Energy Security

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

Yes, I can confirm that China has now been bought out of the deal on Sizewell. The money yesterday ensured that it is no longer involved in the development.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the future funding for Sizewell. He may be familiar with the new “regulatory asset base” approach to funding, which is built along similar lines to the contracts for difference that have been used so successfully for offshore wind power. That is how we will look to bring income to the project. I should also say that CfDs will now take place on an annualised basis, which will give those including Scottish clusters the opportunity to bid in as well.

I am always curious about the SNP’s approach to energy. As far as I can work out, it does not like the oil and gas industry—even though the industry employs thousands of its constituents—and it absolutely hates nuclear. I am not quite sure what it wants to do on non-windy days.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Cumberland has sites ready to go for new nuclear. It has expertise, interest and development companies for both small modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. Will the Secretary of State work with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) to bring Rolls-Royce SMR and UK European pressurised reactors 5 and 6 to Moorside?

[Grant Shapps]

I know that Cumberland has a tremendous amount of expertise and a lot more to offer. When Great British Nuclear launches in the new year, it will help to bring not just traditional Sizewell-style nuclear assets to this country, but the small modular reactors from Rolls-Royce and potentially other competitors.

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. May I also mention the fabulous staff in this place? I know that on occasion, some very kind Members of Parliament do give tips, even though it might not be reported.

I have covered some points around fairness for workers, but I will go into a little more detail. The Bill will create a legal obligation for employers that receive tips directly from customers, or that have control or significant influence over the distribution of tips that workers receive directly, to distribute tips to workers fairly and transparently. The obligation will be attached to the total amount of the qualifying tips paid at, or otherwise attributable to, an employer’s place of business, and the tips must be allocated fairly between workers at that place of business. For example, in the case of a big chain, the tip will go into a pot to be distributed to everyone who works not in the chain, but at that particular venue.

Importantly, the situation will remain the same in cases where employers do not receive, or have control or significant influence over, tips. For example, the Bill will not cover me giving a tenner directly to a waiter or waitress at the end of a meal, as it is clear that it is for them. However, the Bill would come into force if they put the money through the business, perhaps via a credit card payment. Similarly, the Bill will not cover situations where employees already have their own tip jar that they look after, because those tips will not be touched by the business.

Fairness is key to ensuring that businesses and employees know exactly where they stand, but we also need to ensure that there is some flexibility. Every business is different—that is the nature of it. Someone working in hairdressing is going to have a different approach to the way they receive or manage tips from someone who works in a restaurant, bar or hotel. What we are trying to do with the code of conduct is to make sure that that is covered, and I hope that is going to come after this Bill today—

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid flow. As someone who has had many an argument with restaurant managers about removing service charges in London, in order to be able to give cash directly to staff, and nearly been thrown out of restaurants for it, may I put on record my congratulations to him on bringing this Bill to the House today? Let me also add my thanks on behalf of all the hospitality industry workers in my constituency and across the wider Cumbrian area who will benefit from this.

[Dean Russell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He stands up so strongly for workers and for the rights of people across this whole country, but particularly in his constituency. I am very conscious that there is a thing called the tronc system, although I will not go into too much detail on it now because of the time available. Tronc is an arrangement commonly used in the hospitality sector, where an employer delegates the collection, allocation and distribution of tips to a person or persons known as a “troncmaster” or tronc operator. The Bill does not seek to regulate the operators of independent tronc systems, which are commonly used by many businesses already. However, I raised this matter when I was talking through how to make this Bill the best it can be and I found that some stakeholders have been concerned about whether a business could then put pressure on a troncmaster to do something that is unfair. So, to mitigate that risk, under this Bill workers can bring an employment tribunal claim if an employer’s use of an independent tronc is not fair. I hope that that will capture any concerns on that front.

