Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

It is a huge shock, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, because failing to back an £8.3 billion investment in your own constituency seems an odd approach for a Member to take, whatever election they are standing in.

Let me make a broader point about other work that we are taking forward. One of the most important things we did recently was get the skills passport over the line. That is about recognising the huge skillset of offshore oil and gas workers; 90% of those skills are directly transferable into renewables and other technologies. Passporting is about ensuring that those skills and experiences are recognised, so that those skilled workers can find jobs in the renewable industry. This important work is about the transition to the jobs of the future. We announced that Aberdeen will be one of the first skills pilot areas, in recognition of the importance of that skills transition for the whole north-east of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The final question is from Tom Hayes.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?

Biomass Generation

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about support for biomass electricity generation. My apologies to the House for it having to put up with even more of me.

In January 2024 the previous Government launched a consultation on supporting large-scale biomass generators when existing support ends in 2027. That consultation outlined their proposals to continue to support biomass as a

“valuable...form of dispatchable power”.

Since this Government came to office, we have carefully considered responses to that consultation and assessed the case for a new support mechanism. Biomass currently plays an important role in our energy system, but we are conscious of concerns about sustainability and the level of subsidy that biomass plants have received in the past. With that in mind, I want to report to the House on our conclusions about the role of Drax power station in Yorkshire in the years 2027 to 2031.

In coming to the view I will express today, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator on questions of security of supply, analysed the effect on consumers of support for biomass versus the alternatives, looked at issues around subsidy and sustainability in the existing arrangements, and considered longer term issues around decarbonisation.

First, on security of supply, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where there was no long-term planning for our energy system and its resilience. In the system we have inherited, large-scale biomass provides around 5% of our annual electricity generation, serving a specific role as a source of firm power. To meet our needs between 2027 and 2031, we could seek to replace Drax with new gas-fired power stations, but in the timescale we have there would be significant risks to relying on that approach. In that context, NESO has advised us that Drax plays an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031.

Secondly, on price, we have undertaken comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and in a much more limited role than today, biomass generation at Drax is the lowest cost option, including when compared with gas-fired power stations, for bill payers during this period.

Thirdly, we have looked at previous arrangements for subsidy and sustainability. This Government’s view is that they simply did not deliver a good enough deal for bill payers and enabled Drax to make unacceptably large profits. At the same time, they demanded levels of sustainability that are not now in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice, including supply chain emissions well above the European standard. We have concluded that if Drax is to continue to play a role in our power system, these arrangements must urgently be improved going forward.

Fourthly, we have looked at issues with decarbonisation. Our finding is that there is a potential role for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—or power BECCS—but realistically this will take time to implement and therefore cannot form the primary basis of this decision. On the basis of that assessment, and given the circumstances that we inherited, the clear evidence is that Drax is important for delivering a secure, value-for-money power system in the period 2027-31. But we have also concluded that we cannot allow Drax to operate in the way in which it has before, or with the level of subsidy that it received in the past. On that basis, we have secured heads of terms that will form the basis of a very different agreement with Drax for support during the period 2027 to 2031.

Let me set out the terms of the agreement. First, it will ensure that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is really needed. Drax currently operates as a baseload plant, running around two thirds of the time. That means that it provides power even when other renewable sources are abundant. That must not continue. Under the new arrangement, Drax will be supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%. In other words, it will operate less than half as often as it does currently. That will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that we have agreed. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.

Secondly, reflecting that change, the contract will deliver much better value for consumers. It will significantly reduce the amount paid in subsidies compared with the previous support mechanism. The new deal halves the subsidies for Drax—equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the deal will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market. I can also inform the House that the deal limits the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem, but while that is our central estimate, unlike the last Government we are not prepared to take the risk of prices soaring in response to volatile fossil fuel markets, so the agreement includes a built-in windfall mechanism, with rates of 30% and 60% that would claw back excess profits made by Drax, guaranteeing a much fairer deal for consumers than in the past.

Thirdly, we will introduce tough new measures on sustainability. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the much stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, and we will exclude material sourced from primary forests and old-growth forests from receiving support payments. There will be substantial penalties on Drax if those criteria are not met, and we will go further to ensure greater confidence that the standards will be met. I can inform the House that we will also appoint an independent sustainability adviser to work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to ensure that our monitoring and enforcement measures are robust and keep pace with the science.

To be clear to the House, taken together the measures represent a profound shift from the past on both sustainability and value for money. In that context, this is the right deal for security of supply and price in the period 2027 to 2031, given the circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of concerns in this House and across the country about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that the next time such decisions are made, the Government are not left in the circumstances we have been.

We will do the work that was not done by the previous Administration on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that in four years’ time we will have proper options. To help that process, we are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage, can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets and ensure security of supply out to 2050. The review will take representations widely on the issues and report back in due course.

The steps that I have set out are about fulfilling our duty to ensure security of supply and the best deal for bill payers. We have come into office, faced up to the circumstances left by the previous Government, and delivered a step change in value for money and sustainability. The Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security, to protect bill payers now and into the future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

“Under new management,” indeed! The tough thing about being the acting shadow Secretary of State is that it is not, of course, his script that the hon. Gentleman is reading out.

This Government are fixing the mistakes left by the previous Government. I gently point out that eight previous Conservative Energy Ministers stood at this Dispatch Box and—deal after deal after deal—announced a worse deal than this for bill payers, energy security and sustainability. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that today. In fact, only a year ago—such is my love of his contributions in this House that I have read up on Hansard—he was saying that he had “absolute confidence” in the deal the previous Government made with Drax.

Let me outline why this deal is so different from those his party made in the past. The hon. Gentleman first asked about subsidy and mentioned a figure, which is what it will cost to deliver the necessary dispatchable power. He missed the fact that it is, of course, half of what was paid under the previous Government—nearly £1 billion a year—to Drax. We have halved that amount to lower bills for consumers.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about sustainability. We agree on the importance of tightening up the sustainability, which is why we have moved from 70% to 100%. I would gently say, again, that he was quite happy to support public money going into unsustainable biomass year after year when he was in the Energy Department. We have said that we will not pay a penny of subsidy to Drax if there is unsustainable biomass in the mix.

Thirdly, what the previous Government did not do, of course, was any sort of deal to control the runaway excess profits—record profits—that Drax was able to obtain as part of its deal. We have put in place a mechanism to claw back that excess profit so that the people of this country do not pay over the odds for their energy.

Fourthly, I will address the important point about energy security. Year after year, the Conservatives exposed us to the lack of a plan for what the energy system would look like in the late 2020s and into the 2030s. This Government have had to take tough decisions quickly to secure that supply for the future, and that is what we have done. We have decided that running Drax when it was not necessary—when there were clean, cheaper alternatives in the system—will no longer happen. To the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on Drax running less, I say that limited generation times mean that it will run only when we need it for capacity to meet demand in the system. The alternative—he asked for the figure, which I set out in the statement—would be £170 million more every single year.

Finally, on the future of BECCS, we are open-minded at this point on the role it will play. However, I agree that it is important that we come to a decision on that soon. The review we have outlined is about bringing together all the various bits of science that we know are there in different reports and trying to work out a credible pathway for whether power BECCS will play a role in the system. We will make that decision as soon as possible.

I will finish by saying that this is an extremely different deal. It will deliver benefit for the hard-working people of this country, ensure that sustainability is at its heart and protect our energy security in the years ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his marathon stint and on the pragmatic and well-crafted analysis of how the Government’s energy policies will address the security of supply and provide the best deal for bill payers. This is in stark contrast to what the Conservatives did, and in particular to what my hon. Friend described as the terrible deal with Drax that they presided over while in office.

Today’s statement is a timely reminder of the challenges with Drax, not least given the news over the weekend of further misreporting of the burning of primary forest. NESO, in its future energy pathway, predicted a reduction in the use of biomass as part of the UK becoming more energy independent. Does the Minister, with his announcement, foresee that the cuts in subsidies and in the reliance on Drax will contribute to the Government’s clean power plan, to energy security and to reducing bills for all our constituents?

[Michael Shanks]

The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right about where Drax, and biomass generally, fits in our wider energy system. What we want to build at pace is a clean power system that takes us off the volatile fossil fuel markets. That is important, but there are short-term issues around ensuring we have the dispatchable power we need when we need it.

The Government have taken long-term decisions, for example in the first funding scheme for long-duration energy storage in 40 years. We hope to see modern new technologies of long-duration energy storage but also some classics from the history books, with pumped storage hydro playing a critical role in the system and delivering the dispatchable clean power we need. But there is a short-term question we need to answer that the previous Government did not have an answer for: how we get to 2031. We can build new gas units. Our analysis and the advice from NESO was that that was more likely to deliver energy security and in the end be cheaper for bill payers, who ultimately pay the bill. Our long-term ambition is to build towards that clean power system. This is an important step to get us the energy security that we need in the system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for sharing his statement with us in advance.

