Warm Homes Plan

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I was with all the mayors on Monday, talking to them about their role in the warm homes plan. Local authorities and regional mayors have the best sense about what their area needs, and they are the people to help co-ordinate this and make it happen. Lots of people have rightly said that we need to do more—that this is good, but could we go further? This will be a 15 or 20-year project for the country. That is the way to think about it. This is a national mission to transform our housing stock. It is long overdue. We are making a really important start, and there is further to go.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

There is much to welcome in the warm homes plan. Wales has the oldest housing stock in Europe, with around a third of houses built before 1919. Because of that, Wales is rightly a net beneficiary of ECO schemes; it accounts for 6% of all ECO measures and 12% of ECO4. The Secretary of State will recognise that that is higher than the Barnett consequential funding, based on population share. Can he explain how the warm homes funding for Wales will be sufficient to meet the extreme challenges facing Welsh homeowners?

[Ed Miliband]

This scheme is really important for Wales. It will have a great impact, even if we take just the boiler upgrade scheme. We are determined to work with the Welsh Government to make sure that the scheme makes a difference for people in Wales. That is the work that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is doing.

Offshore Wind

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

I look forward to having conversations with my hon. Friend. I think that there are huge opportunities for Scotland, and the Government intend to maximise them.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Of course we welcome the new offshore wind projects in Wales and all the anticipated jobs, but if only we could guarantee that profits would stay in our communities and the use of local supply chains were contractually hardwired! Will the Government ensure that time is secured for a debate on the Crown Estate Act 2025, so that we can discuss how the people of Wales will receive their fair share of offshore wind profits?

[Ed Miliband]

I fear that securing time in the House is way above my pay grade. [Interruption.] I promise that it is. Let me say more generally to the right hon. Lady that I agree with her, and that we are looking at the Procurement Act 2023 and how it works. Ensuring that we procure as much of this as we can in the UK is incredibly important, and it is taken seriously throughout Government.

Nuclear Power: Investment

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend is definitely right about the old saying on nuclear fusion. I think maybe it is coming a bit closer. There have been really important breakthroughs, particularly in the UK, and we are determined to invest in them. I do not think anyone can say for certain when it will arrive, but the prototype fusion project is a really exciting step on that journey.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Penblwydd hapus i chi, Mr Llefarydd—happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker. The nuclear community at Trawsfynydd remains disappointed not to be on GBN’s SMR site and will continue to push for that and also for alternative uses. Security of supply of medical radioisotopes is critical to avoid the ethical nightmare of rationing diagnoses and treatments for a range of diseases including cancer. The Welsh Government’s Project Arthur will see north Wales become the home of a public sector national laboratory to produce medical radioisotopes. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to help the Welsh Government to realise Project Arthur at Trawsfynydd?

[Ed Miliband]

This is why these statements are important. I think I need to check the answer, because I do not want to give a flippant answer to the right hon. Lady’s incredibly serious question. Let me write to her to give her a proper answer.

New Nuclear Projects: Wylfa

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Llinos Medi]

I thank the hon. Lady for that timely intervention, because I can say that I went out publicly against the leader of my party at the time and stood strongly for the people of Ynys Môn, recognising the need for nuclear as part of the energy mix and the Plaid Cymru policy being that Trawsfynydd and Wylfa are sites for future nuclear development.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Given that nuclear is so significant for north-west Wales as a whole, this begs the question of what the future use of Trawsfynydd will be. I would like the Minister to update us on what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government in relation to Cwmni Egino and the potential use of this public-owned nuclear licensed site for an advanced modular reactor or radioisotopes, for example. What future does it have?

[Llinos Medi]

We need to make sure we do not lose the nuclear legacy in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd and the can-do attitude of our workforce, and we must make sure these sites work for those communities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I think they call that my full Sunday title, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this debate and also, as I said to her in the House last week, for her passion on this issue and energy projects more generally. We have debated a number of them in this Chamber over the past few months, and I am grateful for the way in which she does that.

This is a very important debate. I want to raise a few general points about the importance that the Government place on nuclear power, and then I will come to some specific points on Wylfa. First, new nuclear will play a critical role in this country’s energy mix by delivering the clean and secure home-grown energy that the country needs. As the hon. Lady said, it is increasingly clear that demand for electricity in this country is only set to increase significantly. Our estimate is that it could double by 2050, but given the current growth rate of things like AI, it is likely to be quite a conservative estimate. Nuclear will play a critical role in that energy mix.

As we adapt to a more uncertain world, as we continue to recover from the global pandemic and with all our future growth plans, nuclear’s energy security advantages make it essential. We have been clear that the role of our clean power mission is to push gas off the system, and nuclear will play a critical role alongside renewables. This is not a renewables-only drive; this is about renewables alongside nuclear. As the hon. Lady outlined, Wylfa has huge potential in that energy mix, and we are not overlooking it for a second.

