Oral Answers to Questions

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I have been talking with businesses in South Ribble about achieving net zero. Businesses on Leyland business park are exploring geothermal, and we also have the huge advantage of the Howick Cross substation bringing in energy from offshore wind, onshore wind in Scotland, and the north-west and Welsh nuclear fleet. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in future, businesses will look to site themselves where there is reliable and accessible cheap energy, and that South Ribble is well placed to take advantage of that?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the benefits and attractions of South Ribble, and indeed the wider UK economy. It is not just that the areas that have those services will attract business within the United Kingdom: by rewiring and leading the world in delivering a low-cost, low-carbon energy system, we can attract more investment from abroad and have a renaissance, not least in the north of England but also in Wales and Scotland—all around the country. That is a result of the net zero policies that, uniquely, this country is managing to lead the world on following so many years of Labour failure.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman champions his constituents and the people and economy of Northern Ireland. It is essential to me that every part of our United Kingdom benefits from this once-in-a-generation investment into new nuclear. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss how Northern Ireland and his constituents in Strangford could benefit from investment in skills and the supply chain. Deployment of nuclear capabilities is a devolved competency, but I would be happy to meet him to see what his constituents can get from this historic announcement.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

From Anglesey, all the way up the coast to the tip of Cumbria, the north-west nuclear arc will be, as some Members have already suggested, dancing a little jig today. Springfields in Lancashire is the geographic and, I would argue, fuel production heart of that north-west nuclear arc. I welcome this announcement to secure the future £300 million investment to ensure that Vladimir Putin does not have his hands on the taps of advanced nuclear fuels. That is so important for the hundreds, if not thousands of people who live in South Ribble and work in the adjacent Springfields. This investment helps Lancashire support the UK domestic nuclear industry, but can the Minister tell me if there are opportunities for exporting Lancashire nous, skills, capability and fuel to the world?

[Andrew Bowie]

Absolutely. Lancashire, like Cumbria, is at the heart of the vision we are announcing today. The £300 million investment in new nuclear fuels means that the United Kingdom will remain among a handful of nations committed and able to work across the entire fuel supply chain. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is visiting Springfields as I speak, demonstrating our commitment to that plant and its people. Moving forward, we will be central to our allies and partners around the world being able to move away from and wean themselves off relying on hostile foreign actors like Vladimir Putin for their energy baseload. Lancashire will be key to doing that.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eighteenth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

I cannot think of any good reason why the new clause should not be immediately agreed to. It is something that the Government wanted to do when the Bill was first introduced, and it is something that they wanted to do when the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act was passed. I am pretty sure that in his heart the Minister agreed with it then, agrees with it now and wants it back in the Bill, but possibly he is stymied by the ghost of the Secretary of State who performed that particular act of vandalism on the Bill. I assure him, as we have seen from recent events, that it is very much the ghost of the Secretary of State, not someone who would actually come and pull him into a cupboard and do him over if this clause were restored. [Interruption.] Metaphorically, of course.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to bring some colour to his remarks, but does he agree that alluding to acts of physical violence in something so important is not a brilliant plan?

[Dr Whitehead]

I would agree if that were not my metaphorical way. Of course I do not believe that the former Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is going to take the Minister into a cupboard and do him over; it is a metaphor that I hoped might convey some of the possible lingering influence of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset on our present considerations. I am sure that the Minister will want to put that lingering influence out of his mind when considering what to do today.

After all the work that has been done on getting this clause back into the Bill, I confidently expect the Minister to greet it with acclamation. He does not have to do any work on it now, because it is ready to go. He can proceed with a Bill he can be proud of through its remaining stages in this House.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixteenth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

It has been an interesting discussion. “Maximum economic recovery” might sound like three benign words, but they could be a toxic combination. If we are not careful, they could be rephrased as “maximum economic crisis”. The climate catastrophe that will unfold if we do not cap global warming at 1.5°, and maintain that on average over 20 years, will be incredibly tough for any Government and for everyone internationally. Some reports suggest that if we wait 10 years, it will not take 1% of GDP to tackle the climate emergency; that will jump staggeringly. About 8% of GDP expenditure will have to go on resilience alone, and dealing with the consequences of the climate catastrophe. The cost of changing to a green energy system in that same decade would double as well. It is really important that we understand what that means.