Climate change and nature loss are undoubtedly the greatest twin threats we face. While pursuing the clean power by 2030 goal, the Government need to reconsider their decision to indeterminately extend the burning of biomass as part of the energy mix, despite overwhelming evidence that it is neither sustainable nor truly renewable, especially with the threat to virgin forests. The Minister says biomass is vital for energy security, supplying 5% of the UK’s electricity. However, he fails to mention that biomass emits 18% more carbon dioxide than coal and that it takes nearly a century for new trees to absorb those emissions. That is not energy security; it is a carbon ticking time bomb.

We are told by the Minister that NESO advised that Drax was a necessity between 2027 and 2031 to prevent supply risks. That is due to the reckless rowing back by the former Government, the absence of accelerated investment in renewables and the continued investment in Drax as part of their strategy, but what kind of future are we building if it depends on burning forests rather than investing in real renewable energy sources?

On costs, the Minister tells us that biomass at Drax is cheaper than gas-fired power, but we must not forget that past subsidies by the former Government allowed Drax to profit excessively at the expense of bill payers. Even today, despite halved subsidies, Drax’s shares have surged, suggesting that even this deal remains a good deal for Drax and potentially a bad one for taxpayers. We therefore call on the Government to release the 2022 KPMG report into Drax’s subsidy claims, which should have been released under the Conservative Government. Transparency is crucial and the public deserve to know if their money has been misused. I will end by asking: are we looking for home-grown clean energy—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply.

The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point.

As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system.

Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the energy company obligation 4 and Great British insulation schemes. The Government have identified an emerging issue of poor-quality solid wall insulation installed under those two inherited schemes.

Energy company obligation 4 began in April 2022, and the Great British insulation scheme began in May 2023. Around 65,000 households have had solid wall insulation installed under the schemes. In October 2024, TrustMark, the independent body that oversees tradespeople working in homes, did routine audits and found significant examples of solid wall insulation under those schemes that did not meet the requisite standard.

At that point, TrustMark began suspending a number of the installers responsible. After officials in our Department were made aware of the issues, they asked TrustMark to conduct a much fuller audit, which concluded in mid-December. Officials informed Ministers at the start of December about the situation, and told them that early findings suggested that there were widespread cases of poor-quality installations that did not meet the required standard. Since that point, we have consulted the certification bodies responsible for overseeing the work, and the Building Safety Regulator, to understand the true scale and nature of the emerging problem.

It became clear to me that there is a serious systemic issue around ECO4 and GBIS solid wall insulation. It ranges from minor problems, such as missing or incomplete paperwork, to major problems, such as exposed insulation or poor ventilation, which, if not fixed, could lead to damp and mould. As more poor-quality work has come to light, a total of 39 businesses have been suspended from installing new solid wall insulation in people’s homes. I can inform the House that suspended installers will not be able to deliver new solid wall insulation under any Government schemes until they have fulfilled their obligations to put any issues right.

Additional on-site audits are being conducted as I speak, so that we can get a full picture of the scale of the problem and identify affected households. The auditing work continues at pace, and we have put in place a comprehensive plan for immediate repair and remediation where needed. Let me be absolutely clear about this: installers must fund any repair work themselves and carry it out as soon as possible. Consumers should not be asked to pay a penny towards the cost of getting the problems fixed.

We have instructed Ofgem, the energy regulator, to oversee that work. Ofgem will work with TrustMark and certification bodies to ensure that it is delivered at speed. Non-compliant work found through the audits is already being fixed. In the very small number of cases in which TrustMark audits found health and safety concerns, including wires not being fitted properly, the problems are being fixed urgently, with the expectation that they should be resolved within 24 hours.

Critically, I reassure the House that additional monitoring and checks are being put in place to ensure that future solid wall insulation is done to the requisite standard. It is also important to say that, based on what we know so far, we believe that the issues we have discovered are specific to solid wall insulation installed under ECO4 and GBIS. Stronger systems of checks and balances are in place for other schemes that involve local authorities and social housing providers, so we do not expect to see the same scale of problem there. However, the Government are reviewing the quality of solid wall insulation under other schemes. I will update the House on the results of that work as soon as they are available. We will continue to require the urgent remediation of any issues found across all Government energy efficiency schemes.

I know that this will be concerning news for families who have had solid wall insulation fitted through those schemes. Getting this sorted for those customers is our No. 1 priority. Since I was informed of the problems, I have worked with Ofgem to develop a full plan for assessing all affected properties and getting any problems fixed. Let me set out what our plans mean for those families. Ofgem will now oversee quality checks on all solid wall insulation installed under either scheme, to identify households that might be affected. That will begin with every measure being examined over the coming weeks by qualified professionals, and that will include looking at photographic evidence. If a quality check raises issues, the certification body that oversees the installer, or TrustMark, will arrange an inspection of the property and the problem will be fixed as soon as possible. Installers will be required to provide evidence to TrustMark that issues have been properly fixed. Let me reiterate our assurance that where solid wall insulation under the schemes has not been done right, consumers should not have to pay a penny to fix that.

We are clear that the responsibility for finding and fixing any problems lies with those who carried out the work. Consumers do not need to take any action now. However, given the inevitable concern among those who have had those measures installed, all households with solid wall insulation fitted under the schemes will be sent a letter from Ofgem in the next three weeks. It will set out the steps that we are taking, and how households can proactively raise concerns. We are also setting up a gov.uk advice page specifically for those affected.

The Government are moving fast to protect households, but I must be honest with the House: these issues are the result of years of failure in a system that must be reformed. Home upgrades are, we believe, one of the best tools to get bills down for good and deliver warm homes. That is why our warm homes plan will cut bills for millions of households by upgrading their homes, including with solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and energy efficiency measures such as double glazing and loft insulation. However, the Government have inherited a fragmented and confusing system of protections for people who want to insulate their homes—too many organisations with different roles and responsibilities, not enough clarity for consumers about who to turn to if things go wrong, and problems that should have been picked up earlier being missed. The system is in dire need of reform.

Installers are responsible for poor-quality installations, but they have been allowed to operate in a failed system that has left some households exposed to bad practices. The system can no longer command confidence, which is why we are committed to overhauling it, and to driving up quality and protecting consumers through the warm homes plan. We will look at the entire landscape —from how installers work in people’s homes and are certified and monitored, to where homeowners turn for rapid action and enforcement if things go wrong—and we will ensure that there is more of a guiding mind overseeing upgrades across the system.

The steps I have set out demonstrate that the Government will do whatever it takes to protect consumers. We will regularly report back to the House about the steps being taken. We have set up a process through which colleagues from across the House can raise concerns about their constituents. Above all, we are determined to ensure that families are never let down in this way again. We will put in place a robust system of compliance, audit and regulation, so that consumers have the confidence to take up the offer of upgrading their homes. We will do what is necessary to ensure that families can have warmer homes and lower bills. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for his avid and consistent campaigning on these issues. As he knows, there is an ongoing investigation into the case of SSB Law at the moment.

To answer my hon. Friend’s specific question, for any insulation that is installed under Government schemes, we expect that the system will kick in and respond. We are aware of cases that have been raised with TrustMark and other bodies, and we are working to make sure those are remediated. Where the insulation has not been installed under a Government scheme—we have examples of that, where constituents have engaged with insulation schemes that are not Government schemes—there is a different set of mechanisms. We are working with the system to make sure we are responding to households, because as I have said, this is not the fault of individual households; the system is not working properly. We are going to prioritise Government schemes, because we have the levers, but we recognise that there is an issue for households that have had work done outside Government schemes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I can only imagine the frustration that consumers feel when they go through the quite often complicated process of trying to upgrade their home to bring down their bills for good, only to be met with substandard work and a subsequent lack of enforcement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Government have inherited a fragmented and confusing system, and that the focus today is on consumers and on remedial work affecting the shoddy work they have had installed. I am glad that the Government are committed to ensuring that the onus of that remedial work does not land in the pockets of consumers.

We agree that the system needs a complete overhaul, especially since the last Conservative Government left the Great British insulation scheme falling woefully short of the targets it set for itself and supporting far too few people far too slowly, while some who did receive installations have found them to be well below the required standard. If faults are found with other energy efficiency measures, will the Minister guarantee that consumers do not have to pay a penny for those, as for the ones she has highlighted? How soon can consumers expect their quality checks to be delivered, and will priority be given to households in fuel poverty as well as to the elderly and the vulnerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this, and for engaging with me and my Department. We are aware of instances where companies have folded so as not to deliver on their obligation to remediate work, and have then set up again. We are putting in place processes through the certification bodies to mitigate that, with a clear expectation that companies will not be taken on by another certification body if they do not get the work right.

Our priority at the moment is solid wall insulation, because that is where we think there is an immediate problem with ECO and GBIS. We are aware, from Members contacting us, of the wider issues that need to be addressed. I come back to the fact that we understand that the system has not been working for consumers. Quite frankly, the quality—and quality assurance—across the system has been far too fragmented and patchy. Critically, consumer protection has not been underscored in the way it needs to be. We are looking to overhaul the system, and we are conscious that there are issues with other schemes and are thinking about the best way in which we can resolve them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I refer the Minister to the last words in her statement, which were that the Government will “ensure that families have lower bills.” There will always be a problem with insulation in a country with a massively degraded and older housing stock, which underlines the vital importance of cheap energy. We have had a month with virtually no wind and no sun, and so-called green energy is producing hardly any of our energy. We are importing energy, we are stopping drilling in the North sea and we are not building gas-fired power stations. What about old people? Their heating allowance has been taken away, and we are crucifying them with ever higher bills. Meanwhile, China—its annual increment in emissions is more than our entire emissions—is going on pumping out emissions, and “Drill, baby” Trump is pumping out emissions. Why are we crucifying our old people?