As we have just discussed briefly, another aspect of fairness is ensuring that there are no deductions from tips. So at the core of the Bill is the creation of a legal obligation for employers to distribute all tips, gratuities and service charges to workers, without any deductions. When customers pay service charges, they expect that money to go in full to the staff and to the individuals they have asked it to go to. Sadly, some employers retain part or the whole service charge without passing it on to their workers, so this Bill will deal with that. Some hon. Members have asked me whether this legislation will also cover credit card deductions and administrative costs, and some businesses have raised that issue with me too. Since 2018, payment processing fees cannot be passed on to consumers. In line with that, employers will not be able to deduct payment processing fees from tips––that also includes mandatory and discretionary service charges which are added automatically on to customers’ bills by some hospitality venues. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) will be relieved that that will no longer be the case, as he has probably had arguments on that front in the past. Administering tips should not impose significantly on a business’s operating costs, but that credit card admin charge might be significant for an individual. Two or three payments can be significant for an individual when we are talking about tips. So, again, this is about fairness; businesses do not incur a significant cost in respect of this money from tips, but if it were taken off the staff, it would be significant for them. It is important to include that provision in the Bill and to put what I have just set out on the record.

Ensuring that tips are passed on to workers in full, with no deductions by employers, will make a real difference to workers’ lives, while not creating a burden on businesses. As I noted earlier, an important practical aspect of the Bill will be the code of practice, which I will expand upon now for a few moments. The Bill includes provisions for the Secretary of State to issue a statutory code of practice, which will promote fairness and transparency in relation to the distribution of qualifying tips, and help tribunals determine whether it is fair for an employer to make certain tronc arrangements. Employment tribunals must have regard to relevant provisions of the code when determining whether an allocation of tips or making of certain tronc arrangements is fair. The code will consider some of the factors that may be relevant to fairness and will provide a number of examples and real-life scenarios that exemplify fair tipping practices, to help reflect the myriad circumstances in which employers can handle tips in an acceptable fashion. The hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned engagement, so let me say that the code will be published in draft and consulted on before the relevant sections of this legislation come into force. The code will also require approval from both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that reassures colleagues across the House that there will be scrutiny and that we will ensure that it is covered fully. The defining principles of the Bill will need to capture the nuances of fairness. As I have mentioned, I want to engage widely to ensure that the code of practice really works. I welcome anyone reaching out to me after Second Reading. If the Government and the Minister support the Bill going through to the next stage, and the House joins us in that approach, I will be really keen to engage and hear hon. Members’ points.

One of the core issues is remedies and enforcement. Crucially, the Bill will be enforced by workers through the employment tribunal system and will provide employment tribunals with remedies where an employer has made deductions from tips or has not allocated tips in a fair and transparent way. If an employer does not allocate tips fairly among workers, the employment tribunal can make an order that does one of three things: require the employer to revise any allocation of tips that they have made, recommend that the employer deals with tips in a certain way, or require the employer to make a payment to one or more workers so that they receive the tips that they should have received.

The employment tribunal may additionally compensate workers by up to £5,000 for related financial loss attributable to a breach of the provisions. Workers will also be able to make a complaint to an employment tribunal if their employer does not keep sufficient records relating to tipping practices; the tribunal can order the employer to compensate workers by up to £5,000. It is worth noting that workers must consult ACAS before bringing forward a claim. The majority of employment disputes are settled before they reach an employment tribunal.

I would like it to be absolutely clear that nothing in the Bill will make changes to taxation for employers or employees. It is purely about employees’ rights and workers’ rights.

I will conclude my remarks because I want to hear the fantastic speeches that are no doubt coming up. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), for their incredible support with the Bill; I hope that I can convince colleagues to get it over the line today. I thank everyone who has helped me to introduce it to the House: hon. Members past and present, constituents and my fabulous Watford businesses and residents, who have repeatedly raised the importance of the issue. As we are all aware, the private Members’ Bill process is fragile, so I am keen to work with all hon. Members, all organisations and everyone I can to make sure that the Bill works. I urge the Minister to support it.

