Offshore Wind
Debate between Judith Cummins and Ed Miliband(4 days, 23 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the seventh contracts for difference allocation round and the results for offshore wind. Eighteen months ago, the Government set out on our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. That was a mission rooted in a simple argument: if we want to take back control of our energy from the petrostates and dictators, if we want to bring down bills for good and if we want to create a new generation of secure, well-paid jobs, the right choice is to get off the rollercoaster of international fossil fuel markets, which caused the worst cost of living crisis in memory. For a year and a half, that mission has faced determined opposition from a well-funded band of doomsters and defeatists. Today, we publish the results of our latest offshore wind auction and with it we prove those doubters and naysayers wrong. Let me set out the results to the House.
On coming to office, we inherited the fiasco of the fifth allocation round—a failure of the Conservatives’ making that trashed the crown jewels of our energy system—in which not a single offshore wind project was secured. That is their legacy; that is the legacy of the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho).
Our last auction round, allocation round 6, got the industry on its feet again. Today it roars back stronger than ever. We have secured 8.4 GW of offshore wind, enough to power the equivalent of more than 12 million homes. There are winning fixed offshore wind projects in every part of Great Britain: Dogger Bank South off the coast of Yorkshire and Vanguard off the coast of East Anglia, two of the largest offshore wind farms in the world; Berwick Bank in the North sea, the first new Scottish project since 2022; and Awel y Môr, the first Welsh project to win a contract in more than a decade. On floating wind, the emerging technology of the future, we have successful projects in Wales and Scotland—the Erebus project in the Celtic sea and Pentland in Scotland—backed by pioneering investment from Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund.
Taken together, that is a record-breaking amount of offshore wind capacity procured in a single auction. It is the most successful offshore wind auction in British history and the most successful ever to be carried out anywhere in Europe. That is what it means to deliver on the promise we made to the British people. Against the backdrop of the global headwinds facing the industry, this is a huge vote of confidence in Britain’s drive for energy sovereignty and abundance.
Let me explain why these results are so important for the country. First, they are a major step forward for our clean energy mission. Alongside our work driving ahead on onshore wind, solar, batteries and nuclear, they put us firmly on track to take back control of our energy and deliver clean power by 2030. We have only to look at events around the world to see that we live in increasingly unstable and uncertain times. Fossil fuel shocks have caused half of the UK’s recessions since 1970. Last year, wholesale gas prices spiked by 15% in a single week after global instability in the middle east. We must also never forget the impact of Russia invading Ukraine; family finances, business finances and the public finances were wrecked as a result of our being left exposed to fossil fuels. This exposure leaves us incredibly vulnerable as a country, and we do not have a moment to waste in ending it. That is why our mission is so important.
Our record-breaking results show that our approach to building things again in this country is working. We are more secure in our energy system today than we were yesterday thanks to these results, and we look forward to building on this momentum as we look ahead to AR8, which we are on track to open later this year.
Secondly, on cost, the results show that offshore wind is cheaper to build and operate than new gas. Today we publish updated estimates of the levelised cost of electricity, the standard industry metric, which includes the cost of building and operating new gas-fired power stations—the same metric as was published under the last Energy Secretary. These estimates show that the cost of building and operating a new gas-fired power station is £147 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, I can inform the House that the average price for fixed offshore wind in today’s auction was £90.91 per megawatt-hour. In other words, it is 40% cheaper than the cost of building and operating new gas, but do not take my word for it. This is what the head of Energy UK, which represents gas, nuclear and renewable generators, said of renewables this morning:
“We need to invest in new power generation, and this is the cheapest form.”
I know that some people want to pull the wool over our eyes on this, but they can only do so by comparing the cost of building and operating new renewables with the cost of operating but not building new gas.
Here is the reality: faced with years of under-investment in our energy system under the previous Government, and with power demand set to increase by at least 50% by 2035 and to more than double by 2050, there is no alternative to building new energy infrastructure in this country. We can choose to stop building renewables and just build new gas plants, as the Conservatives want to, but it is clear that offshore wind remains significantly cheaper to build and operate. Credible, independent research confirms that the renewables that we have already built are bearing down on wholesale electricity costs, having reduced wholesale prices by a quarter in 2024. Our mission is right: clean power is the route to bringing down energy bills for good.