I will come back to that point in more detail in a moment, but first I want to say something more generally about Wales. The hon. Lady gave us a useful history of nuclear power. Since the 1950s, Wales has played an important role in delivering nuclear power for the whole country. As she rightly outlined, the expertise and skills in Wales are extraordinary, and there is huge potential to build on those skills.

The tens of thousands of jobs that will be created by our new nuclear projects could be spread across the UK, which is why I think the opposition to new nuclear in some quarters—for example, from the SNP in Scotland—is so short-sighted. This is an economic opportunity as well as a key energy driver. Our forthcoming industrial strategy White Paper will say more about how we will support the wider energy industry in Wales and across the country.

The hon. Lady outlined the historical role of Wylfa, and she referenced decisions going back to the year after I was born, which brings it into stark contrast. In its 44 years of operation, the former nuclear power station at Wylfa generated enough safe, low-carbon and home-grown electricity to power 2 million homes a year, as well as supporting hundreds of good jobs in local communities. I pay tribute to all those who worked in the former plant for their expertise in running an incredibly safe operation over 40 years.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an assurance on continuous decommissioning at both Trawsfynydd and Wylfa. At Trawsfynydd, decommissioning is currently providing 276 very well-paid jobs. Trawsfynydd is the United Kingdom’s “lead and learn” site and could well be the first fully decommissioned nuclear site in Europe. However, we need an assurance that decommissioning will be continuous and that there will be sufficient funding, beyond this year and into the future, to ensure effective decommissioning, which will also give the public confidence in nuclear power into the future.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that point. Trawsfynydd—I think that is the correct pronunciation —is potentially also an important site for future nuclear, but she is right to highlight decommissioning. I am sure the Minister for nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Hunt, will be happy to discuss this in more detail, but clearly decommissioning is important. It creates a lot of jobs and skills, as well as developing future economic opportunities—it might be new nuclear, but it might also be other things. I am happy to volunteer my noble Friend to speak to the right hon. Lady about this, but it is certainly something we take very seriously. With something like nuclear power, we also have a responsibility to decommission it responsibly, which is part of the story of nuclear, alongside the years of generating.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend, not least because that is the very next part of my speech, so it is excellent timing. The history of Wylfa is important to our energy story, but so is the future. The potential of the site has long been recognised. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn that, after several years of hard work, the withdrawal in 2020 of Horizon’s plans to develop a new large-scale nuclear power station at the site was a setback for the whole country, but particularly for the local community. She rightly outlined the role that such projects can play in developing skills and good, very well-paid jobs, which often have salaries considerably above the average. It is really important that we move those projects forward.

I will reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said. It has been nine months since this Government came into power, and our in-tray has had no shortage of issues from the previous Government to deal with—I note that no Conservative Members are present at this debate—but delay and dither is by far the biggest issue that we have had to deal with in our energy system. We have not been moving forward at pace on several key decisions that were taken, and I am afraid that Horizon is just one of many examples of delays and setbacks in nuclear project development since 2010.

It is a real disappointment that not a single nuclear power station was completed, or even progressed significantly, in that period, and the previous Government should take responsibility. Too many proposals have fallen by the wayside, leading to the loss of huge opportunities not only for our energy system but for local economies right across the country.

We are determined—I say this very clearly—to enable faster and more sustainable nuclear project development around the country. We have been clear that we are in favour of new nuclear. We want to create an investment landscape in which investors come to invest in nuclear projects in this country, and in which we give the certainty that nuclear will play a key part in our energy mix long into the future. We are taking important steps to kick-start new nuclear in Britain by working closely with EDF to get Hinkley Point C over the line, while Sizewell C is making good progress. However, the final investment decision is for the spending review. Great British Nuclear, the Government’s expert nuclear delivery body, is driving forward the SMR competition for UK deployment. Final decisions on that competition will be taken very soon.

I will highlight other actions we are taking to make progress.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the Minister provide any information on whether there will be updates on sitings for SMRs? We understand that the siting is being reconsidered, and businesses that are engaged with a design are very keen to know where the likely sites will be.

[Michael Shanks]

I will come on to the question of siting in a moment. I do not want to be drawn into the particulars of the SMR competition because Ministers are not involved in that at the moment. That process is under way, and we are moving forward with it at pace.

First, our targets for clean power are really important. We have set out the clean power mission for 2030, as well as the wider question of decarbonising the economy by 2050, in part because we want to drive momentum in the energy space for investment into sectors like new nuclear. Nuclear power is a crucial part of our toolkit to deliver energy security and decarbonisation, and we have said that our striving towards clean power does not end in 2030. We are in a sprint because that is necessary for our constituents, who are paying far too much for their bills, but the effort will continue long into the 2030s and 2040s. That is when nuclear will particularly play a critical role.

Secondly, the new national policy statements reflect a new era of nuclear. Wylfa was, of course, one of eight sites designated for new nuclear in the EN-6 national policy statement, which recognised the site’s future potential. Nothing that we are doing takes away from that crucial future potential, but we recognise that the new range of technologies in nuclear open up a series of sites that are different from the eight that were fixed for larger-scale nuclear in the past.