Energy Security Strategy

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am pleased, in this Easter season, when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, that the right hon. Gentleman is back in his place. I thought that he had disappeared for a bit, but it is very good to see him again spinning out the same lines.

Let me deal with some of his accusations. There is plenty about onshore wind in the strategy. The one thing that we say about onshore wind—unlike the right hon. Gentleman’s position—is that it has to be pursued in the context of local community support. We have always had that position and have not moved away from it. People also say, “What about the energy efficiency measures?” He will remember that we had a whole document at the end of last year devoted to energy efficiency—it was called the heat and buildings strategy. He and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) kept asking month after month, “When will the heat and buildings strategy come out?” It did come out and it addressed precisely the energy efficiency issues that he wished it to.

On nuclear—this is the last thing I will say about the remarks from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—his attempt to pretend that the last Labour Government somehow made us more secure on nuclear is laughable. That did not happen. They were notorious for doing nothing to promote the nuclear industry. They were rather like our Scottish National party friends, who are at least honest about their position—they do not want nuclear. I am still not sure what he believes about nuclear, but we are driving forward nuclear and we are delighted to make it the centrepoint of our strategy.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the Labour party destroyed Britain’s nuclear industry by failing to build new nuclear projects while in office. Labour is famous for selling off the family gold, but it also sold off cupboards full of silverware, including the UK Atomic Energy Authority Ltd, a very profitable nuclear company. Will my right hon. Friend update us on our new nuclear company, Great British Nuclear, its remit for new nuclear power stations and what that might mean for Moorside in Cumbria?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The development vehicle that we have announced in the strategy will inaugurate a new era for the nuclear industry. If hon. Members speak to anybody in the industry, they will hear people say that no Government in the past 25 years have been so positive and enthusiastic about nuclear power. There will be a great future and that represents a great endorsement for the skills and the industry that my hon. Friend has so ably promoted in the House.

Shale Gas Production

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

There were a few questions there. In respect of the data on emissions, it is impossible to judge what UK fracking emissions would look like because data has not been produced on that.

The hon. Gentleman says that fracking is worse than coal; I can be certain that there are more emissions in the production of liquefied natural gas than in the UK continental shelf natural gas. That is for sure—there is two and a half times as much. I would expect the hon. Gentleman to rally behind our call to maintain the UK continental shelf production that is currently ongoing and to import, hopefully, less LNG.

The hon. Gentleman talks about redoubling in respect of renewables. We have Europe’s largest installed offshore wind capacity, which we are already committed to quadrupling. That is twice the rate of the redoubling for which he called.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

The moratorium introduced ridiculously low seismic limits that appeared to have been written by someone who did not understand the Richter scale. Should not the decisions be taken by local planning authorities, with community involvement, and the limits set at levels similar to those we might see for development in London, for example? Should we not be locking in the community benefits of fracking sites?

[Greg Hands]

I strongly commend my hon. Friend for his support for Government policy on energy, and particularly nuclear. He mentioned seismic limits; I was not the Energy Minister at the time, but I believe that tens of thousands of complaints came in to the Geological Society at the time of the drilling. That showed the magnitude of the public impact of some of the drilling at the time.

On my hon. Friend’s point on local consent, I refer him to what I said earlier about the importance of the need to bring local communities on board in respect of any of these projects. With pretty much every type of energy production, we need to bring the local community on board, and that is the case for fracking as well.

