Cost of Energy

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western; you were a wonderful shadow Minister, and it is fantastic to see you here today. I praise the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate. Hon. Members will rarely hear me heap praise on another political party, but at the risk of sounding as if I am working cross-party, I commend her for her excellent points.

I do not think any of us can argue with some of the points highlighting the exorbitant cost of electricity bills here in the UK, and I find the regressive levies on electricity bills quite shocking. I thought the hon. Member’s innovative and positive policy solutions for reducing the cost of electricity bills were a welcome breath of fresh air; I hope that we can have further debates to bring forward those important points. I am more on the side of scrapping the levy, but I think we could come to a compromise about how to move forward.

Many Liberal Democrat Members brought up the importance of community-owned energy schemes, and I advocate for Marlow community energy. It is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House are advocating for community energy schemes; that theme ran through most hon. Members’ contributions and is an important aspect of energy to take forward.

It was wonderful to hear contributions from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the great Horsham energy scheme and from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) with his expertise in energy. It is always welcome when people bring their professional expertise to the House.

We have also heard about the challenges in the highlands; I am sure that the Minister will be able to give further explanation about the plans and challenges for the highlands. Although they are producing renewable energy, and will probably produce even more, it will be interesting to see what capacity they will have.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the wonderful hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and everything that he contributes to this House—his wonderful contributions and his praise for Members across parties, not only in this debate, but in every single Adjournment debate. We are lucky to have such a wonderful and hard-working Member.

The cost of energy affects every aspect of our economy; few things are more important for our economic success than the cost of energy. It affects the global competitiveness of our industries and therefore the number of jobs and our constituents’ energy bills. The new Labour Government promised to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030—we are still looking forward to that—to create 650,000 jobs from the £8 billion that they are taking off taxpayers for Great British Energy, and to launch the era of clean, cheap, home-grown power. After more than six months in Government, however, it is clear that they will make energy more expensive, with bills going up, not down, and that they risk shutting down swathes of British industry, with jobs lost to more polluting countries. In short, their energy plans will result in lower growth, fewer jobs, higher energy bills and more carbon in the atmosphere.

We are constantly told by Ministers that renewables like wind and sun are the cheapest sources of energy, but that does not take account of the huge hidden costs of increased reliance on renewables. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Bath for bringing the important aspect of renewables to the forefront of the debate. Industry has already warned that trying to quickly produce a record amount of renewable capacity to meet the Government’s 2030 target will push up the price and cost to consumers. The cost also depends on the generating capacity that we need to have in the background to kick in to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

From what I am hearing, the hon. Member is making an anti-renewables, anti-action on climate change speech. She mentioned that electricity prices are some of the highest in Europe, but her party had been in government for 14 years when the Government inherited those high prices. Could you confirm on the record that you think it is the Conservative party’s position that all levies on bills to support renewables should be scrapped?

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to each other as “the hon. Member” as opposed to “you”.

[Joy Morrissey]

I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution. It is wonderful to hear his commitment to the climate change emergency. We need to move forward as a country to make sure that our energy costs remain low. We did not commit to a £300 reduction in energy prices, nor did we commit to scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners. We went into the election without making those promises. I am simply holding the Government to account right now.

[Luke Murphy]

We are not talking about what was committed to in the manifestos. My question was about what the hon. Member said a few minutes ago, that she is committed to removing all the levies on bills related to renewables. Could she repeat that pledge?

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Member makes a wonderful point. Personally, I feel very strongly about this, and the glory of being in opposition is that I can hold the Government to account. I can have also a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate of my choosing about my own passion projects. Not to digress, but if the hon. Member looks at the Water (Special Measures) Bill, he will see my passion project flourishing. I do not want to detract from this wonderful debate, but what I am saying is that we can find a cross-party solution to many of these issues. We want to be positive about the UK and its future.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I, too, would like some clarification from the Opposition. Is the hon. Member saying that renewable energy is a solution to lower energy bills and gets us to net zero, but that we do not really want it because it is too expensive? I was not quite clear whether her argument was for or against renewable energy. Could she clarify that?

