Energy Infrastructure: Chinese Companies

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the potential security implications of the involvement of Chinese companies, including Mingyang, in energy infrastructure projects.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the urgent question to the House.

The protection and security of the energy sector is an absolute priority for this Government. We have a range of effective measures in place that give the Government powers to balance an open investment environment to facilitate growth with protecting the areas of our economy that are most sensitive to national security.

The Government firmly believe that the biggest risk to our energy system and energy security is remaining dependent on international fossil fuel markets, controlled by petrostates and dictators. That is why we have a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower to end that dependence. We have a world-leading offshore wind industry in the UK and international investment plays a crucial role in supporting jobs across the country. As part of that mission, my Department engages in discussions with a wide range of investors, including those from other countries. We are also clear that alongside that, the growth of UK supply chains is critical. That is why we have set out plans for a clean industry bonus to drive investment in manufacturing, as well as setting up Great British Energy and the national wealth fund.

The Government will not hesitate to use our powers to protect national security whenever we identify concerns, and we will take a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in UK and global interests. The Government will co-operate with China where it can, compete where it needs to and challenge where it must.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the Minister for her comments and general reassurances, but there are specific concerns at the moment. China can produce what is useful to us for the development of renewables, particularly in the North sea, and we can benefit from those investments. China also needs access to our markets. However, security issues involving companies working in offshore renewable development have become apparent in recent weeks and have been raised numerous times.

It has been reported that the Chinese company Mingyang is interested in producing turbines for a new project in the North sea. Around £60 million of Scottish Government funding has been earmarked for a wind turbine factory near Inverness, in addition to a potential £27 million for Orient Cable to provide subsea cables for island communities. That is despite the European Union bringing anti-trust cases against China and the Norwegian Government blocking Mingyang from its green infrastructure projects.

Will the Minister reassure the House that the Department will follow the same rigorous processes to assess those risks as the previous Government, which ultimately blocked Huawei from the 5G network? This must include an assessment of any opportunities for remote access to the turbines, as the software will normally remain in the control of the manufacturers even once commissioned, leaving them vulnerable to being switched off. We need local control.

Will the Department reassure the House that discussions are ongoing with the Scottish Government to ensure that no public money is invested before this risk assessment has taken place? How will Ministers work with the Scottish Government and Cabinet colleagues to ensure that offshore and undersea infrastructure is safe?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady raises important concerns that we are very much alive to. As I said in my first answer, energy security is critical to the Department’s work and that is why we have the clean power mission to end our dependency on fossil fuels. International investment is a crucial part of that and helps to support growth and jobs across the country. As part of that, we have discussions with a wide range of international investors, but we absolutely recognise that this needs to be balanced against national security implications. We work on that constantly across Government with input from a number of Departments, and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Security from the Home Office here for the urgent question.

The Government have to consider both those aspects together: the need for investment and for greater capacity in our supply chains, and the security risk. While I cannot get into the details of the individual case, given the nature of the ongoing discussions, I reassure the hon. Lady that we are taking these factors into account. We do want to make sure that the most robust processes are followed as we look at the details of this particular issue.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I did not say that at all. What I am saying is I think the reason the Government are bringing forward that legislation is suspect and I am not convinced that the police need these powers. I ask the Government to prove as the Bill passes through the House that the police are calling for these powers, because they were not calling for the increased powers brought in under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; they said they did not feel they were necessary. It is now down to the Government to prove that the injunction system does not work but, as I have said, some of the protests are ill-judged and inconsiderate to people going about their daily lives, and I think we would all speak as one on that point.

It appears at first sight that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is more about spin than substance. If it genuinely gives more powers to local communities rather than developers, that is good, although the Government’s past action on this front does not inspire confidence. I hope that as we consider the Bill we can look at what has been happening. I have a case in my constituency where land originally used as meadows was designated for housing by a previous administration. The update of the local plan has been delayed, partly because the West of England has not updated its planning strategy. I think the Government rejected it. Therefore, even though we have a one-city ecology strategy that says we want to protect 30% of the land as green space, we cannot oppose the planning application on those grounds because the previous local plan is still in place. The Minister may have some experience of this sort of issue from previous roles. I hope that, when we get a chance to discuss the Bill, we can talk about how we can ensure that planning rules take into account a city’s desire to address the ecological crisis.