Russian Oil Import Ban

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. We have done a huge amount as a Government in driving renewables. I was very pleased to see that the tidal stream auction has been ringfenced. On the specific Swansea lagoon project, I, as the Energy Minister at the time, and the Secretary of State felt that it was not economic, but generally I do not think any Government have done more for marine renewables and marine energy.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s swift and decisive action on phasing out Russian imports. To echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), as our minds are now focused on increased domestic production, such as that from the North sea, does the Secretary of State agree with me that the benefits of domestic supply chain resilience and security should also encompass other critical minerals, such as coking coal, of which we looked to Russia for over 750,000 tonnes—50% of our requirement—last year?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a diversity of sources for coking coal; we are not just looking to Russia. He makes an excellent point about critical minerals, and he will appreciate that this is the first Government ever to have a critical minerals strategy. It will be published in the next few weeks, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) is leading on that within the Department.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member have any figures on how many of those jobs in Warrington might be put at risk by the exclusion of companies that are partly foreign-owned? If passed, Labour’s amendment might keep them out of new nuclear build.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I do not have the data on my person at this point, but ultimately more jobs are at risk in Warrington North’s nuclear sector if we do not approve the building of new nuclear. Regardless of whether that involves direct state investment, a regulated asset base model, as we are discussing today, or foreign investment, the fact is that we need to get it built, because all those jobs will be at risk if we do not.

Going back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, we have heard complaints about the cost of the regulated asset base model. Indeed, my preference would be direct state investment in this vital national infrastructure, which would keep the stations and the power they produce in public ownership. None the less, the model that we are discussing must be recognised as an investment that guarantees construction and production over the longer term.

As I wind up my remarks, I want to point out that the uncertainty and lack of guarantees have left the industry in the dark for so long. With the uncertainties now addressed by the Bill and the amendments that Labour has tabled, the industry can now have the confidence to plan and move forward. My hope is that by passing the Bill on a cross-party basis, it will send the signal that there is a clear consensus on the vital role that nuclear will continue to have in our energy mix. This message is fundamental as we hopefully move on from Sizewell C to other projects and plan these as a fleet to drive down costs and to maintain and expand the world-class expertise and skills of the British nuclear sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

May I answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) first? We are more interested in what has been tried and tested here in the United Kingdom than in what may not have succeeded in a different model in a different sovereign country. Obviously, this is the first time it has been used for nuclear power here, but let us not forget, as I have pointed out, that there was a whole generation in which no nuclear power stations were built at all. When it came to the funding for Hinkley C in around 2010-11, I remember well the debates that we had at that time and, of course, the uncomfortable truth that we had lost the expertise to build these things ourselves, so we needed to bring in both foreign finance and foreign expertise. The situation today is different, because we are building on what we have already learned and achieved so far in the process at Hinkley Point.

I agree with the Government that this is a time to choose to move to regulated asset financing, because the crucial difference is that the businesses involved will be able to finance at lower rates and, as I understand it, two thirds of the cost of electricity from Hinkley Point C will come from the cost of capital. Making access to income available during the construction period will both reduce the costs of the project and make it more attractive to institutional investors, who are quite happy with a lower but steady return on their investment. I believe that that is the key reason—and I am comfortable with it—for adopting that approach to this nuclear power station and, I hope, others to come in the future.

[Mark Jenkinson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) first and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

[Mark Jenkinson]

If I could take my hon. Friend back to Sizewell C and to EDF in his constituency, and specifically to amendment 2 in the name of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, does he share my concerns that removing nuclear companies that are part owned by foreign powers would remove EDF’s involvement in the likes of Sizewell C? That would kill Sizewell C and it would kill Moorside.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I was coming on to what seems to be a curious irony in the position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, particularly the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for whom I have a lot of respect on energy issues. It seems ironic that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, amendment 2 would make it virtually impossible for a company partly or wholly owned by a foreign power to build and run a nuclear entity. Of course, since British Energy was sold by the last Labour Government in 2009, it is not possible for a company that is entirely British owned to do the work. In that context, the amendment seems rather ironic. Perhaps the fact that it would be a UK subsidiary of EDF answers the question; otherwise, I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that amendment 2 should be ruled out immediately by Members on both sides of the House on the basis of it being wholly impractical.

I am conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham wants to intervene, but I think the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Jenkinson]

We have heard a lot today about offshore wind and how it could be the saviour of our energy system. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the levelised cost of energy of our largest offshore wind farm last year was £140 per megawatt-hour, which is twice the price of nuclear energy, if not more?