Great British Energy Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Nature Recovery Duty—

“(1) In exercising its functions, Great British Energy must take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of targets set under sections 1–3 of the Environment Act 2021.

(2) Under the duty set under subsection (1), Great British Energy must consider opportunities to incorporate nature-based solutions in—

(a) the design and maintenance of any assets in its ownership, and

(b) its investment decisions.”

This new clause would give Great British Energy a new duty, requiring it to contribute to the achievement of Environment Act targets. The duty specifies the incorporation of nature-based solutions (including nature friendly design and building measures) in all assets owned by and invested in by Great British Energy.

New clause 3—Prohibition of investments which would increase greenhouse gas emissions—

“(1) Prior to making any investment, Great British Energy must publish an assessment of the impact of the investment decision on—

(a) greenhouse gas emissions and

(b) the production or combustion of fossil fuels.

(2) Where the assessment carried out under subsection (1) showed that the investment was expected to contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, Great British Energy must not make that investment.”

This new clause would require Great British Energy to publish an assessment of potential investments on greenhouse gas emissions and the production or combustion of fossil fuels. Any investment which the assessment showed was expected to increase greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibited.

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(e) an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and

(f) the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.”

This amendment would set objects for Great British Energy of facilitating, encouraging and participating in an emergency home insulation programme with targeted support for people on low incomes, and the expansion and development of renewable energy and technology.

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to reduce household energy bills by at least £300 in real terms.”

Amendment 5, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to advance the production of clean energy from schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.”

This new section would require the statement of strategic priorities to make specific regard to facilitate community-based clean energy schemes.

Amendment 6, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the reduction of household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.”

Amendment 8, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include the creation of 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030 resulting directly or indirectly from Great British Energy’s pursuit of its objectives under section 3.”

Amendment 11, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to allocate 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to marine energy projects.”

This amendment would require 3% of Great British Energy’s budget to be allocated for marine energy projects.

Amendment 12, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to work with Great British Nuclear on the development of nuclear energy projects.”

This amendment would require Great British Energy to work with Great British Nuclear on developing nuclear energy projects.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(1A) The statement of strategic priorities under subsection (1) must include a priority to require any renewable energy development located in Wales that Great British Energy owns or invests into offer a minimum of 10% community and 10% local ownership for each project.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that all renewable energy projects in Wales which are owned or invested in by Great British Energy would be required to offer a 10% stake in community ownership i.e. for individuals and households, and a 10% stake of local ownership, i.e. any Wales-based organisation.

Amendment 15, page 3 line 16, leave out “consult” and insert “receive the consent of”.

This amendment would require that the Secretary of State receives consent from Welsh ministers before including in the strategic priorities and plans any matter concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd.

Amendment 7, in clause 6, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of reducing household energy bills by £300 in real terms by 1 January 2030.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must include a projection of how Great British Energy’s activities are likely to affect consumer energy bills over the following five years.

(1C) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1D) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 9, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on the progress made by Great British Energy towards the strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom by 2030.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 10, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must give a specific direction to Great British Energy that it must report to the Secretary of State on—

(a) Great British Energy’s in-year return on investment, and

(b) A forecast of the following year’s expected return on investment.

(1B) A report under subsection (1A) must be made within two years of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(1C) The Secretary of State must lay a report under subsection (1A) before Parliament.”

Amendment 14, page 3, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must, in particular, direct Great British Energy that any revenues generated from activities of Great British Energy in relation to resources located in Wales must be invested back into projects located in Wales.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that all revenue generated by Great British Energy from resources in Wales are invested back into energy projects in Wales.

[Claire Coutinho]

It is nice to be back discussing Great British Energy, and on the day before the Budget, too. I am sure that Labour Members are worrying about what kind of horrors they will be forced to defend next. They will have had a miserable summer trying to explain to their constituents why they are scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners in poverty, just weeks after a general election in which no mention was made of that. They will have spent the last few weeks explaining that the term “working people”—the people they promised to protect in their manifesto—does not include small business owners, or employees with savings, and that their use of the term “national insurance” does not prevent a national insurance rise for employers. They will be getting a bashing from companies, who were told that Labour would be pro-business, yet have been clobbered by post-election announcements of tax rises and trade union charters, and who have a Prime Minister with an optimism about Britain that puts him on the charts somewhere between Eeyore and Victor Meldrew. And tomorrow Labour Members will have to explain why the Chancellor who said before the election that any change to the fiscal rules would amount to fiddling the figures is now changing them to open the door to billions of pounds of borrowing.

This is a timely return to the Great British Energy Bill. Our amendments today will give Labour Members an opportunity, which I am sure they will welcome, to hold their leadership to account for at least some of the promises that they were told to go out and sell. Let us take a look at a few of the promises that Labour Members made during the election. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) wrote on her website:

“We will set up Great British Energy…cutting energy bills by an average of £300 a year.”

The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) posted on Facebook:

“Why am I backing Labour’s plan to set up Great British Energy? It will save £300 off average household energy bills in the South East by 2030.”

The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said on Facebook:

“everyone in the east of England will get £300 off their energy bills…no ifs, no buts, no maybes, these will be measurable and you will be able to check our progress at the end of the next Parliament.”

At least 50 MPs made similar claims.

Why were Labour candidates up and down the country saying these things? Perhaps they were simply listening to the Cabinet. The Science Secretary said on “Good Morning Britain”:

“I can tell you directly…by the end of this Parliament that…energy bills will fall by up to £300.”

The Work and Pensions Secretary said:

“Great British Energy will get people’s bills £300 a year lower.”

This is my personal favourite: the Chancellor—the woman of the hour—said,

“Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.”

These were not one-off promises; it was the party line, as dictated by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. These promises are still up in writing. In fact, the Labour party website still says that its energy plans will cut bills by £300 on average. Oddly, Ministers now do not seem so keen on that pledge. We have asked them about it in this House, as have the media, but the number seems to have vanished. They have even taken down the Great British Energy website, and the newly appointed chair even said in Committee that cutting bills is

“not the scope of Great British Energy.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2024; c. 6, Q5.]

This is not trivial; these are promises that people care about. Every single Labour Member will have had constituents vote for them because they believed that Labour’s promise of £300 off their energy bills would make a meaningful difference to their lives. Amendments 6 and 7 in my name will hold the Government to account on their election promise to cut bills.

Our amendments would give Great British Energy a strategic priority to cut people’s energy bills by £300 by 2030, and would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on progress towards meeting that target. Surely all Labour Members who made these promises and kept them up on their social media accounts will want to track the Government’s progress on this important issue for their constituents. Well, tonight is their chance.

But £300 off bills was not the Secretary of State’s only promise at the election. He also claimed that Great British Energy would create 650,000 new jobs, but he did not mention that figure on Second Reading, and the Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), did not mention it in Committee. It does not appear in Great British Energy’s founding statement, nor does it appear in the Government’s explanatory notes on the Bill.

The only detail we have heard about the number of jobs to be created by Great British Energy came from the Secretary of State’s hand-picked chair of that body, who said that “hundreds” of people will be employed at its Aberdeen headquarters. We have since found out that the chair himself will be based in Manchester. It is a funny kind of headquarters if the head will not be based there, but that is the kind of sophistry that the public are starting to expect from this Labour Government.

More importantly, those few hundred people will hardly make up for the 200,000 jobs this Government are putting at risk through their plans to shut down the North sea, or the missed opportunities for jobs thanks to their go-slow on nuclear. On the Secretary of State’s watch, we have already seen thousands of jobs in industry lost.

The Secretary of State can talk about skills passports and Government transition projects all he likes, but the truth is that they do not pay the bills. He likes to say that we need to cut carbon at an extreme pace, faster than any other major economy, in order to show climate leadership and save the planet, but if our gas production, steelmaking or energy-intensive manufacturing moves to Asia, which is still powered by coal, he will be adding to emissions. That would mean more carbon in the atmosphere, and would be devastating for the hundreds of thousands of people who would lose their livelihoods here in Britain. I say that as someone who, before entering Parliament, worked on regenerating some of our most deprived communities once the jobs were gone.

As with our amendments on the Government’s £300 pledge, amendments 8 and 9 in my name would give Great British Energy a strategic priority of creating 650,000 new jobs by 2030, and would require an annual report to Parliament on progress towards this aim. That is important, because even the trade unions that normally support Labour have warned the Secretary of State and his team that his plans will lead to the mass deindustrialisation of Britain. The general secretary of the GMB has said that the Secretary of State’s plans are

“hollowing out working class communities”,

and will amount to “decarbonisation through deindustrialisation.” He said that importing more from China is

“bad for communities, not great for national security and it makes no sense in terms of the environment.”

