and recreate that situation, unless he is proposing an interesting new Anglo-French argument over nationalising EDF Energy in the UK. We have to accept that things have moved on, and we must focus on the amendments proposed today.

[John Redwood]

The burden of the argument with the SNP, my hon. Friend and the rest of us is, as I understand it, transparency over the costs and terms of putative contracts. If those are to be private sector contracts, there are issues about commercial confidentiality, but if there is to be a lot of state exposure, there needs to be a very clear definition of its limits and what it will be, and I am sure that is what the Minister has in mind. Does my hon. Friend agree that we expect to see a very clear and honest statement of any state liabilities, but that commercial private contracts are not as appropriate for that kind of transparency?

[Richard Graham]

Yes, that is a very good way of defining the difference between the confidentiality of commercial agreements and the state’s obligation to be transparent in what is clearly a model that has elements of both. There is an element of hybrid in it, as Members have alluded to.

To bring my contribution to a close fairly swiftly, fundamentally we need to get on, as other colleagues have said, with the business of building more nuclear capacity as quickly as possible. The Bill is an opportunity to move that forward fast, with the safeguards offered by the Government within it, and to get on with a new way of funding through the regulated asset base mechanism. It will provide cheaper costs of financing and ultimately bring down the costs to consumers. Clearly, the Labour party is supporting us today in principle, and perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will give his support to the Bill from the Opposition Front Bench. The SNP is not supporting it.

From the Government Benches, I want to reiterate my support as the MP for Gloucester for what the nuclear operational headquarters in Barnwood has successfully achieved for a very long period, and I hope that the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), will accept an invite to visit Gloucester to look at the operational headquarters and what it is doing and to discuss ways to ensure that that expertise can be used most effectively in the development of nuclear capacity in the future, as well as now.

I am afraid none of the amendments will have my support. I have mentioned that amendment 2 is ironic and inappropriate, and I think all the SNP amendments are designed to try to ensure as far as possible that today’s Bill does not go any further. Bearing in mind that we are celebrating the 46-year role of nuclear in providing electricity to every home in Scotland, that seems rather ironic and, frankly, a bit disappointing. Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much hope the Bill goes through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

It would not be irresponsible to support the Bill on Third Reading, but it would be responsible of the Government to take a little more notice of these particular problems with the RAB process and possibly, as we move forward with its development, bring in mechanisms that can protect the bill-paying public in a rather better way than is suggested at the moment. That is essentially what the amendments do.

The arrangement for the RAB to be put into place is that a series of considerations are entered into to give an agreed expenditure cap for what is considered to be the proper use of the collection fund that will provide assistance to the company producing the new nuclear power plant. It can properly draw on that, up to a certain ceiling, from the general public. That is if everything goes well with the nuclear power plant, but of course that may not necessarily be the case. Of 176 nuclear power plants across the world, 175 went substantially over time and over budget, so we need to be very clear that we should not commit the general public to fund these proposals completely open-endedly. We are saying in these amendments that should there be a cost overrun or a time overrun, the Secretary of State should seek an increase in the agreed revenue ceiling without further recourse to customer funds. That may be by producing bonds or it may be by further state funding if that is the choice the Government wish to make, but they should not increase the ceiling for customers to pay exponentially at the same time.

These are very simple and straightforward amendments saying that, should there be such cost overruns or time overruns and there is a suggested further call on customer bills through RAB, the Secretary of State will have to think of something else to fund the system. Let us be clear that, with the RAB arrangements at the moment, it is suggested, I think very optimistically, there will be an increase of about £10 to £20 in customer bills. That is a really current topic at the moment, but a cost overrun would substantially increase such a levy on customer bills, and we just think that should not be part of the RAB arrangements for the future.

The third set of changes we wish to put in place are to part 3 of the Bill, which sets out what should happen and what arrangements should be in place if a company, despite all the investment from the public in the construction of a nuclear power plant, essentially goes bust. In this part, the Government have in effect lifted the provision in the Energy Act 2011 for a special administration regime. Again, that is rather current because it is precisely such a special administration regime that was used to rescue Bulb Energy when it went bust a little way ago. It was placed in such a regime under the 2011 Act—the wording is identical to that in this Bill—to allow it to continue trading for the time being, subject to the company being disposed of.

However, I would suggest that a nuclear power plant the size of Sizewell C, for example, is not remotely the same as an energy company the size of Bulb. It would be quite possible to dispose of Bulb or disperse its customers according to the special administration regime, but that would not be the case for a large nuclear power station. We are saying in amendment 5 that there should be an additional backstop so that, in the circumstances of a special administration regime, it would not be possible to pass the company on—to sell it on or to reintroduce it as a going concern through allocation to a subsidiary—and that the Government should have a plan to introduce a public company to take it over, provided it is working as a nuclear power station. That would not be the case—some Members may think the amendment means this—if the power station could not continue because the reactor head had exploded or the power plant was otherwise non-operational. If it is an operational power plant, we think that such a backstop should be available.

Hon. Members have mentioned what I think is the salutary case of the North Carolina energy plant that was conceived under RAB arrangements, or something very similar. Some $9 billion of customer money went into that plant, but the plant went bust, not because it was not operational, but because it was unfinanceable. Customers lost $9 billion of money, and there is no power station at the moment.