[John Redwood]

I have learned enough about energy to know that people produce figures that suit their case. I agree with my hon. Friend that we can say that wind energy is a lot dearer than its advocates suggest. It depends on whether we cost out the back-up power and the back-up arrangements. Obviously, once the windmills are turning they deliver very cheap power, but there is a lot of sunk cost to take care of, and we do need to account somehow for the cost of the alternative when the wind does not blow. We would need to do quite a lot of homework, and probably not in a Third Reading debate, to crack what exactly is the true cost of wind power.

I urge Ministers to think again about availability and affordability now as well as their nuclear ideas.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food and drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water that is provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to [e-mail].

May I have declarations of interest first, please?

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a matter of public record that I was employed in the nuclear sector prior to my election to this place.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

Clause 15

Regulations about revenue collection contracts

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Ms Fovargue, I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a matter of public knowledge that I worked in the nuclear industry before my election to this place.

Clause 1

Key definitions for Part 1

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(6) ‘Owned by a foreign power’ means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”

This amendment is a definition of “foreign power” set out in amendment 2.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Scotland benefits from a lot of this country’s nuclear infrastructure. I am always a bit puzzled about why the SNP does not seem particularly interested in the jobs in Scotland that are involved in this country’s critical nuclear infrastructure.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the rest of the UK can learn from Scotland’s lead on net zero when we see the low-carbon content of their grid, which is thanks to nuclear technology?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend makes a very strong point—one made by quite a few people who were in Glasgow just two weeks ago. Ironically, in Scotland, making that argument strongly were not just the UK Government, but countries from all over the world. They were making the argument for nuclear power being part of our low-carbon future.

The powers of the Scottish Government are unchanged. The Bill makes provisions for the Secretary of State to consult named persons and organisations prior to the specification of any project under a nuclear RAB, and to consult those persons or organisations before he or she amends a projects licence to insert RAB conditions. Ministers in devolved Administrations will be captured—in scope, I should say; not physically—by this consultation.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Mark Jenkinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The right hon. Gentleman said he was first elected in 2001, but my guess is that he was a supporter of the 1997 manifesto. What says supports what the Government have been doing here for some time, which has been to increase our nuclear capacity and make sure the financing models are in place to support the funds. I am surprised he voted against the Budget last week, with its £1.7 billion made available for new nuclear. Perhaps he might explain to his constituents why he was against that Budget.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Just to carry on the point about Labour’s involvement in this, I should point out that at his final party conference Tony Blair said:

“10 years ago I parked the issue of nuclear power. Today, I believe without it, we are going to face an energy crisis and we can’t let that happen.”

For the first time in my life, I am going to say that Tony Blair was right. The French are reaping the rewards of Messmer’s nuclear legacy. Will my right hon. Friend commit today to his Messmer-style nuclear legacy for the UK?

[Greg Hands]

I, too, do not often agree with Tony Blair, but it was good to see his conversion in the end, albeit that it took him 10 years. I have always been a passionate supporter of nuclear power, right since I was first elected in 2005, which was round about the time of that Labour volte-face. I was a strong supporter of Labour’s changing its view at that time; it is just such a pity that there was a lost decade before it came to that view.

Let me move on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

It will be no surprise to hear that I have no confidence that the true costs of nuclear waste disposal are actually included. We hear that this is rolled up in the strike rate for Hinkley, but if something happens and EDF goes out of operation, who will pick up the additional costs? It will clearly be the bill payers or the taxpayer. We hear about the fact that nuclear is supposed to be clean energy, but how can it be classed as clean energy when we are burying radioactive waste and having to store it for up to 1,000 years? That, to me, does not mean clean energy.

Taishan in China was held up as an exemplar EPR project when it was commissioned, but it has been offline since June this year due to safety concerns and rod damage. It is clear that the design and construction of EPR nuclear stations has still not been bottomed out properly. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), said, a reliance on French state-owned EDF and the Chinese state company China General Nuclear kind of undermines the argument about having sovereign energy security. It makes no sense.