National policy statement EN-7 is all about turbocharging our ambitions for new nuclear: not taking away from sites that were already designated but opening up a range of new sites. It sets out a refreshed planning framework for new nuclear reactors, including, as we have discussed, small and advanced modular reactors.

The proposed planning framework is robust, transparent and agile, and it is about empowering developers to identify more sites across the UK. Clearly, those must be set against a very robust set of siting criteria—we are not saying that new nuclear can be built anywhere in the country—but there are a lot more sites for SMRs and AMRs than there were in the past.

Thirdly, and this comes to a point the hon. Member for Ynys Môn made about regulation, we have been keen to cut outdated and bureaucratic rules that are holding back investment, but clearly we also have in this country one of the most robust sets of regulations for nuclear, which is important for the public to have confidence in nuclear energy. It is also why we have had decade upon decade of incredibly safe nuclear generation in this country. We will maintain robust regulation, but we will update it to make sure that we are driving forward investment. The Prime Minister recently announced that John Fingleton will lead a nuclear regulatory taskforce to identify opportunities for better regulation in the nuclear space, particularly to speed up delivery.

Fourthly, we are tackling one of the biggest reasons for delays and uncertainty head-on by taking bold action on the connections queue in the GB grid. Connections reform is about helping viable clean energy projects connect faster, and it is about giving investors the certainty that, if they come forward to develop a project, they will be able to connect to the grid much faster. Future nuclear projects will benefit from those reforms, freeing up the more than 700 GW currently sitting in the queue and freeing up a lot of that capacity for important future projects.

Returning to Wylfa, as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn noted, Great British Nuclear purchased the site alongside the site in Gloucestershire at Oldbury, which gives us a real opportunity to make strategic decisions. Although I hear the call to move faster on those decisions, it is crucial that we take time to make sure that they are fully informed. The question of how we finance any such projects is a critical one for Government to think about.

As we fix the foundations of new nuclear in this country, it tees us up for rapid future success. We will make sure that we drive forward the potential for communities to benefit from the supply chains and the construction that go alongside those sites. I reiterate that we are hugely ambitious and excited about the opportunity for new nuclear in this country. I recognise the frustration that the past 14 years of dither and delay have meant that it seems like we are not making as much progress on those nuclear sites as possible. I gently ask that we are given the space and opportunity to drive forward our ambitions for nuclear. After more than nine months, we have demonstrated the pace at which we want to move. We will do the same on nuclear, but we need the time to set that out fully.

I close by thanking the hon. Member for Ynys Môn again for securing this important debate. I know she will continue to engage with the Minister for nuclear, my noble Friend Lord Hunt, on these questions. We are ambitious for Wylfa and for other sites. The hon. Lady is right to push because “further and faster” is the mantra of this Government in a whole range of areas. She is also right to highlight the huge potential for her community, but also for our energy security across the country, of moving forward with new nuclear as part of our energy mix.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for participating in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

ECO4 and Insulation Schemes

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems we are finding across the piece. We are clear that the system we inherited is not fit for purpose. It is a patchwork of disjointed, fragmented regulation and consumer protection, it is frankly a nightmare for consumers to navigate through, and it is not fit for purpose. There has to be a root and branch overview of how the system works. Our priority is to ensure that if consumers choose to do home upgrades, it is as easy as possible for them to navigate the system, and they can have quality. The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we believe there is a role for Government. There has to be a guiding mind overseeing home upgrades across the piece, and we must ensure that the system is delivering for consumers.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I welcome today’s statement, but it is not just about solid wall insulation. It is not right that anybody has to take any ECO4 supplier to the small claims court to get recompense for fixing shoddy work. TrustMark as a process is intrinsically ill-designed to protect vulnerable people, because it presumes that acceptance of a supplier on to the scheme is a sufficient safeguard. Will the Minister consider—I bear in mind what she has already said—empowering local authorities to sign off work before a penny is paid?

Marine Renewables Industry

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ms Jardine. I welcome you to your first chairmanship role here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate.

With a wind-lashed coastline stretching for a grand total of 1,680 miles, Wales has an abundance of marine energy potential. This growing sector already contributes significant sums to the Welsh economy. Last financial year, the marine renewable energy sector delivered £29.9 million to the Welsh economy, and it currently sustains 429 full-time jobs. We would like the number of jobs to be way more than that, please.

Tidal stream is the largest contributor to the sector at present, and developers are set to deliver 28 MW-worth of development by 2028. That number is expected to grow with each annual auction round. For the future, it is estimated that Wales has the potential to generate up to 6 GW-worth of wave and tidal stream energy.

I have mentioned jobs. Development and installation of 1 GW alone could support 440 full-time jobs during generation—and those in communities that currently suffer deprivation. That is a theme for many Members of Parliament from what might be called the Celtic fringe, but it really matters to us. We have such potential to generate more energy for the United Kingdom in its entirety and to generate energy security, but at the same time this can be a real levelling-up prospect for communities that have suffered in low-wage economies. Particularly in relation to Wales, I could mention Holyhead; I could mention my own community of Dwyfor Meirionnydd; and I could mention Milford Haven. We should plan ahead and look at the futures of those communities, particularly somewhere like Milford Haven, which is so dependent on fossil fuel at present.