I say “toxic combination”, but there is also the very real and significant risk of stranded assets. The financial sector, the insurance industry and pension funds are all very aware of the issue, and we see that in how they are changing the way that they invest in projects, and the divestment policies of many of the institutions in this space. Nature published an article in 2022 stating that 60% of oil and gas and 90% of known coal should remain in the ground if we are to get to 1.5°C, but the issue of stranded assets is a reality. We cannot have our cake and eat it; we cannot inhale our cake quicker and hope for the best. Every drop of oil and gas and every lump of coal that we burn contributes to the Anthropocene we are seeing. We have decisions that we can take, and we know that those decisions have an impact.

Stranded assets are really important in this debate. A report in 2022 suggested that the oil, gas and fossil fuel industry had £1.4 trillion of stranded assets. That means that there will be a cliff edge for jobs. There will be assets that people can no longer use or get value from. It will mean that we have barrels of oil, gas and coal that we cannot use, because—a very senior scientist makes this argument in the report—the world will have moved on. We hope that the world will move on as a result of the Bill; if we do not scale up net zero measures, UK households could be spending £500 a year on foreign gas, rather than saving £1,500-odd through a move to renewables and energy efficiency policies, and retrofitting.

This is an incredibly important point. We cannot just hope that things will get better, and squeezing every last drop out of the North sea is not compatible with our aim of 1.5°. We cannot set a date for getting to net zero, but then produce as much carbon and other greenhouse emissions as we like and hope for the best. There must be carbon budgeting, as we all know. We have had all this conversation about a just transition, yet we are giving massive tax breaks. For example, if Rosebank goes ahead, it will receive a tax break of £3.75 billion for something that may soon become a stranded asset.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will be brief. Will she share the definition of a stranded asset? Some oil and gas extraction areas have enormous potential for carbon capture and storage; it will be a matter of pushing stuff down a pipe, rather than pulling stuff out of it. Has any of that been taken into account in her slightly apocalyptic analysis of what we can do in the North sea and other areas?

[Olivia Blake]

It is apocalyptic because going above 1.5°C will be catastrophic.

[Katherine Fletcher]

We are talking about a transition.

[Olivia Blake]

I absolutely agree that it needs to be a transition; that is exactly my point. In the scenario we are discussing,

“Fossil fuel resources that cannot be burned and fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, power plants) that is no longer used may end up as a liability before the end of its anticipated economic lifetime.”

The assets are not being valued at their value over their lifetime; it is that simple. Say we give a value to an asset for its lifetime—25, 50, 100 years or whatever. Its lifetime will fall short of that period, and there will be catastrophic consequences for the financial and economic world; things will go into freefall. This is about economic risk, not just what we have, where. It is that fundamental. That understanding is missing from a lot of this debate, but financial services, pension funds and the insurance industry are all saying that they are very aware of the issue.

[Katherine Fletcher]

The hon. Lady has just read quite a detailed definition of a stranded asset, which included fossil fuel reserves remaining under the ocean, if I heard her correctly.

[Olivia Blake]

We would have to leave them there, but figures for them would be baked into the economic analysis and the business planning for those sites. That is why there is a financial risk; financial plans will come into play that will be unrealistic and unmeetable. That is why the assets will become stranded assets; it had been planned that they would produce a profit over a period, but we will not get to that time because of the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is worrying about a figure of £1.5 billion in stranded assets, which includes fossil fuels that are left under the ground. That does not take into account the fact that the assets could be repurchased for an energy transition. Would she agree that there is perhaps more analysis to do?

[Olivia Blake]

To be clear, it is not £1.3 billion; it is £1.4 trillion, and that is why this is significant. I am not the only one worried about this—so are financial institutions around the globe. This massive financial risk could spin us into financial crisis if we are not careful. This is not just a climate catastrophe; it is an economic situation that we need to monitor, and we need to ensure that we do not have a cliff edge that lands us in a spiral that we cannot get out of. That is why a transition is so important, and why we need development of industry in the North sea, but cannot rely on our valuations of assets at the moment.

We need to take into consideration changes in the use of oil and gas, so that we can reach 1.5°C. We cannot deal with those two issues in isolation. As much as that would please everyone at the moment and allow them to make a quick buck, it is economically illiterate to think that we can continue as we are. That is a big problem. There are huge opportunities for Government, and I welcome a lot of the things in the Bill that will help to unlock them.