He also said, and I hope the ministerial team are listening closely to this one:

“Our message to Ed Miliband is very clear: We are worried about a lot of promises that are not being delivered on jobs.”

Those Labour MPs who are members of the GMB, including the Energy Minister, have the opportunity tonight to hold the Government to account by voting for annual reporting on the jobs being created. The question is, will they listen to the general secretary’s concerns?

The next promise was that Great British Energy would turn a profit for the taxpayer. The Secretary of State admittedly got himself into a mess on this one. He has never had to make commercial investment decisions, and neither has any of his ministerial team, which is why they have been caught out promising the British public that they can turn a tidy profit, while at the same time telling multimillion-pound energy companies that they will take the least attractive parts of their investments off their hands. That is important, because the Secretary of State has written this Bill to give himself powers of direction. That was not the case for the UK Infrastructure Bank, and there was a recurring question in Committee about how much independence the supposedly independent Great British Energy will have.

This is my proposal: if the Secretary of State wants the power to meddle, he should be duty-bound to report the results of that meddling—its profits and losses—to this House. Amendment 10 in my name would require Great British Energy to produce an annual report on the performance of its investments, including its in-year return on investment and a forecast of the following year’s expected return. That is the bare minimum we can expect, so that British taxpayers can see what he is doing with £8 billion of their money.

I tabled clause 1 because it is crucial that we have proper oversight of the wider activities of Great British Energy. New clause 1 would require the appointment of an independent reviewer to assess Great British Energy’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives and strategic priorities. In Committee, the Energy Minister said that the Government want Great British Energy to be

“accountable, transparent and clear about how it is delivering on its objectives.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 October 2024; c. 168.]

I agree, and that seems a perfectly good reason to support new clause 1.

As I have said previously, Great British Energy is pretty much a carbon copy of the UK Infrastructure Bank, which was set up to provide loans, equity and guarantees for infrastructure to tackle climate change, backed by £22 billion. No Minister has been able to tell us the real difference between Great British Energy and the UK Infrastructure Bank, or why the taxpayer has to pay for two headquarters, two chief executives and so on. The one difference appears to be that Great British Energy will mean additional powers for the Secretary of State.

If Labour Members are so intent on handing this Secretary of State billions of pounds to gamble with, I expect they will also want to replicate the independent review enacted by the United Kingdom Infrastructure Bank Act 2023. New clause 1 would provide that scrutiny and, although I intend to withdraw it this evening, if the Minister would like to table a similar amendment in the other place to follow the precedent set by the Act, I assure him of our backing.

The Secretary of State and his ministerial team have made big promises. It is crucial that this House can hold them accountable, as the consequences could not be more important for people’s energy bills, people’s jobs and businesses’ ability to succeed. As the respected energy and climate economist Dieter Helm has said, the risk is that this Government will head towards a 2029 election with industries lost and bills higher—exactly the opposite of what the electorate has been promised.

The Government’s refusal to publish evidence for their claims, to set out the details of their plans or to engage in any meaningful policy discussion outside their normal slogans and mantras means that their policies are more likely to fail. For example, the Secretary of State has said that this Bill and Great British Energy are part of his plan to ramp up renewables at breakneck speed because every wind turbine and every solar panel constructed will lead to cheaper energy and greater security, but that is simply not true. First, it depends on the price we pay for them. Expert analysis by Cornwall Insight found that the contracts for difference round that the Secretary of State bumped up, and that he now boasts about, will actually increase people’s bills by £5. Moreover, he has advertised to the multimillion-pound energy companies that he will buy whatever they sell, no matter the cost, up to 2030. People do not need a business background to work out what that will do to prices.

Secondly, if we are building renewables faster than we can connect them to the grid, the constraint payments needed by 2030 could add hundreds of pounds to people’s bills. Then there are the network costs, the green levies and the cost of dispatchable power. If the Secretary of State wants to replace gas, which is our main form of dispatchable power, he should set out the cost of what will replace it.

The options in this country are coal, which I assume Labour Members do not want, biomass, carbon-capture gas or unproven technologies, none of which will make our system cheaper. All the signs are that, far from making energy cheaper and more secure, this Secretary of State and his ministerial team will send people’s bills through the roof, and more and more people are sounding the alarm about whether he can even keep the lights on. Perhaps that is why he never commissioned an accurate assessment of his plans. Labour Members had 14 years in opposition, 14 years hankering for the jobs and the responsibilities they now have, but when we asked for the full-system cost of the Secretary of State’s approach, he could only say that it will be published “in due course.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman does some homework. We do not get our oil and gas from Putin. Instead, some 50% of our domestic gas supply comes from the North sea, which the party in government is trying to shut down. If he wants to talk about energy markets, he should do some reading about how they work. On that note, I commend our amendments to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Natalie Fleet to make her maiden speech.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

It is the honour of my life to be in this Chamber as the Member for Bolsover, a seat made famous by the legend that is Dennis Skinner. From Calow to Pilsley, they tell me stories of him singing to them on the phone, and they remind me of his witty one-liners. He showed the very best of politics: what can be achieved when we send one of our own here to fight for us. I accepted a long time ago that I will not fill his shoes, but when I feel like I do not belong here, I remember that I am following in the footsteps of a “beast”, whose legacy is that kids like me can be here against the odds.

Dennis famously praised half the Members on the Conservative Benches for not being crooks, and I like to think that he would have included his successor, Mark Fletcher, in that group. Mark saw that kids in Bolsover were 10% less likely than those in the rest of England and Wales to get higher education qualifications, and he fought to change that. He worked so hard to get us our own sixth form within Bolsover. I am also passionate about smashing down barriers to opportunity, so that is a fight that I am delighted to take up. Mark made the most of his time here. He appreciated the privilege of serving and continues to show that there is more that unites us than divides us. I wish him so very well.

In his maiden speech, Dennis spoke about the more than 10,000 working miners he represented. I do not have that pleasure. Born at the start of the strike, I grew up seeing our pits go. I had to stop visiting the canteen that my Dar took me to on the way to race the pigeons, because it closed. My community grieved, and I grew up seeing more kids like me go to prison than to university.

In place of industry, mine is a story of the state—stepping in, once again, to pick up the pieces and make sure that every child can reach their potential. I was really lucky to have a Government that prioritised my education, and that gave teachers like Mrs Gregory the opportunity to nurture me, as she did. When my home was dangerous, there were police to keep us safe. When I did not have a home at all, the state stepped in. When I was pregnant at 15, I had a Government that wrapped their arms around me in the form of Sure Start. Better still, they implemented a long-term strategy that meant that when I visit schools in Bolsover now, fewer children are facing parenthood. That is really cool.

I always felt like the exception, but I am seeing more families struggle than ever before. That is why it has been so heartbreaking to see the state ripped back again. A care home in Shirebrook and a day centre in Bolsover face closure. Kids in South Normanton are waiting years for special educational needs support. Some 52% of children in Carr Vale live in poverty although their parents work hard to earn. It is not just our most vulnerable who are struggling. Professionals in Cresswell are accessing food banks that used not to exist. There is more antisocial behaviour in Whitwell because there are fewer police. Mortgages are up in Barlborough. The amount that people can buy with their money in Tibshelf has gone down.

The reason I am here—the reason I leave my family every week to do this—is because I feel so deeply about the difference that politics can make. Things have been better before, and they will be again. That change has begun. I am here to make sure that this powerful state has the most positive impact on lives in Bolsover.

This Great British Energy Bill will mean that fewer children in Pleasely have their lights switch off as they are doing their homework. Kids in Holmewood can start the day with full tummies because they will have free breakfast clubs. Children in Glapwell will not have to feel the shame of asking their parents to pay for their school trips, because those parents will have good jobs, and great terms and conditions. Families in Clowne will get access to dentists, and entrepreneurs can succeed in Wessington, with global companies investing in Markham Vale. My daughter can start her own family in Pinxton, making me the world’s proudest Nana, knowing that this Government will make getting childcare that much easier.

For my daughters and my soon-to-be granddaughter, and for your daughters and granddaughters, I stand here proudly as the first woman MP for Bolsover. It is a privilege to be a part of the most diverse Government in our country’s history, because representation matters. I stand on the shoulders of the women who came before me, and who raised, supported, educated and mentored me. They threw that ladder down and would not take it up until I had grabbed it.

They were women like Gloria De Piero, who showed me that we are not all the same, and who proved to me that we can carry the scars of poverty and still belong in this House; Bess of Hardwick, who never took no for an answer, built the best of Tudor England and put her initials on the top of her house for us all to see; Margaret Cavendish, who was not mad but a difficult woman ahead of her time; and Arkwright’s Norma Dolby, who kept her community together during the strike, faced police intimidation and made sure the miners’ families were fed.

Being the first woman to stand in this post is a huge privilege, but it comes with a greater responsibility. It is my duty to speak up for the women in my constituency whose stories are not being told, even when it is difficult to do so, and even when I wish they were stories that they did not have—like those women who have been raped and are having to wait years for trial; attempting suicide as they fear that nobody will believe them. I have a moral obligation to speak on behalf of the women who have been hurt in the worst possible way and then told that it is their own fault.