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Conservatives have an excellent track record of putting in renewables. We were the first to bring in the coal-free plan to tackle energy, so that is an important way of moving forward. I would like to continue moving forward with cheaper energy bills to make sure that we protect our energy security while ensuring that costs are low for both the consumer and industry.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving at the debate rather late, Mr Western. Needless to say, as a former Energy Minister, I take an interest in these matters. Anyone who shares that interest will understand that we need a mix of energy between renewables and non-renewables. Renewable energy has to be tested on the basis of whether it is cost-effective. Some renewables are and some are not; it is as simple as that.

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some renewables are cost-effective and some are not; and some are a lot less energy-dense than gas or nuclear.

[Edward Morello]

I am struggling with the argument of renewable energy not being cost-effective. For the cost of the amount of generation that Hinkley C would deliver, we could deliver twice as much renewable energy generation. The strike price for offshore wind is far below any other source of electricity. So I am at a loss—across every single form of renewable energy, the generation price is below that of fossil fuels.

The hon. Lady talks about the previous Government being at the forefront of renewable energy generation, when they signed off new drilling licences for North sea oil. I feel I am living in cloud cuckoo land. There is no connection between what she is saying and the reality of market forces. Ask any wholesale energy price provider what their strike price is for renewables, and they will say that it is lower than for fossil fuels.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I ask that I be allowed to make progress in my speech, during which I will address many of the excellent points he raised. Let me go back to my earlier point about density and some renewables being more affordable than others. For example, acres of agricultural land need to be covered with solar panels to produce a fraction of the power that could be generated by gas power plants or small nuclear reactors.

The time has come to have a much more sensible and serious conversation about the true cost of renewable-based systems, not just repeating again and again that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. That is why the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked the Department to produce a full-system cost of renewable-based systems. If we are intent on decarbonising the entire grid by 2030, as the Government want, we must have a detailed assessment of what it will cost, and what it will do to our constituents’ energy bills and our already high industrial energy prices. Since taking office, however, the current Secretary of State has scrapped that work. He is rushing headlong into renewable-based systems, without any idea of what it will cost the country and the economy.

There is also the issue of trust—trust for consumers and for those in industry. Throughout the general election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and around 50 Labour MPs promised across the country to cut energy bills by £300. As soon as they got into Government, they refused to commit to that promise. Even worse, they decided to take the same amount from millions of pensioners in poverty. It is difficult to think of a bigger betrayal committed by an incoming Government.

Six months on, Labour voted against an amendment to make the Government accountable for that promise through Great British Energy—their energy company that is not going to generate a single watt of energy. The new chair of that company says that it is not even within its remit to cut bills by £300. Labour cannot spend weeks and months repeating such an explicit, clear and simple promise only to row back on it the second it gets into Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell constituents in Beaconsfield and across the country when they can expect to see £300 off their energy bills, and how much their bills will increase to in the meantime.

It is not just households that are worried about the cost of energy, but industry too. The same energy-intensive industries that wrote to the Government to raise concerns about their plans to hike the carbon price to the highest rate in the world also share the despair at the UK having among the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. In fact, the Department’s data shows that we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the world, well above the International Energy Agency and EU average.

More than anything, our heavy and manufacturing industries need cheap energy. They need stable and reliable energy, which does not rely on the whims of the weather. As with the shutting down of the UK oil and gas industry, seeing British industry move overseas will not change demand. It just means that domestic production—with all the tax revenue, British jobs and the investment that it brings—will be replaced by higher-carbon imports from abroad. Ministers say that decarbonisation cannot mean de-industrialisation, but if our industries, which are the hardest to decarbonise, cannot cope with the high cost of energy and therefore move abroad, that will be a disaster for our economy, devastating for our workers and their families, and will do nothing to reduce global emissions.

Ministers say that they want us to be global leaders. They want us to convince other countries to decarbonise, which is a noble goal. Climate change is a global issue, and there is no sense in our going it alone to cut our emissions when we produce fewer than 1% of global emissions. That is exactly why the Government need to change tack and stop our industrial energy prices rising any further. Countries around the world, which care deeply about holding on to their industrial and manufacturing base, are looking to the UK and other western nations to see what happens next. If they look at us and see industries being gutted by a misguided energy policy and see our people suffering from higher and higher energy bills, they will not want to follow us down the path to decarbonisation. We will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world.