Thirdly, today’s auction cements the offshore wind industry’s position as a jobs and growth engine for Britain. It is at the heart of our industrial strategy. These projects will unlock £22 billion in private investment and support at least 7,000 good jobs across the country, from the Scottish highlands to the Suffolk coast. Members across the House know that so many people in our country ask where the good jobs of the future, for themselves and their children, will come from. Clean energy is central to the answer. The previous Government failed to act to ensure that offshore wind generated jobs and supply chains in this country. By contrast, we will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that turbines, foundations and cables are made and built in Britain, creating good, well-paid jobs with strong trade unions. That is why this auction, for the first time, included a clean industry bonus to reward investment in ports and factories in the areas that need it most.
I can inform the House that in this auction, the industry has responded with ambition. The clean industry bonus will crowd in billions of pounds of private investment and support thousands of jobs in supply chains across the country. We look forward to setting out the full results in due course, as we drive forward on the 100,000 offshore wind jobs that our mission will support by 2030.
Let me close by saying that Britain faces a choice over the coming years. We can seize the opportunities of clean, home-grown energy to cut bills and create jobs, or we can double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. In calling for us to cancel this auction, our opponents made their choice: they are setting their face against cheaper, clean, home-grown power, against 7,000 jobs supported today and thousands more to come, against taking back control of our energy sovereignty, and against action on the climate crisis to protect our children and grandchildren. This Government have made our choice: we choose energy security, lower bills, good jobs and the climate. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Miliband
That was a lot, as they say. Let me deal with what the right hon. Lady said point by point. First, we will take no lectures from her on energy bills. She presided over the worst cost of living crisis in history, and not once have we heard a word of apology. This Government are taking £150 of costs off bills. How are we doing that? By raising taxes on the wealthy. She opposes every one of the measures that we are taking.
Secondly, I know this is painful for the right hon. Lady, but I am using the same metric that she endorsed in November 2023, when she was Energy Secretary. She published the document, and she knows the truth about that metric: offshore renewables today are 40% cheaper to build and operate than new gas. However much she tries to struggle or flail around, those are the facts, I am afraid. She asks about carbon pricing. It is very interesting that even when we take off carbon pricing, gas is still more expensive, on the figures we published today. Her sums simply do not add up.
What is really rich is that the right hon. Lady asked about constraint payments. Why do we have constraint payments? [Interruption.] I am answering the question. We have constraint payments because the Conservatives failed to build the grid when she was the Secretary of State. Get this, Madam Deputy Speaker: now she comes along, complains about constraint payments, and opposes every piece of energy infrastructure that we try to build in order to bring down the constraint payments. It is extraordinary. Here is the right hon. Lady’s big problem. She is making a massive gamble on fossil fuels, which is exactly what the Conservatives did when they were in office, and we know where that led: the worst cost of living crisis in memory, leaving us at the mercy of petrostates and dictators, and leaving the British people to pay the price.
We were elected with an historic mandate to end the Conservatives’ record of failure, and that is what we are doing. We are ending the sell-out of our energy security, cutting bills, creating hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and protecting future generations. Let me sum it up: the right hon. Lady failed, and we are delivering.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the first Back-Bench Member, may I remind Members that we have an important debate on Ukraine later this afternoon? We will look to finish this statement at about 4 pm, which leaves us with around 30 minutes. Please keep questions and answers short.
COP30
Debate between Judith Cummins and Ed Miliband(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the COP30 climate summit.
The climate crisis represents the greatest long-term threat we face as a world, but the transition also represents the greatest economic opportunity of our time. At home, we are driving for clean energy and climate action, because it is right for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth for the British people, as well as for protecting future generations. We went to COP because, with the UK representing just 1% of annual global emissions, working with other countries to tackle the climate crisis is the only way to protect our home and way of life, and because there are huge investment and export opportunities for our country by accelerating the transition globally.
More than 190 countries participated in this COP to build on the progress made over more than three decades of global co-operation, which has seen us move from a world heading for 4°C or more of warming to one where national commitments put us on course for around 2.3° to 2.5°; from a world where no major economy had a net zero target to one where 80% of global GDP is covered, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the UK at COP26 in Glasgow; and from a world where a majority of energy investment was in fossil fuels to one where twice as much is invested in clean energy. The energy transition is happening, the world is moving and multilateralism is working. The forces around the world—including here in Britain—who want to deny that the climate crisis exists, or to delay the action we need to address it, are losing. But at the same time, we were conscious in Belém of the further progress that needs to be made. Our Brazilian hosts were determined to make this an “implementation COP”, and the negotiations served as a focal point for action. This was the first COP to be held in the Amazon, and therefore a significant focus was on protecting forests. The UK was proud to work with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and work on this was moved forward at COP.