So, to the women in my constituency, who I represent, who will be raped today, raped tomorrow and raped every day of this Parliament, I say: “I do not know where you are, I cannot find you, but you can find me. I will believe you, I will support you, and I will fight to make sure that we can all tell our truth, backed by a Government who will make it easier for us to get justice, determined to make sure that our daughters grow up safer.” Being able to speak your truth until you can—that is privilege.

So, to the people of Bolsover, I say that I am thrilled to be here, for my family and for yours. I will not let you down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torcuil Crichton]

I remind the hon. Member that to switch on one lightbulb in Lincoln from a turbine on the Isle of Lewis will require a link and a chain of dominos to fall in order, on a scale that we have only ever seen in the Guinness record books. For each of those dominos to stay in place, the communities along that line must be involved and rewarded locally, or nationally with a sovereign wealth fund, to ensure that they play a part and have a sense of ownership in the transformation. The only way for this to succeed is if we all benefit. The wealth of wind is owned by no one man, and we should all share in the transformation. That is what I think GB Energy will deliver, and it is why I support the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I start by thanking the Minister for how constructively he has worked with me, and by thanking the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for his words just now. I also thank all the colleagues who have sat on the Great British Energy Bill Committee. It is encouraging that this legislation has been given a prime spot at the beginning of this Parliament, and I thank the Clerks and the Speaker’s Office for their diligent work in administering the Bill thus far, as well as all the Members who have taken the opportunity to represent their constituents’ aspirations and concerns regarding the Bill. As many Members know, this is my first Bill as spokesperson for energy security and net zero, and I have appreciated all the support I have been given.

I also acknowledge colleagues from across the House who have lent their support to the amendments to which I am going to speak, and have also tabled their own. In particular, I recognise the contribution made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), whose amendment promotes a nature recovery duty. He will know that nature recovery is close to my heart, and that I raised that topic in Committee. Last week, I had the privilege of attending the UN conference on biodiversity in Cali, Colombia—a poignant reminder of how it is impossible to address climate change and energy security without tackling the nature emergency. National energy infrastructure must therefore be nature-positive and aligned with the obligations in the Environment Act 2021.

As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats support the Bill in principle, because we want a nationwide energy system that will bring down energy bills and provide clean, green energy. Amendment 3, which stands in my name, would guarantee that Great British Energy is established within six months of the Bill becoming law. We all know that as a result of the Conservative Government’s delay and dither, we are not on track to meet our ambitious targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings]

I could not have put it better myself. I thank my hon. Friend for leading the fight for the Liberal Democrats as the former spokesperson on energy security and net zero. That question goes to the crux of the matter.

We have fantastic examples from many communities of how important community energy is. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) led the recent Westminster Hall debate, in which there were fantastic examples from rural communities of how they feel about community benefits. There are also the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) in supporting the Aikengall community wind farm, which provides a direct benefit of an amazing £120,000 for the community.

Community energy is not just for Scotland. In my own county of Cambridgeshire, there is the Swaffham Prior community heat network, and the village is the first of its kind to switch to reliable zero-carbon heating. It was started by the Swaffham Prior Community Land Trust, and it addresses fuel poverty and the village’s reliance on oil heating. The Liberal Democrats will continue to promote those who have pioneered community energy schemes, proving their worth and championing their critical importance to our energy future.

While the Government have not previously backed our amendments, which is incomprehensible to us, I am grateful to the Minister for the conversations we have had recently and the assurances he has given us that the Government really do want to make provisions in the Bill for community energy in the Lords. I look forward to supporting our colleagues in the other place in this endeavour, but the interventions from Labour Members—saying that this will be in the founding statement and the strategic priorities, but not in the Bill—are causing us to doubt that commitment. I therefore urge the Government to make good on their promises. We know their commitment to community energy, so let that be understood clearly and let us put it in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Adam Thompson to make his maiden speech.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kind invitation to present my first speech. May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on her deeply moving and powerful speech this afternoon, alongside the many Members who have spoken for the first time in this House in recent days and weeks? If the high bar set by the newest Members of this House is indicative of the quality of debate to follow in the coming Parliament, I am very confident about the future of our nation.

In my own first speech, I will lay out why I stood to represent my home of Erewash, my plans for my time in Parliament and why I love the area it is now my honour to represent. By the way, before I start in earnest, for the information of all Members present, the constituency is pronounced “Eh-ruh-wash” or occasionally “Eh-ree-wash”, but never under any circumstances “Ear-wash”. I look forward to seeing how that is recorded in Hansard.

I begin my speech by thanking my predecessor, Maggie Throup, for her efforts in serving the people of Erewash over the past nine years. Maggie worked diligently for our community, consistently lobbying for funding to support our towns and villages. Given her background in the health sector, Maggie regularly contributed to health policy throughout her tenure, and she served the nation admirably through the latter stages of covid-19 as Vaccines Minister. While Maggie and I rarely saw eye to eye on policy, our relationship across the political divide has always been courteous and collegiate, and I wish her the very best for the future.

I would also like to pay tribute to my colleague Liz Blackman, who served Erewash as our Member of Parliament throughout the last Labour Government. Liz’s guidance during my campaign to become the MP for Erewash was invaluable, and I am sure I will continue to seek her advice throughout my tenure.

In my first months in Parliament, as I have met colleagues from across the country, the question I have most frequently been asked is: “What even is an Erewash, anyway?” Named for the river and the canal, we comprise two towns—Ilkeston and Long Eaton—the five villages of Breaston, Draycott, Risley, Sandiacre and Stanton-by-Dale, and other communities in Sawley, Kirk Hallam and Cotmanhay. More often, though, I find it easiest to answer, with a reference to our geography, simply, “We’re junction 25 of the M1.”

Like many towns that operate as a binary star, Ilkeston and Long Eaton exist in a delicate balance, with residents of Ilkeston—or “Ilson”, as we call it—regularly declaring, “Long Eaton gets everything.” It is probably no surprise then, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if you spent 10 minutes talking to someone in Long Eaton, you would similarly and resoundingly hear the mantra, “Ilkeston gets everything.” I should note that I have sanitised these statements somewhat; references to the other town in my constituency are often a little more colourful.

In truth, both of our towns have been hard done by in the past 14 years. Despite the hard work of incredible and passionate teaching and support staff, for example, many of our schools struggle with underfunding—something I witnessed at first hand when I trained as a secondary physics teacher. Both high streets have declined, and while towns funding is helping to support Long Eaton’s regeneration, the underlying problems remain: antisocial behaviour, crime, shopkeepers forced out by online giants, and a general malaise and the feeling that nothing will fix the foundations.

Despite the difficulties we face, I would like to explain why Erewash is a fantastic place by paying tribute to the people and the groups in our towns who are doing everything they can to lift the area up by its bootstraps—people like Joe Cahill, who, by liaising with shopkeepers and landlords through a local Facebook group focused on incredible independent shops, has empowered our community and begun restoring Ilkeston as a thriving market town. Similarly, I commend the work of Paul Opiah and others in building the new Friends of Ilkeston Town Centre, providing grassroots regeneration to our town. The efforts of Joe and Paul have been fantastic and I want to provide them with more support. Joe recently noted that he had done as much as he could without changing the law to bring the remaining, rotting shop units back into service—units that are currently held hostage by absentee landlords. I am therefore excited about the Government’s proposals to revive our town centres, and I will do everything in my power to support local people in their efforts.

In Long Eaton, I pay tribute to Scott Clayton and his team, who have created a beautiful new community focused on supporting mental health through the joy of song, where men of all abilities can come together to sing and discuss their issues. It was a pleasure during my campaign to become a Member of Parliament to join Scott and the Bluetonic community and to dive head first out of my comfort zone to sing with new friends.

I also pay tribute to Chris and Jackie Brookes, along with the team at Long Eaton rugby football club. The club serves Long Eaton so well, providing access to sport in our local park for children and adults, and supporting local charities and the armed forces community. After growing substantially over the past decade in the men’s game, in the women’s game and now with its new minis side, Long Eaton RFC has become a pillar of our community.

Then there is Lindsay Rice and her team, who have built a food bank and a lunch club, and are on their way to creating a brand-new Ilkeston carnival through their Every One Eats institute, alongside the collective churches in Long Eaton that have similarly supported those in our community struggling through poverty. Lindsay recently asked me, “Adam, as a food bank, when are you going to shut us down?” I responded, “As soon as possible, Lindsay, as soon as possible.”

Erewash has a thriving veteran community, and as a member of the Royal British Legion, I am very proud that our current mayor, Councillor Kate Fennelly, is a Royal Air Force veteran. I recently met the local charitable trust, Forces Veterans Afloat, which does incredible work housing veterans for whom bricks and mortar are not the answer on narrowboats. As a cadet warrant officer in 1344 (Cardiff) Squadron ATC for much of my childhood, I have long supported our forces and veterans; without 1344 and the citizenship, leadership and community spirit instilled in me by the wider cadet movement, I would not be standing here as a Member of Parliament.