Our ceramics, automotive, cement, steel, minerals, glass, aluminium and chemical industries need, above all else, cheap energy. I urge the Minister to talk to those businesses that are struggling with high energy costs and ask them what a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2 would do to their businesses. The Minister might not like the answer, but the Government need to face the consequences of their policies.

The Government should be asking what arrangements will give us the cheapest, most reliable energy and how we get there. Instead, they are determined to decarbonise the grid by 2030 at any cost to meet a political target, even if that sends people’s bills through the roof, offshores our emissions to polluting countries and leaves us at the mercy of Chinese imports. When facing the electorate at the next election, they will not be able to say that they were not warned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

To achieve his clean power plan, can the Secretary of State say exactly what local communities need to do to convince him that solar farms on agricultural lands are not appropriate in their area?

[Ed Miliband]

It is quite extraordinary. We are absolutely exposed as a country, yet the Conservatives oppose clean power. They have a blanket opposition to clean power, so let every person in the country know that when energy bills remain high, they are opposing the things that will bring them down. It is quite extraordinary. This is the Conservative party that lost the last general election—its worst defeat in 200 years—yet if anything, since the election, Conservative Members have got worse and learned nothing.

[Joy Morrissey]

The Secretary of State recently approved a 524-hectare solar farm in Lincolnshire—a farm linked to Dale Vince, a £5.4 million donor to the Labour party. The public have a right to be certain that this decision was carried out properly, so will the Secretary of State refer his conduct of this application to the independent adviser on ministerial standards? Yes or no?

[Ed Miliband]

I am glad the hon. Lady asks, because I took no part in this decision—I recused myself. [Interruption.] Here we go. They have nothing to say about the country, just desperate scraping of the barrel. Let the whole House hear that they oppose a solar plan that will put up solar panels throughout the country and give clean power to the British people. The state of the Conservative party is something to behold.

Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is always on point on these matters. I will come to the important matter of food security later, but he is right. The inefficiency of some energy projects coming forward in Mid Buckinghamshire, as well as in communities in Strangford, I dare say, is a huge challenge not just to food security but to the rural way of life that those in our communities enjoy.

It takes 2,000 acres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to power 50,000 homes on current usage—before everyone has two Teslas on the drive—yet a small modular reactor requires just two football pitches to produce enough power for a million homes on current usage. It cannot be right that the Government are pursuing this technology. I put it to the Minister and to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that nuclear is the answer, but fingers seem to be in ears whenever it is raised. I assume that that is obvious to the Government, as is the vital importance of food security, which is directly compromised by taking land out of food production and giving it over to solar.

The Government seem content with ploughing on. Last week’s revelation in The Daily Telegraph of intentions to convert a tenth of our farmland to use for net zero gives a blank cheque to those intent on destroying rather than preserving our countryside. The countryside is for farming. It is not a building site for solar panels, power plants, battery storage sites or wind turbines. It is for growing food. It is for the local communities and businesses that rely on it.

Attempts to take land away from food production in my constituency are simply unjustifiable. An unjustifiable 3,000 acres of land are already lost or at risk of being subsumed by solar panels. Those 3,000 acres are taken out of food production, no longer farmed by families who have farmed them for generations but are now turfed out, with little to no compensation, and the land unlikely ever to return to food production. Let us bear in mind that that is just for the projects that have been proposed or consented to.

Rosefield is a monster project of immense scale. For this monstrosity alone, over 2,000 acres of land—much of it arable grade 3a and 3b—have been sold off to EDF Renewables for the construction of vast swathes of solar panels right in the heart of the Claydons. That land produces a 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat harvest. Many farmers would bite your right hand off to get that, but it is cast aside by the consultants and proposers of the site as low-grade land. It simply is not. As the name suggests, the area is rich in clay soil, which is incredibly valuable to farmers as it retains rich levels of both nutrients and water. It allows us in Buckinghamshire to produce immense quantities of wheat, barley, beans, oilseed rape and much more.