Wales is clearly poised to play a leading role in marine renewables. However, the sector is still in the early stages of development and needs Government support so that it can truly flourish. The Welsh Government have recently announced strategic resource areas for tidal stream, and I welcome that. It is a form of marine planning to designate the future availability of these areas for potential tidal stream energy projects. Of course, in Wales, as elsewhere, it is important to work with other key users of the sea, such as fishermen. There are tourism considerations as well.

This includes, just with regard to my own constituency, the sea off the Llŷn peninsula, where Swnt Enlli—Bardsey sound—has some of the strongest tidal races in the Irish sea. Proudly, Nova Innovation had a project there, but sadly, because of the lack of grid capacity, it eventually pulled out. It is exactly these problems with grid capacity that often hinder the bringing of projects to fruition in bringing their energy onshore from the sea.

Now, of course, I turn to Ynys Môn. I am speaking in place of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who is glad to be reopening one of the berths at Holyhead. As of today, ferries are again sailing from Holyhead, which is very good news for not just Holyhead and north Wales, but the connections with Ireland. We have existing tidal stream projects there, such as the Morlais project, and we see a potential model that addresses the problem of grid connection, which might be replicated elsewhere.

Morlais came about with major investment from both the European Union and the Welsh Government, with a grid substation already developed and the environmental consents already in place—that is the important point. That provides an offering to tidal stream developers in which there is a reduced cost and risk that mean that they are sure of getting their technology into the water.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I know that the National Energy System Operator has just put forward proposals to Government on how to address the grid queue and how it should be renewed and reviewed. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need to hear from Government as soon as possible what the reorganisation of the grid queue would mean and which projects would be prioritised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

When we find ourselves discussing any large-scale energy project, we come up against some of these pragmatic, practical questions. Until we have answers to those, it is difficult for us as local MPs to do more for our constituencies than promote. I have found myself in a similar situation with Trawsfynydd and small nuclear reactors; I have been in this place talking about that for 10 years and have not got past the pragmatic first points to actually see further developments.

The UK Government could use Great British Energy to invest in and develop pre-leased and consented grid connector sites for marine energy projects in Wales and elsewhere. However, the Great British Energy Bill does not make any reference to tidal stream or to marine renewable technologies, and, sadly, the Welsh Government’s announcement of tidal stream SRAs does not make any reference to GB Energy—if only those things were joined up and we had that co-working between Cardiff and London that is so vaunted. In his summing up, can the Minister set out what relationship GB Energy will have with the Welsh Government’s SRAs, because at present there seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking? I also echo the sector’s call for the Government to commit £250 million of Great British Energy’s budget to accelerate the development of and embed UK content in tidal stream projects and for a 1 GW target for deployment by 2035.

I turn to a particularly Welsh issue, although other hon. Members have touched on it—namely, the relationship or partnership between GB Energy and the Crown Estate, which will be crucial in the development of marine energy projects, given that it owns the sea bed to 12 nautical miles from the coast, including in Wales. It is therefore vital that Wales has full control over the Crown Estate, as is the case in Scotland, so that the people of Wales, not civil servants in Whitehall, shape the development of marine renewables to fit our nation’s needs and aspirations. That comparison between Wales and Scotland will not go away, and in a moment I will show hon. Members why. We could therefore ensure real benefits to Welsh communities, including the use of local supply chains and jobs in deprived, low-wage areas that will follow on from those projects. We could shape those with Welsh needs in mind.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I have a question about the Crown Estate and the devolution of it. How would that work in the Celtic sea, where Cornwall would obviously benefit a great deal from some of the floating offshore wind in other installations there?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Some of the politics of Cornwall already looks to Wales for guidelines; the same question arises from Scotland regarding where the border lies with England there. None the less, from Wales’s point of view, we have suffered a long tradition of extractive industries, and that looks set to continue.

There is a fair argument for the devolvement of the Crown Estate in Wales. The only argument against it is that it would cause confusion in the intervening point, but any change causes confusion. Devolution of the Crown Estate, which would give Wales, rather than the Treasury, the power to manage local supply chains is a call from many politicians in Wales—including many Welsh Labour politicians—that will not go away.

Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved, has successfully aligned the Crown Estate with the marine planning process and sought to make use of those local supply chains. The Scottish Government also distribute the net revenue generated by the Scottish Crown Estate marine assets to coastal local authority areas—those poor areas which we all want to seek every means we can to support. That coastal community benefit amounted to £11.1 million in 2023-24. Why are we preventing that from happening in other places? Wales should be able to do the same. The Minister will no doubt say, because this is the argument we have heard before, that devolution will fragment the market and deter investment. The success of the Scottish Crown Estate emphatically proves that not to be the case.

