(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons Chamber
Katie Lam
I thank the Member for his intervention, but we should still be investing in storage from the North sea; that is still the best storage that we have.
The real human cost of Labour’s plans on energy is that the cost of living crisis is being made even worse. And all the while, countries such as China and India continue to open new coal-fired factories. UK emissions are the lowest they have been since the 1850s, while China pumped out more carbon between 2013 and 2020 than Britain has produced over the past 220 years. That is not just because it is a bigger country; China’s per-person emissions are more than double the UK’s, and are rising.
Can my hon. Friend throw any light on the apparent contradiction whereby the Government seem prepared to import fossil fuels—thus exporting our carbon footprint—but not to allow us to develop our own fossil fuel resources? Is it because they are afraid that, once we develop them, we will not want to stop using them, or is there some other explanation?
Katie Lam
It is, unfortunately, a mystery to me. I do not understand why we would be making this trade. It is clearly a bad one. No matter how much we might wish it were otherwise, this Government cannot and will not make a dent in addressing global climate change. We are simply sending our emissions abroad while British businesses and families pay the price. People across the country are being forced to make hard choices because this Government will not face the facts and deliver the cheap, abundant energy that we so clearly and dearly need.
(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend speaks with great authority and conviction on these subjects, and she is absolutely right about the role of nature. I add—and I will come on to her question in a second—that the biggest threat to nature that we face is the climate crisis. The figures I read out from scientific authorities show the scale of the threat that is already there to our countryside. As I said in my statement, the threat will only get worse. On the land use framework, we are currently consulting and will come up with a final document later on this year. She makes a crucial point about the need for co-ordination between the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan, which together mean that we use our land in a sensible way and that we build the energy infrastructure we need.
I agree with the Secretary of state that it is very important that other countries follow our example. Of the five countries that are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases, emitting over 50% in total—the USA, Russia, Brazil, India and of course China—can he tell us how many have adopted similar legislation? What hope does he have that those five in particular will follow our example?
The right hon. Gentleman asks a good question. Let me give him three examples from those five. India has a target of 500 GW of renewable capacity by 2030, and a target of reaching net zero by 2070. China has nearly half the world’s renewable capacity, is committing to peaking its emissions by 2030, and has a target to reach net zero by 2060, but of course I want it to do more. Brazil has set out an ambitious nationally determined contribution. I think I am right in saying that as of March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% of electricity generation in the US. He is right to ask this question. Not every country is going at the same pace, and there are countries that are more sceptical, but there has been a decisive shift across the world on this matter; when I was Climate Change Secretary from 2008 to 2010, net zero was not even talked about. There has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously.
(5 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are engaging with the Scottish Government. Today’s expansion creates more resources for the Scottish Government to ensure that direct bill support is provided to more households. Alongside that, there has to be a plan to upgrade homes and to make sure that we are delivering homes that are warmer and cheaper to run. We will have a plan here, and we expect that, with the additional funding and the example that we have set, the Scottish Government will follow suit, but we are long past the stage of warm words and light action. We need to get on with it, because there are people across the country, including in Scotland, who are struggling. It is the responsibility of Government to get a grip and start to act.
Yesterday, as the Minister probably knows, food bank groups associated with the Trussell Trust lobbied—very effectively —Members on both sides of the House. My local group, the Waterside food bank, impressed on me the gap between the £92, which the Government believe a single person is estimated to need to survive, and the £120 that the food bank believes is necessary for a single person to be able to survive alone. Can the Minister give an indication as to what extent the gap between those two figures will be closed as a result of this initiative?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Member for a very good question. We know that families are struggling with the cost of living. We know that families are in poverty, and that many are having to make the choice between heating and eating. We are trying to put in place a range of measures, and the warm home discount —this £150—is part of it. We have extended free school meals to families on means-tested benefits. We are rolling out breakfast clubs. There is a range of things that we are trying to do as a Government to ensure that people who are struggling and who have been struggling for a long time are lifted out of poverty. We are very clear about our ambition. Every time Labour comes to power, our record is that we lift people out of poverty, and we will continue to do that.
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for her advocacy. When I was in discussions with the Chancellor, I did think that if this did not go ahead I would have to answer to my hon. Friend and to the Mayor of the East Midlands, so she was a motivating force in ensuring that the project did go ahead. Her point is crucial: this is about good jobs in areas of the country that really need those good jobs. Last night, I was talking to an apprentice from Sizewell—she went there at age 16 and has been there for a year—about the experience she has had. She gives credit to Sizewell. We can see her career in front of her, and we want that for lots more people.
Assuming that the large nuclear power station at Sizewell C and the small modular reactors both prove to be successful, as we trust they will be, what is the Government’s thinking about the respective roles of each of those two very different types? Which does the Secretary of State think will be the better bet in the long term for the future of the country? Can he assure us that China will have no part in any of this?
On the latter point, yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. He asks a typically astute question, if I may say so. The truth about these technologies, I think, is that the answer is both. We cannot really make a judgment about this until we see the SMR programme developed. The SMR programme offers something that has eluded nuclear for a long time, which is modularity and replication, and that, as we know from other technologies, is the way to bring down costs and speed up delivery. There is huge potential in both, but large-scale gigawatt can also play an important role.