[John Redwood]

Is it not the case that, if the Government in power are faced with a big financial disaster from a very large project going horribly wrong and the company going bust, they will need flexibility to make the best decisions they can in the interests of the taxpayers and customers at the time, and it is quite difficult for us to pre-think that and embed it clearly in law?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is precisely why we wish to put in the Bill that there should be a direction in which the Government should go. Of course they should have flexibility in how they work, but we think this is an important backstop that will ensure customers do not lose their shirts in a company that goes bust after they have invested large amounts of money in its operation.

We will seek to divide the House on amendments 2 and 3 in the absence of any clear further Government commitments today in relation to. We may well be minded to support amendment 9, tabled by the SNP, should that also be put to a Division. However, I emphasise that we are happy to support the Bill overall. We want it to go through Third Reading, but we would like it to be strengthened as much as it can be by the addition of the amendments we have put forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. The House will know that she and I worked very closely in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and she was one of the first in the new Parliament to realise the key importance of nuclear. I pay tribute to the work that she, among others, did to drive this agenda. Clearly, this Bill is timely because, as she said, we cannot reach net zero without a substantial commitment to nuclear.

[John Redwood]

Will the Secretary of State give some indication of how long it might take to prove and put into a working model the small nuclear technology, if all went well?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the small modular reactors cannot be brought onstream in the next few months, but with the right investment and the right incentives, all this technology can be brought onstream very quickly. I cannot say that it will be five years or 10 years, but it will be brought onstream and will help us to reach the decarbonising targets that we have set ourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

I wish the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill every success. I think we might call this Secretary of State brave, because experience tells us that it is extremely difficult to land one of these really big projects and keep it to time and budget, and it is extremely difficult to get agreement to cheaper power. I am delighted that Ministers are motivated by the wish to have both more reliable generating capacity and more affordable power. Those are two excellent objectives of energy policy.

However, I fear that what I have learned from this debate, and from previous debates like it, are these things. First, we are going to have less nuclear power in 2030 than we have today, whatever Ministers do—they are prisoners of their inheritance. Secondly, it will be difficult signing up big projects in particular, or getting smaller projects that are available and working in good time so that there is more nuclear, rather than less, in the decade that follows, and it will be difficult securing that at prices that customers think are good.

In the meantime, we have the problem that, on a typical day, we are already 10% import dependent for our electricity—I think it should all be generated in the UK—and that we are very dependent on the sun shining and the wind blowing, but the wind not blowing too much. When those things did not happen towards the end of last year, we had to reopen three old coal plants. People would rather not have to burn coal, but coal stations were reliable and actually worked when the wind did not blow and the sun did not shine. If the plan is to close them down and make them unavailable in future before we have anything else as a good stand-by, we will be trying the patience of the international community and trying our own luck rather too far.

I urge the Secretary of State, on the back of this Bill, to consider ways of increasing reliable power for this coming decade—the decade that we are living in and that we will be battling over in immediate elections to come—because that is what will matter to our voters. We should have in mind security of supply, availability of supply and affordability as the crucial things that we need to take care of so that we do not have a self-imposed energy crisis. Linking us into the European system is not a secure thing to do, because those countries are chronically short of reliable green power. Poland and Germany are in the middle of trying to phase out coal and lignite. Germany is in the middle of phasing out nuclear altogether. France needs to think about replacements for its ageing nuclear fleet and it is chronically short of gas, which is a sensible transition fuel, so it needs to rely on Putin and Russia.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We talk again and again in this House about Britain being a global leader. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain could be a global leader in renewable energy? We are not making the most of the areas in which we could be a global leader, which are renewable energy from tidal, wave and offshore and onshore wind power.

[John Redwood]

I would be delighted to see a mixture of renewables, so that the reliability issue is taken care of. The problem with wind is that it is erratic. In the industrial revolution, people tended to prefer water power over wind power because it was a bit more reliable. The hon. Lady must understand that, like me, she is answerable to constituents who will expect the lights to stay on throughout this decade and will expect electricity and gas and other main energy sources to be affordable and available. The danger is that, if we do not do more to expand our capacity of the transition fuels as well as working on improving and increasing renewables, we will not be able to guarantee the crucial features of a good energy policy: availability and affordability. So, yes, fine to the Bill, but it is about the 2030s. We need also to think about the 2020s.

[Mark Jenkinson]

We have heard a lot today about offshore wind and how it could be the saviour of our energy system. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levelised cost of energy of our largest offshore wind farm last year was £140 per megawatt-hour, which is twice the price of nuclear energy, if not more?

[John Redwood]

I have learned enough about energy to know that people produce figures that suit their case. I agree with my hon. Friend that we can say that wind energy is a lot dearer than its advocates suggest. It depends on whether we cost out the back-up power and the back-up arrangements. Obviously, once the windmills are turning they deliver very cheap power, but there is a lot of sunk cost to take care of, and we do need to account somehow for the cost of the alternative when the wind does not blow. We would need to do quite a lot of homework, and probably not in a Third Reading debate, to crack what exactly is the true cost of wind power.

I urge Ministers to think again about availability and affordability now as well as their nuclear ideas.