I want to touch on the contracts for difference auction process and EU innovation funding. To date, the marine renewables industry has been set at £20 million, £10 million and £15 million ringfenced in the last three auctions. If we want to build a renewable energy industry with high levels of UK content, the level needs to be set—as the lead Member for this debate, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, has said—at £50 million for tidal stream and £5 million for wave. I am very supportive of that for this year’s renewable auction. Marine Energy Wales says that without this ringfence, Welsh tidal projects will be disadvantaged, stalling momentum and undermining the benefits already delivered by sites like Morlais.

In addition to ringfenced funding domestically, we should maximise institutional flows of funds for the sector. Leaving the European emissions trading scheme has meant that the UK no longer receives sums from the related EU innovation fund. Rejoining that scheme would help unlock further sources of funding for marine developments.

I welcome the discussion of the marine energy task force. Of course, skills are devolved to Wales. We need to make sure that the advantages work between the Welsh Government and what is being proposed here, and that there is discussion on that.

Given the weather we have today in London, we are not going to be doing much in the way of tidal stream in the Thames, but this is the sort of day in winter—grey, no wind, renewables not otherwise generating—when we should take the opportunity to bring forward further electricity supplies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I won’t. Hopefully, it was not the upcoming speeches from me and the shadow Minister that drove her from Chamber. In any event, it is a delight to be here.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) not just for securing this debate and the customary way that he introduced it, but for the engagement we have had since I came into this post on this issue and many others. He is a great champion not just of marine renewables, but of Orkney and Shetland. In fact, in the last debate we had in this Chamber, he declared that God came from Orkney and Shetland. I am glad that we did not get into the theological nature of the debate this afternoon.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. I pay tribute to the various policy teams and organisations that have clearly done a very effective job of getting a consistent set of lines out to Members of Parliament; they have certainly earned their salary this week. Those are important points, and I will address each of them.

As hon. Members have said, the sector has enormous potential relating not just to energy outcomes, but to the many positive opportunities in skills, supply chains and innovation. The UK can export that innovation to the rest of the world. I will say at the very beginning that the Government are hugely supportive of marine energy, and we want to do what we can to support it.

I will start by giving some context on the Government’s position. As Members will be aware—many have raised it today—we published the “Clean Power 2030” action plan just before Christmas. That was an important step in providing some considerable detail on how the Government will deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030, which is hugely ambitious but achievable. It picks up on some of the strands that Members have raised this afternoon, including how we will deliver more effective grid connections and connections reform, as well as look at the planning system and consenting. It is about all the various things that Members have raised that hold back so much of the delivery of such projects across the country.

Clean power by 2030 is not some ideological project, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and others in the Conservative party might like to suggest. It is a critical pathway for how we deliver energy security in the long term; all our constituents have been facing a considerable cost of living crisis as a result of us not having home-grown energy security. The clean power mission is about ensuring that we not only have that energy security but tackle the climate crisis and deliver economic growth. I make no apologies for the fact that we are a Government moving at pace, because it is important that we grasp the opportunities for the implementation of both marine technologies and the many other innovative technologies that Britain can be a world leader in delivering. It is also our best opportunity to deliver cheaper energy for people across the country.

I want to pick up specifically on the point made by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the shadow Minister on the clean power action plan. It is right to say that marine renewables are not in the top lines of the pathways to clean power by 2030, because we do not think that that technology is quite at the point where it will be deployed at scale to help us to achieve that mission. That does not mean that we do not hope that projects will come onstream before 2030.

Although we are sprinting to deliver clean power by 2030, that will not be the end of the journey. By 2050, we estimate that the electricity demand in this country will have doubled, so this journey will require us to harness all possible technologies to continue to expand our energy supply over the coming decades. That is where I think marine renewables will start to play more of an important role, as they get past the commercialisation challenges and their price comes down, and as we have some more confidence in the technology.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I do not know whether the Minister will touch on the Crown Estate, so I am taking the opportunity now. On the point about electricity demand doubling, there is such potential in areas such as Wales and Cornwall, if it so wishes. The concept that the Crown Estate should be so centralised in the United Kingdom works badly in the interests of not only Wales but areas such as Cornwall. What does the Minister tell his Welsh Labour colleagues about why that issue cannot be devolved, when it would make such a difference to our local economies?

[Michael Shanks]

I will touch on the Crown Estate later in my speech. On that specific point, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that devolving the Crown Estate is the answer, and I take issue with the suggestion that the Crown Estate’s considerations in Wales somehow come from Whitehall. I have met a number of representatives of the Crown Estate, and they are in engaged with the Welsh Government and with communities in Wales. If we can do more on that, I am very happy to reach out to the Crown Estate, although I am not directly responsible for it and it is not accountable to me. Of course, it has published a number of strategies recently and there is more coming on the long-term vision for the Celtic sea and other parts of the Crown Estate in Wales. It is about partnership work, which includes not just bringing together the Crown Estate but how we look at the planning system and consenting, as well as the strategic spatial energy plan more broadly to plan for the long term. I will come back to some of those points later.