At household level, the move to renewables would significantly benefit people. Renewables are three times cheaper than oil and gas-related heating and electricity. A record number of households are suffering from energy insecurity. It is important that we look at the issue in the round. We cannot just say, “We need this” or “We need that,” and expect it to add up. If the financial sector gets scared, and much suggests that it is, it will look to invest in other places. If insurance companies say, “We are not going to insure these facilities because there is such an economic risk to us,” we are in trouble. If pension funds flee from the sector, we are in trouble. Our financial sector is incredibly important in this area, and those in it are saying loud and clear, “Governments are behind us, and we need them to catch up.” This tiny phrase, “Maximum economic recovery”, and what it asks for, could lead to the cliff edge that we have all been saying that we do not want. That is why this is so important.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Twelfth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

Now I am getting confused, because I have some figures coming from over there and other figures coming from over there. It is important that we ensure that industries that rely on a source of coal are able to rely on domestic sources of coal. This clause, proposed by the Labour party, would prevent that from happening, harm future investment, harm jobs and harm our progress.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

This is one of the most jaw-dropping moments I have ever had in my parliamentary career. The Scottish National party and the Labour party are arguing against domestic jobs, our proud coalmining heritage and energy security for this country. Is that not flabbergasting?

[Andrew Bowie]

I am actually close to speechless. Labour likes to describe itself as the party of the workers. Well, it is anti-workers, anti-jobs and anti-investment in British industry.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eleventh sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

If someone is thinking of siting an offshore wind farm in a protected marine area, there really is no such thing as compensation. In the end, either they will site it in that protected area, degrading its environmental quality, or they will not.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

While I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is trying to prosecute, surely we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We are talking about how to sensibly protect the environment while establishing a broader regime for offshore wind, which has huge benefits for the environment. Can he understand that what he proposes might tip the balance towards making the perfect the enemy of the good?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. Certainly, we do not want to effectively veto the development of offshore wind by putting restrictions on it place by place, scheme by scheme, in such a way that those schemes cannot go ahead. However, the North sea and the Celtic sea, for example, are very large places. They have a great many sites that can be used for offshore wind development in a perfectly good and environmentally conscientious way, which allows for enhanced development to take place without trashing the marine environment. The issue is not whether we make the best the enemy of the good, but how we pursue the good in tandem with environmental considerations, while not stopping the progress of that enhanced development.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I will make this my last intervention. He has just described offshore wind as trashing the marine environment. I really do not think that we can leave that on the record. In fact, we could highlight the good about offshore wind development. One of the most destructive marine practices is bottom trawling, which is made much more difficult with wind turbines in place. Once installed, wind turbines actually create nursery environments for the marine life that I was so fortunate to study at university.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member would be absolutely right again, had I said that offshore wind was trashing the environment. I think that when we get the record back we will see that I said, “so that we can proceed without trashing the environment.”

[Katherine Fletcher]

There is an implication there.

[Dr Whitehead]

Okay. What I was trying to convey—perhaps I did not do so in quite the pellucid way I might have—was what we want to achieve with offshore wind development. As I have said, the Opposition are committed, along with the Government, to a huge increase in offshore wind, which we think can be achieved, most importantly, while taking proper note of the environmental considerations that surround those sites. As the hon. Member for South Ribble says, in the right places and under the right circumstances offshore wind can be, in the end, a substantial enhancement of the underwater habitat and environment.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

Those are the exact problems. In recent years a number of Government schemes have either failed because they have not had the workforce to deliver them, or experienced challenges because people have been drawn into other roles, particularly in the building sector and in relation to cladding issues and so on. That is exactly why the Opposition would be very pleased if the clause were protected. We need that action plan. Delivery is only worth something when it happens. We cannot just have targets that we repeatedly continue to miss. It would be exceedingly challenging to argue to the public that we should not prioritise getting their bills down by £1,000 a year or come up with an action plan to deliver that.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Yes, the British public would experience significant benefits through bill reductions as a result of insulating their homes, but who is the hon. Lady suggesting should pay for the intervention that would produce that benefit? It would be a significant scheme, especially given that 30% of the housing stock is really old. Who would foot that bill?

[Olivia Blake]

Moving away from this Bill, Labour has a fully costed plan for achieving that and it is targeted at the 19 million homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but whereas trust cannot be legislated for, targets can. It would be a very simple remedy to place the targets in the Bill in order to remove any question of trust, and to give the industry and homeowners struggling under the weight of high energy bills certainty that the Government are taking the action required. In fact, I do not see this as a question of trust: it is a practical step. Indeed, if Conservative Members are so satisfied that the Government will take the action needed to meet the targets, why be fearful of their inclusion? If they have no issue with hitting a target, why not place it in the Bill? That is the fundamental point.