We are facing a clear trade-off between food security and what is considered today to be energy security. Members will know that I have consistently questioned the suitability and sustainability of solar as a renewable source of electricity. There is nothing renewable about land left to rot underneath solar panels, or the huge amount of emissions from the construction of these vast sites.

We in Buckinghamshire face an equal if not greater threat from battery energy storage sites. These shipping container-sized units use hundreds of lithium ion batteries to store surplus energy, which is later sold back to the grid to meet demand when required. Not only are the battery storage sites noisy and unsightly, but they displace water run-off because of their concrete bases, create light pollution, are a target for vandalism and are a huge fire risk, as I will discuss shortly.

On top of that, such sites are not a sustainable form of energy production. In fact, they do nothing more than hold surplus energy, no matter how or where that energy has been generated. In fact, with less than 5% of today’s energy consumption coming from solar, the chances are that the energy stored by these sites has not come from the site next door. It is utterly shameful of BESS promoters to label their projects as “sustainable” and “part of the solution”. It is, I am afraid to say, simply a matter of profiteering off the taxpayer while doing little to nothing—that is, for those who do not enjoy a chemically fuelled bonfire. It has been proven time and again, with tragic results, how dangerous battery energy storage sites can be. In September 2020, for example, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to extinguish. While the promoters may spout about new technology guarding us against fire today, it does not and cannot justify placing such sites in rural areas. That is because—surprise, surprise—it takes far longer for fire crews to respond in rural areas, especially ones that are prone to flooding, such as the Claydons, in my constituency, where three BESS applications have been lodged in just one year.

It is not surprising that pouring concrete on to farmland exacerbates flooding, or that hundreds of shipping containers ruin the view for miles around.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

The proposed energy developments will create a strain on our valuable farmland in Mid Buckinghamshire and across Buckinghamshire more widely. Many parts of the county are on a floodplain, which will already be under additional strain because of these different energy developments. Will the Minister look again at these proposals? We already have infrastructure demands because HS2 and housing, as well as energy development, are all going into a very constrained area in Mid Buckinghamshire.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament for that intervention. She is absolutely right that the strain being put on our small, rural county from so many projects—the cumulative impact of the energy proposals that are the subject of my speech, HS2, East West Rail, mega-prisons and so much more—makes the attack on our countryside and the risk, to go to her point on flooding, all the worse.

I just listed a number of things that should not be surprising. However, they seem surprising to promoters, who seem totally oblivious to the idea that farming gives us food, gives people jobs and a livelihood, and gives communities an identity and a vital source of income. However, that does not seem to have stopped them flooding the planning system in Mid Buckinghamshire with these BESS applications. What makes it all the more confusing is that, according to the Government’s newly formed national energy systems operator:

“The number of speculative connection applications has substantially risen over the past few years resulting in an excessively high volume of contracted parties when in reality only about a third of the volume of projects will make it to Completion.”

What we are actually seeing—what is very visible in Mid Buckinghamshire—is a number of these so-called zombie projects that are clogging up the system and causing incredible concern and outrage to local communities, but that may actually never happen. That is simply absurd.

My constituents are constantly being told that the projects are needed for a transition to net zero, yet the vast majority will not even be completed. That goes to show how misguided the Government’s so-called energy security policy really is: unable to deliver and throwing my constituents under the bus. It should therefore not be a surprise that the misguided and highly speculative nature of the BESS projects has led to countless rejections by local planning authorities.

Less than six weeks ago, when presented with its first BESS application—a 500 MW site in the Claydons—Buckinghamshire council resoundingly rejected it on the grounds of fire risk, lack of access and an inappropriate site location. Our local paper even described the plan as a “terrorists’ dream”. The same goes for York council, which rejected a 100 MW site in the village of Osbaldwick on fire grounds. The same reason led East Renfrewshire council to reject a 40 MW site in the village of Eaglesham in Scotland and Dorset Council to reject a 60 MW facility in the village of Chickerell. I trust the Minister will have taken note not just of those rejections but of the many others which are, if anything, increasing by the week. This, I hope, demonstrates the clear, strong opposition from local communities to BESS facilities.