Erewash is the birthplace of many national stars, from Douglas Houghton, Baron Houghton of Sowerby, who served our country in the first world war and in Harold Wilson’s Government as the last British Cabinet Minister born in the 19th century, through to Robert Lindsay, who has played countless parts, including the infamous Wolfie in “Citizen Smith” and the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We also have Bru-C, who today is putting Long Eaton on the map in the grime scene. Our towns, villages, and people are fantastic, but they have been let down by the previous Government, by politicians and by their country.

So what do I bring to this place, and what do I hope to do for Erewash? My background is in academia and education. In my previous day job, I taught engineering apprentices at the University of Nottingham. I worked there for a decade, specialising in metrology research and training the next generation of world-leading manufacturers. I believe I am the first metrologist elected to this place, metrology being the science of measurement and definitely not meteorology—as I said in the opening quote to my PhD thesis, it has nothing to do with clouds.

Erewash, and the wider east midlands, has long been the engine of our nation’s manufacturing base, producing everything from drain covers—look down on nearly every street in the country to see the logo of the famous Stanton Iron Works—to the fine lace worn by the Princess of Wales on her wedding day, produced by Cluny Lace in Ilkeston, to tunnels for HS2 made by Sateba UK, and composite motorsport and aerospace components from Atlas Composite. I want to see an expansion of our manufacturing base through an industrial strategy and reform of the apprenticeship levy, so that we can cement Erewash’s position as a centre for advanced manufacturing.

We also need new infrastructure to build the new homes to support our local economic growth, which I am glad to see the Government commit to. As the Stanton industrial regeneration site grows, I will fight every day for infrastructure works. We need a new junction on the M1 to support the growing industry in the area and to reduce the impact on residents in Sandiacre and Ilkeston, who currently endure a huge volume of heavy goods vehicles passing through the towns.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.

I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Lib Deb spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.

It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of investment. The Conservative Government’s irresponsible roll-back from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet environmental requirements.

While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the Secretary of State do to increase investment—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[Ed Miliband]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and thanking her for the tone and substance of her remarks? She is right to underline the fact that we are marking a new era but also marking the passing of an era, and it is right to pay tribute to all the people who worked in our coal-fired power stations and, indeed, who worked underground to dig coal for our country. It is a big moment of change and the passing of an era.

On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [Interruption.] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ed Miliband]

I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

And the final word goes to Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use and storage does so at their peril, and the Government’s commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals, rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall are incredibly excited by the Minister’s plans for Great British Energy, for taking back control of our energy system and for lowering the bills of hard-pressed families, but does he agree that the Conservative party will have confused many of my residents with its support for public ownership of energy infrastructure only by foreign Governments, and not by the British Government? Taking into account his great plans to make this country an energy superpower, does he agree—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention, and I am very happy to agree with her. There is confusion at the heart of the Conservative party’s plans. They have been very happy to hand over key parts of our national infrastructure to foreign Governments, for the profits go to the public in those countries, but they have been ideologically opposed to any suggestion that the British taxpayer should have any stake in those futures. That is something that we will turn around.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I will carry on, if that is okay.

We will ensure that we have a regulator that fights for consumers as well. We have seen repeated failures in recent years, including the scandal of the forced installation of prepayment meters, poor customer service, and consumers picking up the cost when companies go to the wall. The Government will overhaul the mandate, powers, remit and redress of Ofgem, and we will reduce the burden of standing charges, which have risen by £150 since the start of 2022. We will hold companies to account for wrongdoing and ensure that there is automatic compensation for those failed by their energy supplier.

Finally, the next 18 months in the run-up to COP30 are critical to ramping up and delivering on our global climate commitments. Britain must and will regain its influence on the international stage, so we will work with international partners to raise ambitions, including by leading a clean power alliance that brings together a coalition of countries to accelerate the clean energy transition.

The Government’s clean energy mission and our wider energy agenda are critical, not just for that international leadership, but as a route to lower bills, energy security and good, long-term jobs. There is no doubt that we are playing catch-up. If we succeed—and success is vital for all of the reasons that I have outlined—the benefits will be substantial and felt by everyone long into the future. We have wasted no time as a Government getting started in pursuing this mission and I look forward to the contributions of hon. Members across the House, so that together we can deliver this critical agenda for the future of our country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Glindon]

That is exactly what the companies are telling me and, as a member of the former all-party parliamentary group on oil and gas, I know it has often been said.

The people working in these industries are worried about how their lives will change if they are not able to adapt to new industries. These are important jobs in our communities, where sweeping job losses are still in people’s memories. In Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, it is not uncommon to speak to people who were affected or know someone who was affected by the de-industrialisation of the 1980s. The closure of the pits, shipyards and factories ruined people’s faith in politics and the economy for a generation.

The offshore energy sector includes independent oil and gas producers, large integrated energy multinationals, renewable energy companies and a supply chain that we need to keep here in the UK. That includes companies in my constituency, such as Baker Hughes and Peterson, which operate right across the UK and, indeed, the globe. These companies have the vision and ambition, which we all share, to deliver a home-grown energy transition and net zero. Almost £200 billion will potentially be spent over the decade, but the companies investing in nascent opportunities such as floating offshore wind and carbon capture and storage will require the cash flow from a stable and predictable oil and gas business to fund these opportunities.

I welcome Labour’s manifesto commitment to manage the North sea in a way that does not jeopardise jobs. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out, in practical terms, how he will safeguard important jobs and investment in communities like mine. Britain’s potential to become a clean energy superpower is not only exciting but necessary. As the Government accelerate this journey, I urge Ministers to ensure that no one is left behind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

Indeed, there are not easy answers to all these questions. We need to look at the fine balance of cost versus getting community buy-in. There is going to be a transformation of our landscape, and we need to be aware of that. We must also make a good case for why it is urgent that we get to net zero, and in my view that balance in the argument was not struck properly by the previous Government. It is important that communities buy into our big landscape transformation, but it is also important that we do this at an affordable cost for the whole of the UK.

We Liberal Democrats are calling for all new homes to be net zero immediately. It is crazy that we are building homes today that will need upgrading in a few years’ time. We are proposing a 10-year emergency upgrade programme for homes, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. That will not happen without incentivising private landlords and having tougher energy efficiency targets. The private rental sector has the most energy-inefficient homes. Nearly half of households living in these properties are in fuel poverty, but local authorities have taken limited action to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.

Whether it is tighter regulation on private landlords or further sanctions to ensure that they comply, the Government must put their mind to the private rental sector. We will ensure that energy efficiency for rentals is not brushed under the carpet. That includes incentives for the private rental sector. From discussions in the previous Parliament, I know that the Labour party is relatively reluctant to give money to private landlords, but without incentivising the private rental sector, I do not think that a home insulation programme will happen, particularly for low-income families. I urge the Government to think about that.

As well as landlords, businesses must be incentivised to invest in the green transition. The U-turning of the Conservative Government sparked immense distrust from industry, with the UK chair of Ford warning that her business needs three things from the Government: ambition, commitment and consistency. That is exactly what they must deliver. Years of stop-start investment have left the energy sector reeling. Businesses and trade organisations have long been calling for a detailed plan of action that offers the clarity and certainty that will make the UK an attractive country to invest in. I hope that this Government can finally deliver the certainty that the country so badly needs.

Climate change is happening, but every cloud has a silver lining. Seizing the economic opportunities of net zero will help us spread wealth and opportunity to every corner of the UK. From insulating homes to providing thousands of new jobs in the energy sector, it is clear that everyone can benefit from a thriving green economy. I look forward to working constructively with the new Government to combat climate change, reduce energy bills and be a leader in the journey to net zero.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Due to the large number of maiden speeches, and the fact that I want to get everybody in, I am now imposing a six-minute time limit—with the exception of maiden speeches. I call Jess Asato.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is my pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I congratulate her on her eloquent and passionate speech, and particularly on her call for gender balance. I am sorry to tell her, though, that her use of the native tongue appears to have brought the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) back to the Chamber. Whether that is to congratulate her or correct her, I am not quite sure.

Moving swiftly on, the area that I am privileged to represent has been at the heart of the UK’s energy production for 50 years and more, and it is now poised to be at the forefront of a renewable energy revolution. Frankly, we could and should be much further along the road to energy transition, but we are where we are. The Government have said that they want us to become a clean energy superpower, but I regret that they have scaled back on their original ambitions to invest £28 billion in order to realise that goal. Nevertheless, I hope that they will chart a pragmatic and constructive way forward.

The journey to net zero is well under way in Scotland, with estimates suggesting that the renewables sector already supports around 42,000 jobs. The UK, though, is behind schedule when it comes to investing in the infrastructure, including the grid infrastructure, that those projects will require. The unrealistic pricing of contracts for difference has held back the development of offshore wind. The new Government need to address that issue with the same urgency with which they are moving on other matters.

The north-east of Scotland has been the European capital of oil and gas for many decades. Now we have the opportunity to be the net zero capital. We have enormous potential to capitalise on offshore wind generation and the development of green hydrogen. These are time-limited opportunities, especially as we have ambitions to develop lucrative supply chains, as well as technologies and manufacturing that have significant export potential. In the longer term, that would be the prize for our economic future.