By not including the targets they have set, it opens up the argument that the Government do not feel they will meet them. In making that argument, I remind colleagues of the words of the National Infrastructure Commission, which says:

“Government is not on track to deliver its commitments on heat or energy efficiency…A concrete plan”—

which is what the clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce within six months of the Bill becoming an Act—

“for reducing energy demand is required, with a particular focus on driving action in homes and facilitating the investment needed.”

[Katherine Fletcher]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s zeal and passion for insulating the UK’s homes, but he has referred again and again to a concrete plan and investment, and I cannot believe that either of those things come with a price tag of zero. Given that it is important to be fiscally responsible, will he outline how he plans to fund the implementation that he wants to write into the Bill?

[Andrew Western]

The same applies to the Government’s targets. The fact is that we are being asked to take the Minister’s word that the Government will deliver on the targets, so there must already be a plan to do so. There must already be the funding to deliver, so what is the problem with enshrining this in law? That is the point we are advancing. Either the Government are putting the targets forward in a performative way, with no hope, plan or funding to deliver on them, or they are so assured that the targets will be achieved that there is no need for them to be placed in legislation—it is one or the other. Either way, I am sure that Conservative Members would want to satisfy themselves that the funding is in place; otherwise, the targets are a total waste of time anyway.

When we hear from the Minister, I would be grateful to know where the funding will come from to achieve the targets. Indeed, can we stand by the targets in any way, shape or form? That is the central point that I do not understand, because if the Government are going to deliver on this, what is the problem? If they are not going to deliver, all Committee members should be seeking to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

The clause effectively says that we do not want anything to do with the Nuclear Installations Act, and the safeguards, arrangements and regulations that have been in place for a long time with regard to licensing, the progress of nuclear site safety, the disposal of radioactive waste, and various other things. That is a mistake that will come back to bite the Government if the clause stands part. It is simply not true that fusion reactors are like warehouses; they are substantial radioactivity producers in their own right. They produce radioactivity in different ways than fission, and in smaller amounts.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

This summer, along with colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, I had the opportunity to visit the Torus at Oxford—a particularly impressive site—and to hear from not only academic scientists but private businesses, and they were calling for this measure. Having seen as a little girl, and worked in, the nuclear fission industry in Sellafield, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these are two completely separate processes. The stripping of electrons to produce a plasma—while nuclear, in that it is engaging with nuclear atoms in the centre—is not the same as splitting large amounts of, say, uranium and creating by-products that could be injurious to human health and require an enormous amount of regulation, such as alpha and beta radiation. Does he agree that it is possible that in seeking to be mega safe, we risk choking off an energy source that could be the answer for all our futures, and one in which Britain is genuinely recognised as a global leader?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is right that the processes are quite different—I was about to put forward a few reflections on that—but they are not completely unconnected. As she mentioned, fusion is essentially about containing a very high-temperature process of the fusion of molecules into other molecules—

[Katherine Fletcher]

Plasma, yes.

[Dr Whitehead]

Into a plasma within a contained vessel. The processes of producing that plasma for the purposes of electricity generation are indeed very different from producing steam, effectively, for electricity generation through the decay of radioactive isotopes within a controlled reactor. However, what happens when that plasma is produced is that a very large amount of neutrons are released, which bombard the sides of the vessels within which the whole process is contained so that, over a period of time, the atomic structure of those vessels starts to change and there is considerable radioactivity contained within the vessels, which, when the site is decommissioned, would have to be taken down and probably stored in a repository in the long term because of its enduring radioactivity. The hon. Member is also right to say that the life of the radioactivity that is produced in the plasma process is a question of, among other things, tritium.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an individual neutron is a body that can further emit a radioactive source? That cannot be true. Radioactivity, by its nature, is the smaller bits that come as a co-product. While I accept that there is a need to make sure that any industry is responsible and can look after itself, it is about making sure that the industry is being properly regulated, but perhaps not regulated as a fission nuclear site. I am sure he will agree that although the containment vessel is important in the process, it is actually about the generation of the electromagnetic fields that contain the plasma, which is the subject of much research at the moment and would prevent the problem he is describing—of neutron leaking into both the concrete and steel containers. Will he clarify that point? A neutron, in itself, can only decay into quarks. That is what the clever guys at CERN do when they smash things together at speed.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is of course right to say that neutrons, in their own right, cannot produce radioactivity, but that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that the process by which neutrons are released to bombard the vessel in which the process is contained indirectly produces radioactivity through changes in the structure of that outer casing. Perhaps I can inform the Committee briefly by setting out the description in a recent note from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which says:

“To produce usable heat, the neutron streams carrying 80 percent of the energy from deuterium-tritium fusion must be decelerated and cooled by the reactor structure, its surrounding lithium-containing blanket, and the coolant. The neutron radiation damage in the solid vessel wall is expected to be worse than in fission reactors because of the higher neutron energies. Fusion neutrons knock atoms out of their usual lattice positions, causing swelling and fracturing of the structure. Also, neutron-induced reactions generate large amounts of interstitial helium and hydrogen, forming gas pockets that lead to additional swelling, embrittlement, and fatigue. These phenomena put the integrity of the reaction vessel in peril.”

I think the hon. Member will be clear from that that it is not the neutrons that are the issue; it is the radiation.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Chair]

Order.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I will be very brief, I promise.

[The Chair]

Both your previous interventions have been quite long. Perhaps you might consider making a full contribution when Dr Whitehead has come to the end of his remarks.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I will take your advice, Ms Nokes.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Katherine Fletcher.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Thank you, Ms Nokes, and I apologise for not prosecuting my arguments procedurally in the correct way earlier. I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has said. I completely accept that he has tabled his new clause in the spirit of public safety, but I do think that this is an area that could be better understood by the public. I gently suggest to him that there might be a slight misapprehension in some of the material that he just quoted from.

What the hon. Gentleman was describing was neutrons degrading a physical structure, as a by-product of the plasma. There is an analogy here: it is almost like it getting shot at or water going through a concrete structure and then causing rust and degrading the steel within it. That is not necessarily the creation of a nuclear radioactive source; that is something being peppered with neutrons. And that is why it is not a commercially viable facility at the moment—because there are still things to be worked out, not least how we ensure that we do not build a very expensive thing that, by its own nature, then degrades over time and use. But that is not the same as creating a radioactive source.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned deuterium and tritium, which are different types of naturally occurring hydrogen elements. Tritium sounds, to my ear, almost like something that the Terminator would be using to do something particularly exciting. In fact, it is only a hydrogen that occurs in nature and that has a single proton and two neutrons within the nucleus, so it is a bit bigger and heavier than is typical. What that means is that it is a little more unstable. The natural half-life of tritium is 12 years, whereas the nuclear regulations that the hon. Gentleman seeks to apply or partially apply in this instance are designed to deal with things that have half-lives of thousands of years. Someone will tell me that I have this wrong, but with uranium-238 we are talking about very different orders of magnitude—

[Olivia Blake]

I am a biomedical scientist by background, so I come to this with a medical perspective. The issue with tritium is that it produces beta waves, which are a more damaging form of radiation to human tissues—only in a minor way, as it has a score of 1 compared with 20 for alpha waves, but there is an underlying risk. Exposure of the workforce to that level continuously could put DNA stability at risk, because it is an ionising form of radiation. If there is a problem—containment is always a big challenge that gets raised by scientists—hopefully we will overcome it, but it is right to have the protections, particularly for the workforce. That is why I welcome new clause 51.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course beta radiation is produced when a nucleus is separated, when the neutrons in tritium move away. For me, it is a question of proportionality and risk. At the moment, there is no viable commercial solution, so there is not a workforce but a research community, which is publicly and privately funded. On that becoming a workforce solution, I agree with her that ensuring that people are safe at work is vital but, should this come about, the Health and Safety Executive will not leave it unmonitored. However, new clause 51 is not about workplace safety; it is about putting something that is fundamentally not nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, into a set of regulations designed to deal with such things.

I wondered about the criteria, given that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned radioactivity occurring in the fusion environment. What percentage of Cornwall, with its radon gas, might be caught up in the thresholds? I will be interested to pursue on Report what we are actually talking about. As a scientist, the hon. Lady knows that 100 is very different from 1, even though 1 poses some risk.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause, but given the opportunity for clean, net zero energy—which really could be the panacea for the world, as tree-huggers like me would say—in the UK we should look to tread lightly, but carefully, with any regulation of an industry that has such a level of potential and to which the UK has contributed so much already. He mentioned torus structures, but those are only one of a series of different potential generational tools—torus might be the research tool, not the commercial tool, so his concerns could disappear with a completely different production facility, perhaps based on electromagnetic rather than physical containment.