I would like to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about architecture. His remarks on Poundbury, the village the Prince of Wales set up, were quoted at the weekend. On aesthetic grounds, I do not like Poundbury. I do not think it is brilliant architecture, so I disagree with the Prince of Wales and the Secretary of State on that. but in his comments, the Secretary of State set up a completely artificial argument, saying opposition to new housing development comes from

“a few modernist architects who sneer at what the rest of us actually like and people who dislike anything that seems small-c conservative.”

That is not the case. The opposition to new housing developments is about people wanting to protect green spaces, thinking that infrastructure is not available and being worried about the impact on road systems and local facilities. It is not about people saying, “We would accept this new housing if the architecture was more modern.” That is just made up. It does not make for good political debate if people are constructing such straw man arguments.

The privatisation of Channel 4 is an unnecessary and spiteful move. Channel 4 is not broken and does not need the Government to fix it. Public ownership is not a straitjacket; the Government are trying to say it is. The channel invests more in independent production companies outside London—including Bristol, where it has one of its regional hubs—than any other broadcaster. Privatising Channel 4 could mean £1 billion in investment lost from the UK’s nations and regions, with over 60 independent production companies at risk of going under.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. In my previous career I worked in an organisation which supported Channel 4 to encourage independent production companies across the country and help them enter the international market. It was clear from watching Sunday’s British Academy film awards that Channel 4 is an integral part of our culture; does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should do everything they can to protect it, rather than try to change it?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree: Channel 4 is doing a brilliant job and is financially viable, and there is absolutely no reason to seek to privatise it.

The long overdue Online Safety Bill received its Second Reading in the last Session. It is good that fraud is included; many of us will have had constituents who have fallen prey to scammers. It is disappointing, however, that, with so much of a delay in bringing forward this Bill and with its having gone through pre-legislative scrutiny, there is still so much room for improvement. The Government must focus on how harmful content can be amplified and spread, including through breadcrumbing, leading to there being more smaller sites, which often contain the worst content. As the Bill stands, such sites might slip through the net because the focus is all on the larger providers. I am also concerned that the definition of what is harmful to children will be left to secondary legislation rather than be set out in the Bill, that the Government have not accepted the Law Commission recommendations on self-harm, that misogyny is not a priority, that state disinformation from countries such as Russia will still be allowed to thrive, and about much more. I hope we can significantly improve the Bill during Committee and on Report.

I welcome the renters reform Bill and the scrapping of no-fault evictions, but, again, there has been such an inexcusable delay. The legislation was promised three years ago and in that time the number of people in Bristol evicted from private rented property through no fault of their own has more than doubled.

The Mental Health Act reform Bill is another measure that has long been promised, but it is still only being published in draft. There have been some terrible stories about people with autism and learning difficulties being detained long term without their consent and a disproportionate use of sectioning for people from the black community. But this is a piecemeal measure; it addresses only one part of the problem. We know that mental health services are not fit for purpose and that many people are waiting far too long for diagnosis and treatment or are not getting help at all. We know, too, that children who need residential services often face being sent a long way from home, as beds are not available, and that far too many people resort to turning up at A&E in mental health crisis. There is a balance to be struck between giving mental health patients control over their treatment and making sure that people who would be helped by a stay in hospital get the support they need.

It was recently reported that freedom of information requests from 22 NHS trusts reveal that between 2016 and 2021 over half the 5,403 prisoners assessed by prison day psychiatrists as requiring hospitalisation were not transferred from hospital to prison. That represents an 81% increase in the number of prisoners denied a transfer in the previous five years. There is a very high threshold for that transfer request being met, so prisoners with major psychotic illnesses or chronic personality disorders are being kept in prison rather than getting the help they need. I suspect Conservative Members will think I am being a wet liberal on this, but this is as much about preventing reoffending as supporting the prisoners themselves.

There are quite a few measures missing from the Queen’s Speech that I would have hoped would be included, including the animals abroad Bill and measures on trophy hunting. Given that we long ago accepted that the production of foie gras and fur in this country was inhumane and should be prohibited, there is no excuse now that we have left the EU for not acting to ban imports too. It just shows the warped priorities of this out-of-touch Government that they would rather give in to the demands of the pro-hunting lobby on their Back Benches—and some in the Cabinet as well—than enact one of the few genuinely popular promises they have made. Senior figures in the Conservative party have spoken out about trophy hunting and they have got lots of good publicity time and again, but where is the legislation?