Although marine renewables are not at the centre of that clean power action plan to 2030, they will hugely benefit from the actions that we will deliver through it, not least on grid connections. Grid connections are all about future-proofing the grid in this country so that it can meet the demand of the future, and prioritising a grid queue that has got out of control with over 700 GW waiting to connect, which is simply not deliverable.

I would like to turn to the issue of funding, but first I wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who does not look a day over 21—but that is the last time I will pander to the Lib Dems. He raised a point about Great British Energy, as did a number of other hon. Members, many of whom I cannot help but notice did not vote for it, but now want it to be headquartered in their constituencies and deliver significant amounts of funding. Great British Energy will play a role in this space. It is our first publicly owned energy champion, and it will deliver and deploy clean power across the country and help with some of the innovation and development work.

Marine renewables are exactly the kind of technology that Great British Energy might invest in at an early stage and have a significant impact on, rather than technologies that are at a more confident stage. Hon. Members may not have had the opportunity to reach out to Great British Energy—the Bill is still going through the House of Lords, so it does not technically exist yet—but the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, has had a number of meetings across the UK, has engaged on questions about a whole range of technologies and is keen to continue to do so. It will be for Great British Energy, as an independent company, to make its own investment decisions based on a whole range of factors, including the return on investment potential, but I see marine renewable technology as a potential benefit for it.

We think that tidal stream energy will play a significant role, particularly beyond 2030. As many Members raised, tidal stream will bring balancing benefits to a future electricity system that will have renewables at its heart. The balancing role that tidal can play—as a baseload, in the traditional way of thinking about the electricity system—would be important. Currently over half of the world’s tidal stream deployment is situated in UK waters. However, this Government want to go further and faster, as the technology has huge potential.

Aside from having one of the world’s best tidal resources, the UK also hosts world-leading marine energy hubs. Many hon. Members spoke about the EMEC. I have been pleased to speak to the EMEC over the last few months; the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), visited recently and I hope to get to Orkney to do the same at some point.

When we came into power, the Government took the contracts for difference option that had been started by the previous Government and increased the budget to try to get as many projects as we could over the line. That led to a 50% increase in the ringfence for tidal stream to £15 million in the last allocation round. That demonstrated our commitment to the technology and ensured that 28 MW of tidal stream was secured in allocation round 6, including 9 MW for projects based in Orkney.

Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mr MacDonald]

Micro-renewables are the way ahead, and the more micro the better. Whether that is a solar thing on a roof or hydro for a farm, I could not support it more.

In 2023, as part of research in a written submission to Parliament, Octopus Energy showed that 87% of people would support a turbine in their community if it decreased their bills.

Now, I do not blame the landowner; these projects can allow farmers to retain the land in their family for generations to come. In some way, it is like discovering oil or gold on their land, and it is great that our bountiful wind and rain can be such an asset for us, especially in an era when coal is inaccessible and unacceptable, nuclear is being phased out, and gas is often imported from countries with an unacceptable moral standing, while also badly hitting our balance of payments and being environmentally unfriendly to transport to Britain. Renewables are absolutely the future.

The 68 million people in the UK are enormous beneficiaries of our renewables sectors, but the cost is borne by a fraction of that number—by those living in the remotest areas. Those of us in the Chamber represent populations who pay a 50% premium on electricity connection fees compared with those living in cities. The same people are not connected to mains gas, and therefore pay a great deal to have tankers deliver heating oil to their houses.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. As he will know, we are talking about fairness to communities. One of the unfair issues in terms of communities and the cost of electricity is standing charges, whereby households in north Wales and Merseyside pay £100 more a year than those in London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present arrangement is fundamentally unfair and that things should be shared more fairly across the nations of the United Kingdom?

[Mr MacDonald]

I absolutely love that—I am going to make the right hon. Lady a dame in my first honours list. It is an absolute disgrace that people in rural Britain pay a premium to get renewables, even though it is us generating the electricity. The standing charge should be the subject of our next discussion.

Those of us in the highlands, and indeed in many other parts of Britain, have long, dark, windy and cold winters. When many people open the curtains in the morning, they look out on to a wind farm selling cheap, green energy to the big cities. The remote highlands and islands, the Scottish Borders, Wales, Cumbria and the west country are among our poorest areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Solloway]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have had many conversations about this subject. One of the things that the Secretary of State and I have been doing is talking to Ofgem to make sure that it is looking at the standing charges. That has led to a call for input, which has recently had over 30,000 responses.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My constituent Beverley Scott, who has cancer, suffered from poor work carried out under the Government’s ECO4 scheme. This included leaving her without heating and damaging her internet. She eventually had to go to the small claims court to get redress for shoddy work, and I know of other people who have had to follow the same route. Given that provider companies, enabled by Government strategy, leave vulnerable householders with no option but to go to court, does the Minister not agree that there should be better oversight and a simpler remedy for people like Beverley Scott?