I want to impress on Ministers today the case for bringing the HQ of GB Energy to the north-east of Scotland. Just look at a map: the bulk of offshore renewables production will be within a 100-mile radius of Aberdeen. The ports that will be essential to servicing the sector, most notably Peterhead and Fraserburgh in my constituency, are on the east coast, close to the Moray Firth. There are also important potential roles for smaller ports. We already have a workforce with relevant skills and unrivalled experience. We also have the most to lose; according to research published last year by Robert Gordon University, around one in five jobs across north-east Scotland is in the oil and gas sector. I do not want to see a repeat of what the Thatcher Government did in mining and steelmaking communities across Scotland and elsewhere. Perhaps as much as 80% of skills in oil and gas are crossover skills. We must support that crossover.

Successive UK Governments have used the North sea as a cash cow. Some £10.6 billion flowed into the Treasury coffers in 2022-23, but there has not been a great deal to show for it in Aberdeen city or Aberdeenshire, in terms of infrastructure or investment in that crucial transition. I hope that can change going forward.

As we debate the need to address climate change, improve energy security and deliver a fairer deal for consumers, it is important to acknowledge the reality: we will continue to need oil and gas for some time to come. Many of us are still using gas to heat our home. Fuel poverty is very real. High standing charges and a cold climate is a brutal combination that pushes thousands upon thousands of households into energy poverty. Most of us still use cars that run on petrol or diesel. In areas like mine, where distances are greater, public transport is more limited. Colder winter temperatures mean electric vehicles work less well and the use of traditional vehicles is accentuated. Our reliance on fossil fuels is falling, but it is not about to disappear. Oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for some time, which is why it is important that ongoing production is in line with climate compatibility criteria, and is managed in a way that does not lead to a premature winding down of production in the North sea. However, the current fiscal regime for North sea production has created a very real and present risk. It has the potential to cost thousands of jobs and saddle the Treasury with cumulative decommisioning costs.

I ask Ministers to look at the impact that the energy profits levy has had on jobs and productivity, consider the role of the energy security investment mechanism, and acknowledge the importance of investment allowances. Why? Because the fiscal regime in the North sea is holding back investment in energy transition. We need to recognise that North sea operators are, in many cases, those who are making the biggest investment in renewables. If the Government really want to unlock the potential of the renewable energy sector, they need to work with those who can invest on the scale required and over the necessary timeframes, and who already have an experienced, expert workforce at their disposal. I would welcome the Minister’s comments, in his summing up, on the Government’s plans for a fairer fiscal environment across the energy sector.

I will make one final point, on carbon capture and storage. We need to press on with projects such as the Acorn project at St Fergus precisely because they are cutting edge and have tremendous potential to create new technology, knowledge and expertise. We have a globally competitive subsea supply chain in the north-east of Scotland. We excel in developing solutions to technical challenges. We see challenges as opportunities, and we seek to be leaders in innovative new technologies. There is the potential to deliver fair energy prices for consumers, improve energy security and help us to meet our international climate obligations. The north-east of Scotland and communities in my constituency in particular will be at the centre of the changes ahead. I urge Ministers to make good on their promises, and deliver a managed and just transition for those workers and communities on the frontline.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Douglas McAllister to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I will start the Front-Bench wind-ups at 2.10 pm. I call James MacCleary to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Not a day goes by when the consequences of our inaction are not hideously illustrated. The wildfires in Canada today should shock us all into action, with 25,000 people having been displaced from their homes. The previous Government continually poured fuel on the fires of the climate crisis, entrenching our reliance on volatile international markets, but this Government have plans to totally turn the corner.

Our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower is not only an environmental imperative but a chance for economic growth and to address the cost of living crisis while making Britain energy-independent. That is why I welcome the Government’s plan to launch Great British Energy, a publicly owned company funded by making big oil and gas pay their fair share from the incredible windfalls they have been receiving. This initiative demonstrates a strong commitment to cutting carbon emissions and embracing renewables. It is a crucial step to lowering our bills through a zero-carbon electricity system.

It is so important that we ensure that this step is co-ordinated, working with new initiatives such as Skills England to ensure that across the board we are increasing training opportunities, especially in key areas such as maritime apprenticeships, which will help with our offshore wind efforts. It is also incredibly important that we unlock the potential of community energy, which has a vast untapped potential for smaller scale renewable schemes that could be owned and operated by local communities, building that resilience into our communities directly. Realising that potential would bring clean, affordable and secure energy to local people.

I very much look forward to working with the Front-Bench team on these issues, and supporting the Bill as it makes its passage through this House. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) raised a concern about solar threatening our ability to grow our own food in this country. I respectfully suggest that he checks out the recent research by Exeter University, which shows that we could increase the amount of renewable energy we generate in this country 13 times over using, I believe, less than 3% of the UK’s land, and none of the highest-grade agricultural land—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Michael Shanks]

That is a helpful contribution, and I thank the hon. Lady for it. Even if we reached our solar target by 2030, it is a very small amount of land that would be used for what is an important part of our energy infrastructure.

A number of other points were made in this debate that underline how complex some of these decisions are going to be, but also the huge opportunities we have. A number of Members spoke about the industrial opportunity that will come from this green transition, and a number offered up examples from their own constituencies relating to the role of skills, which is going to be so important. The sense that this is the mission that we need to be on together as a country is also important, because it will take all of us—with all of our expertise, and the challenge that comes from the Opposition—to make the right decisions so that we can have a long-term plan that delivers the net zero future that we need.

Before summing up, I will return to some of the maiden speeches. In particular, taking advantage of being at the Dispatch Box, I want to highlight my colleagues from Scotland who have been returned to this Parliament, who made some fantastic speeches. It was brilliant to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) speak in Gaelic during his contribution, which was fantastic. I am disappointed that more of our Lobby colleagues were not in the Chamber to hear him do that, but I am sure they will catch up. The point he made about the importance of involving communities in this future was also made by a number of hon. Members. That needs to take two parts: it needs to be consent and consultation, but it also needs to be a recognition of what the rewards for those communities should be. There are a number of options, because not all communities are aligned on what they think that reward should look like, but it is going to be a critical part going forward.

There were a number of quotes that I will look up in Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar talked about being seasoned with salt, which was wonderful. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) spoke about seeing the world through the long lens: having the discipline to look at some of these difficult, challenging public priorities and recognising that some of the benefits of what we are doing now will not be seen in the next five or 10 years, but it is none the less important to start the work, is something that we in this place can all bear in mind.

To conclude, since the summer recess is fast approaching, I could not help but notice that as a result of all the maiden speeches, we have produced something of our own staycation guide as we have gone around the House. Very quickly, I will just mention my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), the lido and the safari; the Turner art gallery in East Thanet; Barra, the jewel of the Hebrides with its whisky and salmon in Na h-Eileanan an Iar; the Norman castle in Waveney Valley; Bellahouston park in Glasgow South West, which I know well; one of Becket’s miracles—fantastic; I am going to see the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) about that, and also because I now know that she is the one in the Chamber with sweeties, which is very helpful—and the Open championship in Central Ayrshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) has the privilege of representing the constituency that I was born in, and he made a wonderful speech today. I will also mention Aldo’s chippy in Bathgate, Dumbarton castle in West Dunbartonshire, and the delight of being burnt as an effigy in Lewes. I thank the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for concluding the debate.

With the 15 seconds that I have left, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I hope that this is the first of many for them, and that there continues to be a genuine exchange of ideas across the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of making Britain a clean energy superpower.

Cavity Wall Insulation: Government Support

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for cavity wall insulation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson, in this debate on cavity wall insulation. I might even say that this is yet another case of déjà vu, given that I have been here before with similar debates, in 2014 and 2017. Alas, some of the problems have not been remedied.

I will explain very briefly for those who may not be familiar with cavity wall insulation that it fills the cavity between the exterior and the internal skin of a house with a material that insulates the house and keeps heat in, and it is a commendable way of doing things, if circumstances allow. Unfortunately, in most of western Britain, where there is wind-driven rain and high rainfall, the wind drives rain in through any cracks or faults in the exterior coating of the house, and the cavity wall insulation acts as a bridge, transmitting the water into the house, which leads to damp, mould and a host of other problems. I will not go into that any further, although I have become slightly expert in the functioning of cavity wall insulation, given the number of times that I have looked at the issue.

The cavity wall insulation scheme was financed with money from the green initiatives that the Government had at the time. It seemed to be particularly targeted at people of modest means, including people who were older or disabled. In fact, I have heard many people who have had damp problems say that a man came to the door and said, “This is a Government scheme. It will save you £350 per year and it’s free. Can we put it in?”, whereupon most people said, “Yes, of course,” because they imagined that it was guaranteed, certain to work, and suitable both for their premises and for the area they lived in. Cleary, it would also better their living conditions and allow them to save energy and to do their bit on climate change.

My area is one where cavity wall insulation is clearly unsuitable; as I said, it has westerly winds, wind-driven rain and heavy rainfall. Many properties actually face the sea. In fact, in the very first case of cavity wall insulation problems that I came across, when we looked out of the front window, where the damp was coming in, we could actually see the sea. That was one of the reasons why that house had so many problems.