It is not just about battery storage, solar farms, substations or whatever else forms part of the Government’s flawed approach to energy security. For constituencies such as mine, it is about the cumulative impact of all that and more, over which, time and time again, the local community has had little, if any, say. For my constituents in the Claydons, nearly every major project has been Government-sanctioned with little to no thought as to how, when we combine one of the UK’s largest solar installations, three battery storage sites, two major new railways, a new substation and several new housing developments, a collection of small villages in the middle of the countryside is meant to cope. The short answer is: it has not.

Initially faced with both East West Rail and HS2 construction, the latter ongoing for many years to come, my constituents in that part of Buckinghamshire now face a raft of new energy infrastructure, as well as yet more housing and a new prison. The cumulative impact is devastating, made worse by the fact there is no mechanism—no mechanism—within the planning system that allows the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects in the same area to be accounted for when local authorities are presented with them. It seems logical, yet the Minister must recognise that there is no circumstance that necessitates the flattening of an area that serves no benefit to local residents and leaves them in a near permanent state of disruption and misery.

The latest example of that glaring omission is the application and subsequent rejection of Statera’s plan, which I spoke about a moment ago, to build a 500 MW BESS facility in the Claydons. It turns out that the promoters did not check that they could even get a grid connection on completion, as confirmed by National Grid when pressed on that substation expansion plan before Christmas. This is yet more evidence of the speculative nature of Government-backed infrastructure projects. Just as well, with Statera’s plans having now been rejected.

Elsewhere in my constituency, yet another solar installation, at Callie’s farm near Ilmer, was recently granted planning permission, joining two other nearby sites at Bumpers farm and Whirlbush farm in Kingsey. As a result, when someone enters Buckinghamshire on the train from neighbouring Oxfordshire, they are met not with farmland but with acres upon acres of solar panels. Further south, and directly affecting my constituents in Little Missenden, we find yet another potential BESS site at Mop End, which if built would require infrastructure reaching 6 metres in height right in the heart of the Chilterns.

In Long Crendon and the surrounding villages, I and the local community are fighting against Acorn Bioenergy’s proposed anaerobic digester, which once again cannot be justified in the middle of the countryside, not when there are 140 lorry movements a day during construction and then operation through villages—I declare an interest as they include my own village of Chearsley—that simply cannot cope and cannot be expected to cope. These are small rural villages with small rural roads, and often the front doors to people’s homes, and the entrances to primary schools and children’s playgrounds, are off those very same roads.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the shocking amount of development that is happening, and it is not just about energy; he is also making an excellent point about the lack of local consent. It is shocking that the Government are not honouring the opinions of local people.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend has made exactly the point that I want to make, with, perhaps, more succinctness than I have been able to manage. This is indeed about local consent. It is about communities giving their views and actually being listened to when it comes to these projects. Far too often, the desktop exercise that is done in London or Birmingham or Leeds or Manchester, or any of our great cities, is done largely by those who have little or no understanding of rural life—of the way our rural roads actually operate, the way our farmland is actually farmed, and the way our countryside actually works. If local people were listened to a little more often, we might not have some of the problems that these energy infrastructure projects, or projects such as HS2 or East West Rail, throw up on the land that any local will tell you floods three or four times a year.

Those doing the desktop exercise say, “Oh, that is nothing. It is nowhere near a floodplain. That land will not flood.” I have stood on many of these sites in my own wellington boots a number of times, on the land that the consultants in the city say will not flood, with the water lapping up at the top of my boots, and have gone home with wet socks. That is a reality that local people often understand in a way these consultants and desktop exercises never would.

I gently invite the Minister to acknowledge that no matter how sustainable such projects claim to be, the hard truth is that whether it be during the construction or operation of these sites, the transportation of materials effectively offsets any benefit and does permanent damage to a local area, exactly as it has with HS2. Only this week I objected to yet another BESS application in the Claydons, in which the developer has not even bothered to include a battery safety management plan. It is utterly disgraceful, and a reflection of just how speculative these applications are becoming.