The UK was also proud to work alongside the Brazilian presidency on the global climate action agenda, which is about building coalitions of Governments, businesses, cities and civil society groups to accelerate action on issues including reducing methane emissions, phasing out coal and driving investment in clean energy. Thousands of British businesses, as well as our researchers, universities, mayors and others, were involved. The agenda is part of the unstoppable transition that is happening in the real economy, including here in Britain, where our net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole, and where £52 billion of private investment has been announced in clean energy since July 2024.
Turning to the negotiations themselves, I want to put on record my thanks to the UK’s brilliant COP negotiating team, led by our chief negotiator Kate Hughes. I saw once again in Belém the huge admiration there is around the world for the talent, expertise and dedication of our civil service, as well as the recognition of British climate leadership, which has built up over many decades under Governments of different political parties—the foundation of our ability to stand up for Britain on the world stage.
Of course, there is a truth that we must acknowledge: these summits are hard and complex. More than 190 countries negotiating how to transform their economies and societies is never going to be easy. We did not get everything we wanted from the talks, and there were times when it appeared that there would be no agreement, but in the end an agreement was reached, and the outcome represented progress on three critical issues.
The first is about redoubling our efforts to keep global warming to 1.5°. Last year, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035, based on the previous Government’s carbon budget. Many other countries have announced commitments over the last 12 months, including China pledging to cut its emissions for the first time, alongside the EU, Brazil and a total of 120 countries, covering three quarters of global emissions.
However, we must do more to close the gap to 1.5°. Recognising the urgency of action, it was agreed in the final COP30 text that all countries had to play a part to keep 1.5° within reach, that this required us to meet net zero as a world by or around the middle of the century, and that all countries should be encouraged to raise their targets. There will now be a forward process into COP31 next year, so we remain focused on the urgency of this issue.
Secondly, ambition on reducing emissions goes hand in hand with finance. This is in our interests, because there is no route to global stability, growth and development without supporting developing countries to take the low-carbon path and to better protect their populations from the impacts of the climate crisis. At COP29 in Baku last year, countries agreed that we needed to mobilise at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, and to scale up towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP30 agreed to target a share of the global resources agreed last year towards a trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, to make sure that developing countries have the resilience they need.
Thirdly, we know that there is no solution to the climate crisis without action on the transition away from fossil fuels. The need for this transition was agreed by all countries at COP28 in Dubai, including by the UK under the last Conservative Government. The Brazilian presidency put forward the idea of agreeing to a road map so that we could grapple with the difficult issues facing fossil fuel-producing countries, as well as the need for a just and fair transition.
At COP30, we saw the emergence of a broad coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups that endorsed the idea of a road map. This turned out to be the hardest sticking point in the talks, and it could not be agreed in the final text because some countries objected, yet as a result of the momentum built, the Brazilian presidency announced at the conclusion of the COP that it would launch such a road map on fossil fuels, as well as a road map to halt and reverse global deforestation. These coalitions of the willing are important when we cannot reach universal agreement, as we have seen with the Powering Past Coal Alliance, initiated by Britain and Canada, which is now supported by 65 national Governments.
The COP30 agreement also took important steps forward on building carbon markets, the just transition, technology transfer, and transparency on implementing commitments so that countries are properly held to account. Taken together, this package represents incremental but important progress and extends the arc of the progress we have seen over 30 years of COPs. That was particularly important this year, because the summit was a test of whether countries would continue to work together on the collective threat we face or whether, with the US stepping out of the Paris agreement, there would be a domino effect of others departing. That has not happened. At COP30, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their faith in the Paris agreement, their faith in working together to keep global warming to 1.5°, and their faith in multilateralism.
The message coming out of Belém was clear: whatever the challenges, clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. That is good for Britain because of the economic opportunities that clean energy represents. It is good for Britain because it is the route to energy security and lower bills.