With regret, because I understand the genuine and heartfelt nature of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think it is important that we do not stifle a nascent industry with regulation. I will therefore support the Government’s position.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend and Opposition Members for a fascinating discussion of the clause and new clause 51, and of how we proceed with regulation of this nascent industry—a technology in which we are leading the world, as has been said multiple times. Such comments have also been made in various legislatures around the world, including the US Senate, in which a wish was recently expressed to match the progress being made in the United Kingdom and to have a framework such as the one in which we have allowed fusion technology to be developed.

The Government’s plans are about working up from the frameworks that apply to existing fusion sites, rather than working down from them. We believe that the new clause could stifle the development of the technology that we have been exploring in depth this morning. It is vital to stress that we are not—definitely not—trying to make fusion energy facilities avoid licensing requirements. Nor are we seeking to water down any regulations. For a fusion energy facility to be developed and operated in a lawful way, it must go through permitting and consenting processes governed by the relevant regulators. In England, those are the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. This is consistent with how other facilities with radioactive materials such as cyclotrons and large-scale industrial irradiators are regulated for at the moment.

The regulatory process that we have right now requires fusion energy facilities to go through various approval stages as well as ongoing compliance and engagement. The requirements associated with those regulatory obligations are proportionate to the hazard associated with the fusion energy facility. I should also say the legislative consent motion procedure has been invoked. We have already consulted the Scottish Government on the procedure and they raised no concerns; obviously, there are separate regulations and bodies responsible for the issue in Scotland.

We do not believe that fusion energy facilities should require nuclear site licences. That is what we are discussing this morning. They should not go through the process requiring nuclear site licences because, following consultation, we believe that that would be disproportionate to the hazards associated with fusion. Such hazards, as various hon. Members have explained in greater detail than I would ever be able to, are significantly lower than with nuclear fission, and the regulatory frameworks required for fission would therefore be too burdensome for the technology.

The Government agreed with the majority of the consultation respondents that the existing regulatory processes of consenting and permitting would be proportionate and appropriate for fusion energy facilities. That was all set out in a full consultation that preceded the introduction of the Bill. We see no need to consult again on the same issue at this time. I hope I have been able to set the minds of the hon. Member for Southampton Test and others at rest following their justifiable, reasonable and well thought through questions on this matter. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. The hon. Member makes an important point about where we connect and the facilities for connection, which I will consider briefly in a moment. This is also a substantial problem with DNOs, as we know from published data on local junction boxes and various other things. How long a local or a regional connection will take is determined by whether the system is red, yellow or green in terms of its local connections within the DNO network. We are seeing similar waiting times for smaller connections and the sort of large offshore connections that the hon. Member mentioned. Obviously, that is difficult in helping to ensure that onshore electricity is delivered as well as offshore electricity. That is one reason why the distinction between the high-level grid and the lower-level grid in the circumstances of our renewable, low-carbon future is not as great as has hitherto been the case.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly draws attention to the fact that some Scottish-based offshore schemes are now being asked, on a point-to-point basis, to connect south of the border, because the facilities for delivering from those connections, were they to be north of the border, are not as good as they should be. Interestingly, the Government are presently considering a bizarre series of arrangements called marginal cost pricing, which will deter certain people from taking particular views about where they should connect because there will be a price differential in connecting. As I am sure the hon. Member will agree, the solution is not to start messing about with theoretical market considerations about who might connect where, but to build the stuff so that people can connect to it properly, where they are and where they want to be, with a certainty that there will be a connection in a short period of time and that what they have connected to gets to where we want it to be. Those are all reasons why the ISOP will be so important.

Through these amendments we want in no way to undermine, but rather to enhance, the substance of the ISOP. Our amendments, which are on page 5 of the amendment paper, seek to do several things regarding the structure and operation of the ISOP. First, we think that the ISOP should have oversight not just of the cabling itself, but of the cabling efficiency and loss reduction in cabling as it goes around the country. That is a potentially important issue for the future. I am sure that hon. Members know how much electricity is lost just by the transmission function.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I believe it is about 6% in standard main lines, which presents a huge opportunity for us to be more efficient with the energy we generate and transmit.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I think the figure is around 6%—sometimes a bit higher—but part of the issue with that loss is not just the general inefficiency of the system; under certain circumstances, we are using cables for transmission that are much less efficient than they should be.