Despite this speculation on solar and battery storage, wherever we go in Buckinghamshire there are few if any warehouse roofs with solar panels. That is a real shame, given the amount of unused roof space that could generate 15 GW of solar-derived energy without damaging a blade of grass or any crop growing in any field. That is equivalent to 46 million solar panels. Why, then, are the Government not actively incentivising the use of large-scale roof-mounted solar, particularly on industrial buildings—the distribution centres and warehouses and factories that we see popping up all around us, certainly near my area when we go out towards Bicester or up towards Milton Keynes? That is a question that is rightly being asked by farmers across my constituency who stand to lose everything when a solar developer comes along, or indeed someone involved in any energy project, with little or no compensation provided.

This is, I am afraid, fairly typical in relation to infrastructure, especially in rural areas where a farm is not just a source of income but someone’s livelihood, and the very shape and beauty of the landscape in rural communities. When it comes to a project the size of Rosefield, which primarily affects tenant farmers, the loss of income not just for individual farmers but for the whole area is devastating. That is because, unlike a freeholder—in this case, the Claydon estate—tenant farmers do not have ownership rights and are therefore not entitled to proper compensation, although this and other sizeable projects are spearheaded by large multinational energy companies for which compensation is normally just a rounding error.

However, it is not just farmers who are affected. Unpaid parish councillors across my constituency are spending ever more time fighting this infrastructure tidal wave. I dare say many have become rather good at it following years of doing battle with HS2, but that by no means justifies thousands of hours each year being spent by countless individuals—countless heroes—sometimes combined with significant sums of money, fighting projects that local residents do not want and did not ask for. They, along with farmers and local business owners, are paying the price for this nonsensical approach to energy security.

For projects that are given the go-ahead, there is little chance of promoters paying up for the damage that they will invariably do to our local road network. That is the sad reality for infrastructure projects, as we have seen with the countless others that I have referenced, although I am proud of the work that I and Buckinghamshire council did to push East West Rail to pay up for the damage it caused. There is no such prospect with energy infrastructure, but the fact is that, with so many sites in one area, the impact on our roads from all the construction traffic would be far worse than any promoter is prepared to admit. Just as we have seen with the railways and the highways works clash, it will delay all projects in the area, ultimately costing the taxpayer and prolonging the misery for my constituents.

This is the reality. If something is not done, we will lose our ability to produce food and we will see the continued erosion of rural communities, and all while doing little to source our energy sustainably. Energy infrastructure does not belong on farmland. It does not belong in Mid Buckinghamshire. Let us drop this nonsense and go for nuclear instead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Community engagement and funding are important. With large-scale solar farms planned for agricultural land, does the Secretary of State think that there are any circumstances in which local communities might know better than him?

[Michael Shanks]

Communities are, and will always be, able to speak about the plans for their local area, and to contribute to consultations and planning applications—we will not change anything about that. However, it is important to say that nationally important infrastructure will need to be built somewhere if we are to have the clean power future and energy security that everybody in this country needs. I gently say to the hon. Lady that, even in the most extreme statistics, less than 1% of land in this country would be used to build for solar. Either the Conservatives are in favour of keeping us on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels, or they are in favour of building clean power. Her party used to be in favour of net zero, but now it seems to be running away from it at speed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, whom I welcome to the Front Bench.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

When I asked the Secretary of State about the appointment of Rachel Kyte as his international climate envoy during our last questions session, he failed to say whether Quadrature Capital’s £4 million donation to the Labour party had been declared to the Department before her appointment, and I have still not received a reply to my letter of 17 October. Will the Minister tell me whether the Secretary of State declared those interests to the Department before Rachel Kyte’s appointment, and whether Ministers have ever met directors of Quadrature Capital or Quadrature Climate Foundation?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sure that the shadow Minister will receive a reply to her letter in due course, but I can tell her that Rachel Kyte is extremely well respected, and that her appointment as our special representative has been welcomed across the board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment of Rachel Kyte as his climate envoy to support his work with international partners? Before her appointment, did the Secretary of State declare to officials her links with Quadrature Capital, which donated £4 million to the Labour party? Also, did he declare her links to the Green Initiative Foundation, which gave him £99,000? A yes or no answer will suffice.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate Members from across the House on their wonderful maiden speeches. I had 20 minutes of praise for them, highlighting every aspect of their wonderful speeches, but unfortunately time is limited, so I shall have to give a quick analysis of praise for them all. I am secretly delighted that I do not have to try out my Scottish Gaelic—[Interruption.] I know, it is sad but true; that might be for the next debate.