And it is good for Britain because it is the only way we can keep future generations safe from the threat of climate breakdown. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Miliband
Oh! The hon. Member says it was because Putin invaded Ukraine—excellent, excellent! I congratulate him on his sedentary intervention—exactly, exactly! Why did prices go through the roof and why were we so exposed? Because of our exposure to fossil fuels. And what do the Conservatives want to do? Double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. As the shadow Secretary of State knows, the truth, as the Conservatives used to believe before they went a bit more wacky than they were before, is that there is only one route to energy security in the modern world, which is clean home-grown power that we control. Despite everything they say, the truth is that they have learned nothing from what happened.
Let me turn to the questions, such as they were, on the COP. By the way, the shadow Secretary of State complains about the COP being held in the Amazon. I have to say to her that, with the greatest of respect, I will take President Lula’s judgment about where the COP should be held rather than hers. For goodness’ sake, have a bit of respect for the Brazilian presidency! It decided that the right thing to do was to hold the COP in the Amazon to draw attention to the issue of deforestation, and she is complaining about its decisions to make the COP possible—for goodness’ sake!
On the point about the TFFF, we are supportive of it, and we will keep under review whether we can make a contribution. It was because of fiscal circumstances that we did not, but we are investing more than £1 billion over five years in countering deforestation. I am proud of what we are doing on that and the Congo basin.
On the point about British leadership, the right hon. Lady could not be more wrong about the role of Britain on these things. What people are seeing is an ambitious Government who are leading on these issues, so there is actually some respect for what Britain is suggesting others should do. There is a record under both parties that we need to learn from here, and I say this as politely as I can to the Conservative party: ambition at home is what makes possible leadership abroad. We passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which she now wants to rip up, and 60 countries followed us. We put net zero into law by 2050, and she wants to rip it up. I praise Theresa May for that, but is it not extraordinary that I can praise Theresa May, but the Conservative party cannot do so? She put net zero by 2050 into law, which the Conservatives want to rip up, and 80% of global GDP has followed us.
I will end by saying that there is a truth here, which is that the Conservatives used to aspire to global Britain. Now, they have simply become the party of little Britain, and it really does not look good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the progress that was made at COP. The recommitment to limiting global warming to no more than 1.5° is hugely important. He was honest in saying that we did not get everything we wanted, and that is sensible. However, he also reminded us of the absolute seriousness of climate breakdown, and that we must take every action possible. That goes beyond COP, and I hope he agrees that that work should continue whether or not it is in relation to a COP.
The Secretary of State started to talk about energy security, and I want to link this subject to that, because there is a worrying tendency towards a loss of support for the transition. Does he agree that it is really important, especially in the light of the ongoing aggression from Russia—and we have just had a statement, including on Ukraine, demonstrating it—that we make it clear to people that energy security and climate breakdown are very strongly linked, and that the answer to both of them is the energy transition?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The reason we have seen a movement of support for the transition away from fossil fuels is not simply climate-related, but energy security-related. Lots of countries, including Britain, recognise—unwittingly helpfully, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said this from a sedentary position—that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine showed our vulnerability due to our reliance on fossil fuels. At a very striking roundtable hosted by Marina Silva, the Environment Minister in Brazil, many countries from the global north and the global south said the same thing, which is that, for them, the move away from fossil fuels towards home-grown clean energy is the route to energy security, so he makes a very important point.
The only other point I would make is that my hon. Friend is right that these negotiations are hard and painstaking. We have to look at the progress that has been made over the course of the 30 years. It is tough, and different countries are in different positions, but that is what these talks are all about.
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend made a very important point with her opening remarks, which I will let Members absorb. On her specific questions, we have a very important carbon budget monitoring system within Government. It is important to say that at the same time as the Conservatives are saying that they want to rip up the Act that they supported, and that David Cameron even had a hand in helping to shape from opposition, so many countries around the world still ask us about it and want to work out how to emulate it. It is head-spinning really.
On my hon. Friend’s point about her constituents, she is absolutely right. In so many different ways, we want to support her constituents. This is about not just future generations but good jobs today, cutting bills, helping community organisations to put solar panels on their rooftops, schools and hospitals and all those things. It is about bringing the benefits of clean energy to her community and communities across Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short.
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
Debate between Judith Cummins and Ed Miliband(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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.