Despite the cost and programme issues at Hinkley, we are told that Sizewell C will somehow be different. There will be cost savings from learning on Hinkley. The design will be replicated, saving more money, but the reality is that the site at Sizewell C is bound to have different ground conditions, different environmental considerations and different logistics and site constraints, which affects methods of working, and that means that we cannot build an exact duplicate station the same way.

Even if savings are realised on Sizewell C compared with Hinkley, what does that mean cost-wise? If Sizewell C saves 25% compared with Hinkley, that is still a capital cost outlay of £18 billion. Surely there are better ways to spend £18 billion. We heard from the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) about the number of jobs being created. If I was given £18 billion to £20 billion, I am sure that I could create 30,000 jobs —by the way, that is £730,000-odd a job in capital costs alone. That is not a good return.

On costs, we are told that a new deal signed under the proposed new funding model in the Bill will cost consumers only £1 a month during construction, but if we look at a 10-year construction period for Sizewell C, we see that that means that bill payers in 28 million households will pay £3.4 billion before it is operational. That is a further £3.4 billion in expenditure when that money could be better invested elsewhere.

We still do not know with this Bill what the long-term pay-back options will be. Will there be a further agreement on the strike rate or a minimum floor price on the sale of energy? What length of contract will bill payers be tied into once a RAB model for an agreement is signed off?

What else could we do with that amount of money? We could upgrade all homes to energy performance certificate band C. We could have wave and tidal generation. The UK Government are willing to introduce the Bill and commit hundreds of millions of pounds to nuclear—the Budget has £1.7 billion just for developing nuclear to a negotiation stage—but they will not even ringfence £24 million for wave and tidal in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction. The disparity is clear.

It is time the Government took their blinkers off. It will be a real disgrace if they do not provide a pathway for wave and tidal projects to scale up. Scotland is currently leading the world on the issue; the O2 tidal generator is operational and grid-connected in Orkney. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the request to ringfence a small amount of money in pot 2 of the forthcoming contracts for difference auction.

[Mark Jenkinson]

I am a huge supporter of tidal energy, but is it not the case that nuclear, given its energy density, is the most environmentally friendly and low-carbon technology that we have, while tidal has the potential to significantly damage marine ecosystems? I am a big supporter of tidal energy, but we have to be really careful about where we deploy such things. We have a ready-built, proven technology here—the most environmentally friendly and low-carbon technology that there is.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about nuclear being clean—oh, wait, apart from the radioactive waste that we still do not know what to do with. We will ignore that point, but he has a valid point about the need for clear environmental considerations with respect to where we site any marine project. That should be part of a robust, up-front planning process, working with the likes of Marine Scotland. There are regulatory bodies that have oversight of these projects, so it is important that they be involved in the planning process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is still a huge future for wave and tidal.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. I was happy to co-sign the cross-party letter from the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I fully support. I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is a matter that we agree on across parties.

Looking at other technologies that we should be spending money on, I compliment the UK Government on seeing the opportunities that floating offshore wind can bring, but let us start deploying it much more quickly and investing more money, because that is where the real future is. Clearly, the further out to sea the turbines are, the greater the reliability of wind and subsequent generation.

There needs to be much greater investment in carbon capture and storage. The Government need to reverse their disgraceful decision not to have a Scottish cluster as part of their track 1 CCS projects. A Scottish cluster would also deliver hydrogen production, which is vital on the pathway to net zero.

We heard earlier, as we always do, the argument that nuclear is required for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but as I have tried to point out to the Minister, there is an existing technology that can address that issue: pumped storage hydro, a renewable energy source that utilises surplus grid energy to fill the reservoirs and can then dispatch electricity when required. Pumped storage hydro is the perfect foil for intermittent renewables, rather than big, inflexible nuclear power stations that invariably pump energy to the grid when it is not required. An Imperial College report suggests that there could be system savings of £700 million a year from using pumped storage hydro technology instead of nuclear.