I visited—this shows the exciting things that I do as shadow Energy Minister—a test site of a highly efficient cable system. I will not mention the company’s name, but as far as I know it is pursuing a much more efficient cable system with a number of DNOs. When I got to the site, there was not very much to see because the cable had been buried underground; I was pointed to a field. There was, however, in the corner of the field, a hut in which calculations on how the cable was performing, and how it would perform in conjunction with other forms of cable, were being undertaken. I was able to see for myself an increase in the efficiency of the cable of about 15%, just by having that cable design as opposed to others.

It seems to me quite important that the cabling introduced to our new system be as efficient as possible. It needs to be clear to the companies that will put the closed cables in that that is what will be expected of them. That is why we would like an additional function to be added to the ISOP’s concerns: oversight of efficiency and loss reduction in cabling.

We have tabled other amendments, which concern the relationship with the DNOs. It is important that we do not make an artificial distinction in terms of what we are doing with the ISOP in the high-level system and others. I am afraid that the Bill, whether intentionally or not, appears to create that divide. The DNOs can get on with their activities, and the high-level grid will have a different system of governance and management. That is why amendment 96 would add

“and of distribution systems in conjunction with licenced distribution system operators”

to the end of line 3, in clause 119. Amendment 97 would add the same words. That would create a much better system of co-operation and collaboration between the DNOs and the new system operator.

I appreciate that we will not vote on new clause 37 today. It is important for the independent system operator really to be independent, and not a creature of either the energy companies or the Government, so that it has its own ability to look at the system, to produce recommendations and arrangements, and to oversee the development of the system as its own master within that.

We therefore suggest in new clause 37 that an independent advisory board be set up to ensure the independence of the ISOP. There are other ways of doing this, but we are suggesting one particular way of ensuring that the ISOP operates in the genuinely independent way that we all want it to in pursuit of the future of grids and connections.

I hope that the Minister and the Committee understand that our amendments and new clauses all seek to help with the ISOP. I hope that the Minister will respond positively by saying that there are different ways of achieving what we want to achieve with the ISOP’s powers, or that, although he might not be able to accept the amendments today, he is actively minded to have a good think about them. By the way, I am grateful for the note that the Minister wrote to me last night about the fact that the Government have done just that with one particular amendment to the Bill. That sort of process could easily be followed in such circumstances in future.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

The amendment relates to clause 170, which is very much another stand-alone clause; it concerns smart meters, and nothing else in the Bill relates to smart meters. We think that there ought to be a rather more serious approach to the question of smart meters and their present position in the energy firmament than the clause provides. I want to amplify that for a moment.

Where we are with smart meters is nothing short of a creeping long-term disaster as far as the UK energy economy is concerned. I am sure that Members will be aware that the introduction of smart meters came about through a 2012 piece of legislation with a view to starting the roll-out in about 2013 or 2014. The Minister responsible for the 2012 legislation said that the roll-out would start in 2014 and would be complete by 2019, when we would have 100% smart meters across the country. Ever since the 2012 legislation and the beginning of the roll-out, there have been repeated returns to the legislative process, including the Smart Meters Act 2018, which among other things included various measures on the Data Communications Company, about which I perhaps should not say too much for fear of becoming upset.

The thrust of that Act was to extend the timescale during which there would be jurisdiction over the process by the regulator, various other people and the DCC from 2019 to 2023. And here we are in 2023, having a further go at doing exactly the same: extending the exercise of powers from November 2023 to 1 November 2028. It is as though, if we continue to flog the dead horse for another five years, maybe the horse will miraculously come back to life again and we will all have the smart meters installed.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I can speak from my own personal experience about why the horse is not dead and is benefiting from new technology. I wanted to have a smart meter and I could not, because the mobile phone signal was not good enough in the north of England. We have made great strides since 2019, so I think that horse still has a breath of life as technology, especially gigabit coverage, expands.

[Dr Whitehead]

My dead horse was perhaps something of an over-dramatic metaphor, but at the very least the horse is pretty sickly. That is partly because the smart meter wide area systems in the north of England are different from those in the south of England; the roll-out of smart meters in the north of England and in particular regions has been much slower and more problematic than has been the case in the south of England.