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI commend what the Minister said at the outset on the need to insure against high-impact, low-probability events. In a non-dogmatic spirit, may I appeal to him to reconsider the way in which the Government are dealing with the question of the two shale gas wells, which they have decided, under normal circumstances, they do not wish to see exploited? Surely those wells should not be sealed so permanently that if we were in a wartime conflict situation they could not be reactivated?
I am not aware of the specific circumstances mentioned at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to look into that particular case. The broader point is that we do not see licensing for new oil and gas and fracking as part of our future, and there is a presumption against fracking in other parts of the UK as well. We have a resilient energy system that does not require that. I will, however, take away the point he raises and write to him.
(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberYes is the answer; I look forward to it. My hon. Friend is 100% right: this is about the jobs of the future. Conservative Members might want to turn their back on them; we will not.
As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?
A consultation has just closed on the future of North sea energy. We have been very clear that our manifesto commitment was to not issue new licences for exploring new fields, but we will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that energy debt is a big problem. I have spoken to people across the country who are suffering with accumulated debt that they have no way of paying, with many having to forfeit energy as a consequence. Ofgem is consulting on a range of options, but at the heart of that is the principle that there needs to be a debt relief scheme. Whether we write off some of the energy debt that cannot be paid, or put in place payment plans, we want to ensure that those 1.8 million households have the opportunity to drive that debt in a way that means their energy will be sustainable. That is absolutely critical. It deals with the legacy of the energy crisis and the fact that many households have had to accumulate debt because they just could not pay £2,500. It is an important step and one that we are keen to support the regulator to deliver.
I entirely agree with the Government that, as the Minister said in her statement, we should not be “paying the price of our country being exposed to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” Given that we cannot move completely to clean energy tomorrow, why do the Government insist on closing down and, indeed, concreting over our potential fossil fuel gas reserves until such time as we can move completely to clean energy? Why should we import it from other states while piously saying that we will not extract it from beneath our own country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There will be a role for gas in our energy mix, but we are very clear that the route and the quickest way to getting ourselves off that dependence is through clean power. We have made a decision that we will put our energy into driving clean power by 2030. In the end, that is the quickest and best route to delivering for consumers and businesses and ensuring that we can deliver energy security, which we all, across the House, agree will deliver financial security for families across the country.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberAm I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?
We are still digesting the detail of the judgment, but my understanding is that, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, the Supreme Court made it clear that applications should take account of scope 3 emissions. In the process that we put in place, which I will not pre-empt, we will have to justify how the applications have met that requirement. It will then be for the North Sea Transition Authority to make a judgment and the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make a decision. If somebody wanted to take that judgment to a judicial review, they could be entitled to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision will be for the Government.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberThe point of having an independent adviser is that, while the role of the Low Carbon Contracts Company as the counterparty to the contract for difference we have agreed and the role of Ofgem as a regulator are incredibly important, we think there is also a role for someone independent to make sure they are analysing the particular questions about biomass and sustainability, while also having an eye on the science as it moves forward.
Part of the challenge is that, over the years, the sustainability information we have, and the types of forestry and where the biomass comes from, have changed. The adviser will play an important role in advising my Department, Ofgem and the Low Carbon Contracts Company on this deal in the years ahead. It is important to say that we want to make sure we also have an independent review of what the future looks like, so that in five years’ time we are not looking at the same decision as we are now.
I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on energy security. Can he give us some idea of the timetable for when the first small modular nuclear reactors—preferably ones built by Rolls-Royce, which has expertise in this area thanks to its excellent work for the Royal Navy—will be commissioned?
The right hon. Gentleman will not draw me into the ongoing competition on small modular reactors, but he has made the case for his preferred company.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we have a new commitment to reviewing the 2011 planning statement so that we can have much more new nuclear across the UK. That is particularly important because previously there were only eight designated sites. Small modular reactors, of course, open up possibilities right across the country, and we want to see much more of that. We are moving as fast as possible to make sure these reactors are under way, and I hope that we can move at such a speed that the Scottish Government will change their objection to having small modular reactors in Scotland.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Cold, damp homes that are hard to heat are the reality for too many households in this country. That is the legacy of the party opposite and a legacy that we are absolutely determined to turn around. We are committed to upgrading homes in the rental sectors with our minimum energy efficiency standard so that we can make cold, draughty homes a thing of the past. We will ramp up our warm homes plan so that my hon. Friend’s constituents and constituents across the country will benefit from homes that are warmer and bills that are lower.
Will the Minister acknowledge the amazing contributions of groups such as New Forest Friends of the Earth, which this very morning have been lobbying their MPs in Parliament Square on warm homes initiatives? They will be coming to the Government with some possibly costly proposals, but I hope that the Government, despite the economic legacy that they allegedly inherited, will give them a sympathetic hearing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us about our economic inheritance. We are reaching out to organisations and stakeholders across the country—industry, charities and third sector organisations—to feed into our warm homes plan, so we are keen to hear ideas. We are conscious that we have an ambitious programme and we need to do a big scaling-up of home upgrades across the country, so we are definitely in the market for hearing from and reaching out to organisations that can come up with ideas.