SSE has all the necessary permissions in place, right now, to progress a new pumped storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas in the Highlands. It is progressing the design at its financial risk, and all that it needs is agreement with the Government and a minimum floor price for electricity—not a strike rate and not direct funding, just a minimum guarantee on the sale price of electricity. Then the development can reach the construction stage, and can be commissioned in the same timeframe as Hinkley. I ask the Government to reconsider, and to get round the table with SSE and other developers.

[Mark Jenkinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. I am a big supporter of pumped hydro, which is great for storage, but we cannot neglect the fact that we require a surplus of electricity to pump the water in the first place, up to the point of that storage. It is great to be in control of when we release the water and use the energy, but we have to think about how we get it up there in the first place.

[Alan Brown]

Absolutely. That is my point. This is about utilising spare energy and then filling the reservoirs. That is much more productive than, with nuclear, putting additional electricity into the grid and then making constraint payments to wind farm developers to turn the turbines off. Those turbines could be used to much greater effect for the likes of pumped storage hydro, or generating green hydrogen.

It is clear that there are alternatives to nuclear. The Government have rightly pointed out that the existing nuclear fleet is coming to an end, but they have wrongly concluded that that means we need new nuclear. Dungeness went offline earlier this year, seven years early, because of safety concerns. Hunterston B is about to go offline, and Hinkley Point B will close next summer. Hartlepool and Heysham will follow in 2024. That means that Hinkley Point C will not even replace the lost capacity, and by 2024, 5.3 GW of nuclear capacity will have been lost to the grid.

If the grid can operate successfully without that 5.3 GW of nuclear for three or four years until Hinkley’s 3.3 GW comes on line, that in itself confirms that new nuclear power is not required. In all likelihood, Torness and Heysham 2 will not last until 2030, so all but one of the existing stations will be offline before Hinkley comes online. By not replacing the existing nuclear fleet as it comes to the end of its life, the UK Government are themselves proving that we do not need a nuclear baseload, because the grid can operate without it, unless an energy security crisis arises when all the other stations go offline. The Minister can address that later if he wants.

Although here in the Chamber it is just me saying that we do not need new nuclear, plenty of experts agree. Back in 2015, the then chief executive officer of National Grid, Steve Holliday, said:

“The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”.

In the 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, Mycle Schneider, who was the lead author of the report, said that nuclear power

“meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”

A recent study by Good Energy and the Energy System Catapult demonstrated that carbon emissions from the power sector could be eliminated as early as 2030 without the need to develop new nuclear power. Sarah Darby, associate professor of the energy programme at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, has said:

“Nuclear stations are particularly unsuited to meeting peak demand: they are so expensive to build that it makes no sense to use them only for short periods of time. Even if it were easy to adjust their output flexibly—which it isn’t—there doesn’t appear to be any business case for nuclear, whether large, small, ‘advanced’ or otherwise.”

It is clear that there is not a case for new nuclear—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) pointed out earlier, we have yet to address the nuclear waste issue. It will cost £132 billion to deal with the existing nuclear waste legacy. Why do we want to create another waste legacy for future generations to deal with?

So we do not need nuclear, and we do not need this Bill. Even if we consider what it aims to achieve, the fact remains that there is market failure, given that Hitachi has walked away from Wylfa and Oldbury and Toshiba has walked away from Moorside. So there is no competition to drive down cost, and EDF and China General Nuclear are still the only show in town. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, while the RAB model may might bring down costs, what protections are there in the event of project overruns?

Clause 2 puts all the powers of negotiation and contract award into the hands of the Secretary of State, and allows the Secretary of State to determine what is value for money. We all know how good the Government are at direct negotiations, so how can they guarantee value for money in a transparent manner?