When we see the roll-out of smart meters now being 56% of all meters in Great Britain, the figure hides a number disturbing points, one of which I think the hon. Member for South Ribble will certainly want to worry about: that the roll-out in certain parts of Great Britain—strictly speaking, statistics are not provided on a regional basis, so I am citing evidence gathered by other means—could be as low as 30-odd per cent. in certain regions of the UK.

That is important not just because it is a good idea to have a smart meter that reads bills so that people do not have to continue to send their reading in, and not just because someone can look at their meter and see what sort of energy they have used and therefore can economise —although those are important things. One of the overwhelmingly important parts of the smart meter roll-out has always been and will always be the extent to which the smart meter network gives the country the opportunity to move forward radically with different forms of managing its electricity structures, including: a demand-side basis equivalent to the supply-side basis; ensuring that systems are resilient in terms of the information the smart meters are giving out; and enabling both prosumers and consumers to come closer together when it comes to what is going in and out of the smart meter via self-generation or other devices. There are all sorts of things, including half-hourly settlements, that will collectively make our energy system much greener, much better and much more resilient.

Indeed, the ability of smart meters to aggregate data—another area that we might want to consider—means they can read in real time the nation’s electricity activity. In the context of the roll-out of electric vehicles and all that goes with it, and all sorts of other things such as heat pumps, the ability to gauge in aggregate electricity demand at particular times, including where that demand may stress the system, means that activities can be undertaken that will divert from that and use the system much more effectively. That all depends on what is happening with smart meters and the information they give out. It is about—Daily Mail, take note—not capturing people’s personal information but capturing aggregate information that comes out of smart meter use as a whole. And that is where we are in a potentially disastrous position for the future, because the 55% roll-out does not mean 55% of all meters; as I have said, there are big regional divergences. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for South Ribble has got her smart meter in—[Interruption.] She has not.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Unfortunately, I have only an electricity one now, after the mobile phone signal was upgraded; the gas cannot take it, because of the construction of the house. There are a number of practical problems that we have to get over. The issue is not just consumer desire.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. That was why I was pretty dubious about the 2G system, essentially, being used for this purpose in the north of the country. It is not fit for purpose and will not be fit for purpose in the future. It needs to be substantially revised.

[Katherine Fletcher]

No, we haven’t got any phone signal: not 2G—nothing.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think that underlines my point. It is not fit for purpose.

[Katherine Fletcher]

It doesn’t matter what G it is if you haven’t got one.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes. The various retail energy companies that have been responsible for the roll-out have in many instances tried their hardest, but they have been overcome by the sort of obstacles that the hon. Member mentions. For example, in an urban environment, meters may be in the basement of a block of flats and then somehow the smart meter is supposed to communicate from the 7th floor to the meters in the basement—the arrangements between the meter and the householder. That is over and above the problems with radio signals and phone signals that there have been in the north of England.

The roll-out is 55% after nine years of active operation, so let us say that that goes on at the same rate, although it very probably will not, because we have captured all the low-hanging fruit as far as smart meters are concerned, and smart meters are getting more and more difficult to install.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

What we are doing on this Committee today, and what we are doing over the next few sittings—I am proud to be on this Committee, because this is a revolutionary Bill—has a lot of cross-party support, as Opposition Members have said, because we all recognise that this is such an important topic that will affect this country’s energy production, net zero targets, and how we move forward for decades. We should therefore be able, when the House is roughly speaking as one, to take the public with us, but every now and then little parts of the Bill can become exceptionally explosive—excuse the pun—in relation to bringing people with us.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case around what many of us hear on the doorstep. Does he agree that being able to define exactly what any levy would be for is a really important part of explaining something when people are fearful of their energy bills? Some have concerns about the hydrogen levy: “What hydrogen is it? Is it green hydrogen produced by wind? Is it blue hydrogen produced from carbon fossil-fuel sources with associated carbon capture and storage?” Blue hydrogen still contains some contaminants. Does he believe that “hydrogen” has been defined enough to allow us to explain things to the general public?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point, drawing on comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. We are being asked to add a levy before we know how it will be used or what type of hydrogen it will generate. I do not think that people like signing open cheques without the way forward being defined.

I want to develop the argument for why hydrogen is an important step and to look at its applications in the automotive industry. The reason I say that is purely—