It was wonderful and heart-warming to hear from hon. Members across the House, from East Thanet to every part of Scotland, including the highlands and Glasgow South West, and from South Northamptonshire, and with all Members caring about their local communities and representing all the people who matter and who elected them. That is what matters in this place. I feel that now I am an expert in all things Scotland—never have I been so afraid to talk about and name everything than when I had to do a Burns night toast. I hope that someday I can visit all those wonderful constituencies. It made me realise that Scotland is a very inclusive, diverse and wonderful place, and I would like to sample the whisky and the hospitality from Loch Lomond to the highlands. I praise all hon. Members here today. I am someone whose contributions often make people think, “Gosh, that’s an unusual Beaconsfield accent”, so I am always delighted to hear sparkling speeches from voices less grating than my own—it is nails on a chalkboard, and you adjust over time—celebrating the diversity in the Chamber.

During today’s debate we heard some superb maiden speeches from Labour Members, and so many of them! Even I was confused about who are the new Labour MPs—that is how many of them there are, so congratulations. I welcome the Minister to his position. He will definitely be going far, and my claim to fame will be that I got to debate with him first here in the House. He is also a Scottish MP, and I welcome him and congratulate him on his ministerial position.

I am also pleased to be shadowing a department led by a fellow London School of Economics alumnus, but disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here to respond to or open the debate. I know in what high regard he is held by the Labour movement. His high ideals and socialist principles are in the very best intellectual traditions of his party, but he is now in government, and I fear that the changes he wants to bring about will make working people poorer and put our energy and food security in the hands of Russia and China.

In just three weeks, as my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) pointed out, the Secretary of State has ignored local communities; he has ignored planning professionals; he has ignored sound decision making; and he has ignored basic economics. He seems to be in a race to deliver higher bills and higher taxes for working people, and a poorer, less safe Britain.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joy Morrissey]

I will give way in a moment, but I must make a little progress first, because I have only five minutes if I am to allow time for the Minister.

We on the Conservative Benches will keep calling these plans out for what they are: a dangerous experiment that will damage the British countryside, wreck the livelihoods of hard-working British people and drive up energy bills. Let us examine the progress of this experiment so far. During the election campaign, the Secretary of State got Labour candidates to claim that GB Energy would save £300 on energy bills, but that does not seem to be something that the Government are going to stand behind now. I would ask why that is, and what plans there are for the future in this regard.

The Government have formed an energy company that will not generate a single watt of energy, and will not bring down a single energy bill. They have taken £8 billion of taxpayers’ money, and put a shiny brand on it called GB Energy. GB Energy is simply the Government subsidising high-risk projects for the private sector on one hand, while decimating our oil and gas industry with the other. They have set up a new company and claim that it will make profits in five years, with nothing but 14 pages of a hot-air founding statement—with no business plan, no financial forecast, and nothing else.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the shadow Minister not aware it is exactly that negative narrative from her party that has held us back on the path to net zero?

[Joy Morrissey]

I know that the hon. Member is a strong advocate for her local community, and that is an important cross-party awareness; but we are in this position now, and I say to the Government, “You won, and we are here to hold you to account on your new endeavours. We wish you all the best, but it is our job to hold you to account.”

If GB Energy were a private company, no investor would touch it with a bargepole, yet the Government get to play with the money of hard-working British taxpayers while simultaneously hitting them with higher taxes and higher bills in return for that privilege. The Secretary of State doubtless thinks that he is courageously saving the planet, but he is not quite courageous enough to go to Aberdeen, or to be here today, or to speak to those in the North sea who will lose their jobs.

This is now serious. It is serious because the Government are writing cheques that the British people cannot afford and Ministers will never have to pay; it is serious because they are betraying the trust of local communities; it serious because they are putting at risk our energy and food security at a time when both have never been more vital; and it is serious because those who will suffer for their net zero purity are working people. These are not plans for a clean energy superpower. They are plans for a weaker, poorer Britain.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I beg to move, that further consideration be now adjourned—or, as one might say, be a termination event. [Laughter.]

[The Chair]

That is, of course, entirely out of order.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)