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Collins]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, particularly on her point about the labour markets, and in the Sizewell area that is incredibly important. I know from Dungeness in my constituency that it is the certainty of having long-term employment that attracts some of the best talent and encourages people, including apprentices, to join the industry. The Minister will probably want to comment on the substance of my right hon. Friend’s remarks.

In the time available to me, I want focus on the site lists consultations element of the civil nuclear road map. The Government are saying that the criteria that were applied to nuclear sites in 2011 should still apply today, and in most cases that is true. Safety, access to water—where appropriate—and grid connections could all be important considerations when it is being decided where the sites could be, along with habitat implications and, in coastal areas, flood risk. All those are constants. The one factor that has completely changed since 2011 is the size of the footprint of the nuclear facility itself.

In Dungeness, an important factor has been the existence of a special protected area as a consequence of the unique shingle peninsula on which it sits, which is the second biggest in the world and a habitat that is unique in Europe, let alone the UK—the biggest shingle peninsula in the world is Cape Canaveral, in the United States. The protections are there for areas of the shingle banks that have never been disturbed. However, there are plenty of areas surrounding existing nuclear sites that are, in effect, brownfield sites where that disturbance has taken place. As they are not in special protected areas, I believe that future development would be possible.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman is advancing a powerful argument. If we are to persuade people that SMRs are suitable for use outside conventional nuclear sites, siting them in places such as Dungeness and Trawsfynydd which do not fit under the 2011 list conveys an important message. We have to be able to persuade people that small modular reactors can be used in other areas, as well as not misusing sites that might be better used for larger nuclear projects.

[Damian Collins]

I completely agree. I have a request to make to the Government, who will be considering the responses to the consultation on the road map. I was keen to hold this debate now, during the period of the consultation, so that Members can have their own views as well. I appreciate that it would not be easy or desirable for Great British Nuclear to make technology-by-technology recommendations for every nuclear site in the country, but there should be a recognition of footprint size. There are sites, such as Dungeness in my constituency and Sizewell in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), where smaller facilities could easily be built. They could be built on decommissioned land, where old power stations have been subject to advance decommissioning. They could be built on land that was used as the building works site for the construction of the existing Dungeness B station, or even on the land that is currently a car park for the existing nuclear stations.

We need to give the market some certainty that buildings of a certain size can sit within the footprint of an existing nuclear site, on land that does not have the highest levels of habitat protection, but at present that is not envisaged. What the consultation envisages is that every site on the list must be able to do everything. If there is to be no distinguishing feature between different sources of technology, we are not distinguishing between a single SMR unit and something as big as Hinkley Point C. There must clearly be some relaxation, because otherwise other sites that are currently among the eight locations on the existing list will not be included on the new list.

The industry will have an opportunity to come forward with recommendations to the Department and make a case for individual sites—but obviously without the certainty of knowing that it is believed that technologies below a certain footprint would be suitable there—and to take into account all the other important site considerations such as the local workforce, grid connections, access to water for cooling if it is required.

I think it would be much better if, following the consultation on the civil nuclear road map, we could provide certainty about the types of technology that are possible on some of the smaller sites, so that developers and businesses coming forward with those technologies would know they look with confidence at some of those sites. I think that would make a huge difference to sites such as Dungeness, which in other respects ticks every box in respect of its suitability for new nuclear. It is on the grid, it has a domestic labour market, and it has strong support from the local community. In almost every case, the existing nuclear sites are the most supportive of investments in new nuclear, because people are already familiar with the industry and know how many jobs would be created.

If the Minister could say something about this today it would be much appreciated, but I should certainly like it to feature in the Government’s response to the consultation. As I said earlier, I am not seeking site-specific information about each technology, of which there could be many more in the future, but I hope it will at least be recognised that the big difference between SMRs and reactors the size of Hinkley Point is literally that: their size. SMRs will not be suitable everywhere—in fact, they will be suitable in relatively few places—but other technologies will be suitable on a wider base. If the Government are to meet their target, they will have to do so by deeming sites that are not currently being deployed to be suitable for SMRs. We should give the industry as much backing as possible in making that investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

We have already had mention of the significance of net zero. We know that, alongside that, the demand for electricity will increase exponentially. We know, too, that energy security not just for the United Kingdom, but for the supplies of electricity that we currently receive from European countries—or the prices that they will be prepared to pay for electricity and energy—will affect what we produce here. Ireland, to the west of the United Kingdom and, very significantly, to the west of Wales, is also going through the same thought processes about its needs for electricity.

The all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy paid a visit to Finland. Alongside the great significance of employment, which is in no way insignificant in any of our constituencies—least of all in one such as Dwyfor Meirionnydd, which is one of the lowest-paid constituencies in the UK—there are other socioeconomic drivers, which could be part of this programme and which are implicit in the road map. One of those drivers, which we have not considered in sufficient depth, is the cost of electricity in the United Kingdom.