The system failed in many ways. I will briefly address several points; there is no point in rehearsing them, because the Minister and others are already familiar with them. When places were allegedly assessed, in too many cases cavity wall insulation was installed where clearly an assessment would have contraindicated it, for example in places where the rendering was very poor.

I do not intend to go into individual cases, because the Minister clearly cannot take them up now—they are historical—and I would be here all day if I did, but I will give some examples. I saw one house, a former council house that had been bought by the tenants, that had a piece of the front rendering about the size of a fireplace missing from the front of the house. The house was on an upland site, facing the sea, and rain was being driven at the bricks where the pointing was faulty and going straight through into the house, causing huge amounts of damp. That case was fairly typical. I asked them whether they had been assessed and they said, “No. They just came here and offered to do it, and we took it.”

Often, the installation was of poor quality. Again, I will just give a quick example. An elderly lady told me that some men came to her door late at night and said that they had one installation to do during the day, and that they were very keen to help her and so on. She was very keen to have the insulation, so they put it in for her. She said, “They were so keen—very nice lads. That they put it in using torches”—they had no lights. When people chased after the installers subsequently, they found that many had gone bust—they had closed down, or become insolvent.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making a compelling argument. I commend him for his steadfast work on the issue over the years. Several of my constituents have contacted me after an insulation company canvassed and encouraged them to have insulation installed in the cavity walls of their homes through the green homes grant. They have since discovered that the insulation installed was entirely inappropriate for their properties, and they are now experiencing damp and mould. One constituent told me that CIVALLI—the Cavity Insulation Victims Alliance—has estimated the cost of damage to her home at about £120,000, which is substantial considering that the average cost of a home in my constituency is around £180,000.

In pursuing compensation for damage, several of my constituents engaged the services of a law company called SSB Law on a no win, no fee basis. After SSB Law fell into administration, the lawyers of the insulation company sent letters to my constituents demanding that they pay legal fees that could amount to tens of thousands of pounds. This is, quite frankly, a scandal and a disgrace, as not only do they now have considerable damage to their homes, but they have to pay the additional legal costs on top. With cowboy companies using Government grants and public funds to install unsuitable insulation that causes damage to homes, does the hon. Member—and, indeed, the Minister—agree that there must be an urgent investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into the misuse of public funds by these insulation companies?

[Hywel Williams]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that point; she makes the case succinctly. My area and other areas in Wales are known as legal aid deserts, and that encourages people to seek out no win, no fee companies. In my area, we tend to go to Merseyside, Manchester, Birmingham and even London—these companies are uncontrollable. The circumstances she outlines are tragic and costs of £120,000 are quite extraordinary, but the damage can be very large scale indeed.

I have asked in the past about the review of installations—whether they were inspected. Allegedly, 5% were, but to be frank, I have scarcely come across a single case where an installation has been inspected, found to be defective and resolved. I am not saying that that does not happen, but I am sure it could be done much more effectively.

There is so much that I could say. Another interesting point is that cavity wall insulation was specifically excluded from building standards when it was brought in under the scheme, so given that local authorities are not responsible, people cannot get redress in that way either.

Members might know that there is a guarantee scheme, but many of my constituents who have tried to claim have found the process quite difficult. The victims groups CIVALLI tells me that there have been rumours, although it has not been officially confirmed, that the main guarantee provider, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, has had financial difficulties because of the number of claims. Perhaps I will talk about that later if I have time. One complaint is that the small print of the guarantee says that the place in question must be properly maintained, but many people who had cavity wall insulation installed were older or suffered some disability, so were scarcely in a situation to climb up ladders to look for micro-cracks in the rendering of west-facing walls. That maintenance clause became very prominent in the refusal to take matters further. As someone once said, the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. That has certainly happened for some people.

Let me turn to removal and repair. CIVALLI says that installation and extraction should be done by separate providers, each with proper accreditation, for example by TrustMark or Oscar. The scheme was set up with insufficient supervision, which allowed in what I can only call cowboy installers—those who sensed that there was money here, but who subsequently disappeared or went bust. Removal is not easy. For example, I have had cases of people having stuff removed twice, and in one case it caused dry rot as well. The dry rot was attended to twice, and when the owner came to sell the house, although the probable price was about £180,000, I think she got about £50,000, because the problems were still there.

CIVALLI has done heroic work to try to get something done, but outstanding cases remain, as I outlined in my speech on 19 April 2017. The Minister at the time told me that CIGA said that there were 3,663 recorded cases, of which it had resolved 2,939, while 724 had been resolved by installers. I am interested in the number and prevalence of cases, because although I have come across a great many in my constituency, I have seen no official estimates of how many installations were carried out in the first place, how many people then found them to be faulty, how many have sought redress through the guarantee schemes, or how many of those cases were successful. Those basic facts would be useful.

My researcher found that CIGA says that the number of claims under that scheme are declining, from 4,806 in 2018 to 2,300 in 2023, but obviously there are many claims left, and there is a question as to whether they have been settled satisfactorily. I would be interested to hear any assessment by the Government of the number of remaining cases or of the cost of remediation. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) mentioned the figure of £120,000. I have no idea how much the cost will be, but even £10,000 is a great deal of money, and the victims are probably in no position to pay.

I would also be interested in the demographic make-up of the group of victims, so that we can get a grip on the size and nature of the problem. Are they, as I suspect, older and disabled people—poorer people, actually, some of them? One must also ask what the victims actually want. I am in no position to say, but I would guess that they definitely want the damp fixed, the dry rot fixed, if there is any, their homes restored to their previous standard, and an acknowledgement of fault—an acknowledgement that they are victims and that they have done something that should not have led to this situation. As I said, people subscribed to the scheme thinking that it would save them money and that they would be doing something about climate change.

I have asked the Minister a number of practical questions that I realise she cannot answer today, so I would be glad to hear from her in writing on some of these points. However, I think that ultimately the Government should shoulder what is their own responsibility. That would be the right thing to do and would also counter any lack of confidence in other green schemes in the future, which is obviously a potential problem. CIVALLI is calling on the UK Government to take direct control of CIGA and ensure that it offers proper remediation to victims, not cash compensation. People want their houses fixed; it is not a matter of money. CIVALLI also says that victims should be able to have an accredited surveyor visit their homes to do a proper audit, and that if they have been identified as victims of improper cavity wall installation, they should have access to Government funding.

As I said, I have no idea how long this piece of string is—how big the problem might be—but I was interested to see the case of Fishwick in Preston, where external insulation was fitted with damage to homes and danger to residents. The cost of remediation was huge, but the installers have disappeared. I understand that National Energy Action was able to get involved in that case and put in the appropriate work. I will not go into the report that I have had, which is rather long, but the case of Fishwick might set a precedent for residents not being held responsible. I would be glad if the Minister could say something about that now or in writing.

I do not know if any of this is possible. Whatever is done is long overdue. Is it not time to establish a quick independent inquiry into the botched CWI scheme, and for that to be the basis for early and full remedial action, whatever that might be? People are still suffering. As I said, I made my first speech in this place on the issue in 2014 and, though things have changed to some extent, there are still victims, and I think they are the people least able to fight their own cause. Somebody needs to take responsibility.

Green Energy: Ports

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that I am planning to start Front-Bench speeches at around 3.28 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 4.15 pm.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins. I will try to pick up where I left off.

On the planning side, the Government need to find a solution to the national grid’s capacity issues. The National Grid says it has to develop up to five times as much energy infrastructure over the next seven years as it has developed over the past 30 years, such is the clamour for net zero projects, in terms of both energy generation and demand. How will the UK Government and, more specifically, the Minister work with the National Grid to end the gridlock, and how will they send a clear message to developers that these problems are going to be fixed?

That brings me to my next point, which is about the administrative strike price. Allocation round 5 was a shambles, with no bidders for offshore wind. We need the UK Government urgently to reshape the contracts for difference for AR6 and make them more attractive to developers if we are to realise Britain’s potential to become a world leader on FLOW.

Finally, the UK and Welsh Governments must work collaboratively. We cannot allow bureaucracy to slow us down. Planning and consenting for major infrastructure is devolved. We need the UK Government to look for ways to support the Welsh Government to ensure that current capacity and resource blockages for planning and consenting are resolved to ensure that the seabed licensing is accelerated and that port infrastructure in Wales is ready in time. We also need strong cross-Whitehall co-ordination. I worry that the large number of Government Departments involved means that the process is not as streamlined as it should be. Perhaps the Minister could say what he will do to knock heads together to unlock all of the blockages.

This is a huge, game-changing opportunity for Aberavon, Wales and the entire United Kingdom. Ports play an absolutely crucial role in this opportunity. I look forward to the Minister’s comments so that we can find a pathway towards maximising the opportunities before us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I gently ask Members to make contributions of about four minutes so that we can get everybody in?

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I think I am about to be cut off. Are we finishing at 4 pm?

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

No, we have until 4.15 pm.

[Graham Stuart]

Then I would be delighted to give way.