Again, I speak for my constituency when I say that we, alongside Merseyside, pay among the highest standing charges—if not the highest standing charges—in the UK. Yet we have a tradition of generating electricity. I can think of a hydro production facility in Tanygrisiau, which is producing and feeding into the grid and goes over some of the poorest-built housing that we know of in my constituency, and certainly among the poorest-built housing in western Europe. There is a deep anomaly here. We know how much energy poverty is hitting our communities. We must be looking in future not just at the boon that comes with employment, but at the boon that comes from generating electricity. In Finland, for example, large-scale power stations pay in to real estate taxes. They pay so much that everyone else pays less. In France, people pay less for electricity when they are in the environs of a generating station. These are things that we need to consider, because as things stand we are dealing with inequality and people suffering from power poverty.

Like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I want to speak about the decommissioned power station in my constituency, but first I welcome the announcement on Wylfa. It is the policy of my party, Plaid Cymru, to support development at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, although not at any more sites in Wales. I previously worked in further education. We saw expectations and hopes raised and then dashed in communities, which is of course what has happened at Wylfa in the past. I urge the Government to ensure that what is proposed is robust, resilient and sustainable, and that the development is brought forward. I remember a programme of apprentices who had to finish their apprenticeships elsewhere because they were no longer able to do so at Wylfa. That is very damaging. There is immense potential, but this must not be just a political boon in the run-up to a general election. These schemes matter immensely to our communities, and must not be handled lightly.

Trawsfynydd, just like Dungeness, is a site that did not find its way on to the 2011 list, for reasons that were perfectly understandable at the time, but I would strongly argue that it should be under consideration in the here and now. Why? First, I will namecheck a constituent, Rory Trappe, who, when he worked at Trawsfynydd—he was also the Prospect union rep—almost single-handedly got Trawsfynydd mentioned in the Financial Times and elsewhere as the first site for which an SMR was being considered. That raised people’s hopes in my constituency. As I mentioned, the difference that would make to salaries in an area such as Meirionnydd in Gwynedd is immense. It has been part of the Ambition North Wales growth deal as well. Public money has been allocated to Trawsfynydd, but there is now a question mark hanging over that funding.

Another advantage of the site is that we have grid connectivity. I know that for some other sites that will be a question; there will be a cost, public controversy, and issues over pylons, but at Trawsfynydd, grid connectivity exists. The site is entirely in public ownership. There is a question about the best use of public money. Trawsfynydd was not on the 2011 list because it was on a lake, rather than on the sea. It was recognised then that the site was not sufficiently supplied with water for large-scale development in the future. That comes back to an argument that I raised in my intervention: if SMRs are to be shown to be suitable on sites other than conventional sites, the Government should look at how they can show that on the ground. Again, that was one of Trawsfynydd’s original positive points.

Alongside that, the Welsh Government have invested Cwmni Egino as a development company for the site. That appears to have been disregarded in the criteria. I am sure that the criteria for GBN were very worth while, but that factor, which was unique to Wales, was not considered. I strongly urge that it now be considered. Finally, there is a mix for the area. We have a hydro-generation scheme at Maentwrog, so old that it existed even before the national grid. We also have a company called Ynni Twrog with a local scheme for energy and a scheme for community energy. It wants to engage with the profits generated from Maentwrog. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss that further, and everything else that I have raised, with the Minister.

Trawsfynydd ceased to generate over 30 years ago. The fear is about what is being proposed now. I will be told that Trawsfynydd is not off the list, and I know that other sorts of technologies will be mentioned, but they are 30 years away. That is 60 years without any generation at a publicly owned site. That is more than a professional lifetime. This is a waste of a resource. We are talking about something that would make an immense difference to the area, and to north-west Wales as a whole. I would like to know what the Minister proposes for the site. Is there a possibility of an SMR? If the Minister proposes an alternative technology, what is it? How realistic is that? Are we talking about medical isotopes as well, because that has been mooted? I have mooted it, because there is a security question over their supply. I reiterate that this is a waste of a public resource. Just like at Dungeness, we have so much that we could be making better use of. I urge the Minister to consider how best to do that.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I agree with my hon. Friend on the amazing work being conducted at Sellafield in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). The lessons being learned through the decommissioning process at Sellafield will yield benefits. We are leading the way across the world on the decommissioning of sites and are very happy to be advising other countries on their decommissioning efforts. We need to ensure that any projects run by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are proved to be value for money, and that we learn from the lessons of the past.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My party’s policy is to support the development of the present nuclear sites in Wales, one of which is Trawsfynydd in my constituency. The Welsh Government have funded Cwmni Egino to develop Trawsfynydd, and £20 million was allocated only last autumn for that purpose by the north Wales growth deal to enable critical development and planning, prior to the final investment decision to be made anon. Given the strategic developments and investments in Wales, can the Minister confirm that the entirely publicly owned Trawsfynydd, with its potential 550 jobs, remains a possible location for an SMR in the near future? Will he please visit Trawsfynydd?

[Andrew Bowie]

I would be delighted to visit the right hon. Lady’s constituency. Trawsfynydd has exciting potential as a site for an SMR, and for other nuclear licensed activities. It and many others are potential sites for the deployment of these new technologies in the years ahead.