As I touched on earlier, we have been told for five years that Hinkley is good value for money, but now the Government have come back to the House to say that actually that is not the case and they have a new plan for how to deliver nuclear. I therefore cannot possibly support this Bill, especially as the electorate of Scotland have consistently voted to elect a Government on a “no new nuclear” manifesto. Why should Scottish bill payers be forced to pay for nuclear energy that they do not want or require? This is another democratic deficit for Scotland, especially when so much of our renewable energy is not being supported at the moment and we are stuck with the highest grid charges in Europe. It really is time that Scotland had control of its own energy decisions, but in the meantime I will be proud and pleased to vote against this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

If we did not already know that decarbonising our energy supply is one of the most urgent challenges facing not just this country but the whole world, the ongoing discussions in Glasgow at the COP26 summit have certainly informed us. There is now worldwide consensus on the need to phase out the use of coal and other fossil fuels in energy production, transport, heating and industry, and it is encouraging to hear some of the commitments made by delegates towards that goal. We have quite a good story to tell already on that in this country. In the UK, energy production accounts for approximately 15% of all carbon emissions. One significant challenge we face is how to replace the role of coal and fossil fuels in energy production with carbon-free alternatives, but we have already made great progress in decarbonising our energy supply. Carbon dioxide emissions from power stations were 75% lower in 2020 than in 1990, and this change has come about largely from the introduction of new energy sources, particularly renewables, such as wind and solar. The use of coal in our power supply fell sharply from the mid-2010s onwards, after which the use of renewables expanded rapidly. Wind power is now the cheapest form of electricity generation, and it was Government policy that made the substantial difference to this change, notably the decision of the then Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to introduce contracts for difference to incentivise private sector investment into the renewables sector. That Secretary of State was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), whom, I gather, went on to more exalted roles.

The legislation has strong precedents. Unlocking the barriers to private sector investment into carbon-free alternatives in our energy market has catalysed the changes we need to see. We need to go further to make sure that we can completely decarbonise our energy sector, supporting renewables and household and community energy.

[Mark Jenkinson]

Does the hon. Lady not prefer France’s decarbonised electricity model to Germany’s model of ever-increasing emissions and air pollution because of its decisions to close down nuclear power stations and go back to burning lignite, the dirtiest form of coal there is?

[Sarah Olney]

My remarks are about the UK power sector, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about Germany. Clearly, as I think I have clearly stated, we want to move towards carbon-free alternatives to coal. I also want to make it clear that it is not our position that we should be closing down nuclear power stations; we support the ones that are currently operational and where contracts have been signed to open new ones. As I want to go on to make clear, our position is very much that there should not be new nuclear power stations. We need to go further to make sure that we can completely decarbonise our energy sector. We want to support renewables and household and community energy. It will create jobs. To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) about jobs in the nuclear sector, let me say that the advantage of jobs in the renewables sector and in other alternative energy supplies is that they can be spread over a much larger area of the country. I believe he said that there are probably 18 viable sites for new nuclear power stations, many of which are concentrated in his part of the world. I am interested in job creation right across the country, and renewables offer much better opportunities for us on that.

Of course, we want to cut fossil fuel imports. On that basis, I strongly back the Government in what they are trying to achieve here, but not for nuclear. I wish to reiterate the Liberal Democrat position: there is currently no economic or environmental case for the construction of any further nuclear stations in the UK. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) set out, in his extensive and detailed speech, very much what we believe: there really is not a case for such construction.

A further point I wish to make is that it will take 20 years to build a new nuclear power station, however it is funded. We have very ambitious net zero targets. As the Minister said, we want to be net zero in our power sector by 2030, which is much sooner than in 20 years. We need to move considerably faster than that, and we already have the tools and technology to cut carbon significantly in our power sector in a much shorter period, so we need to accelerate the deployment of renewable power. We need to remove restrictions on solar and wind. We need to build more interconnectors to guarantee the security of supply. If we did that, we could reach at least 80% renewable electricity by 2030, which would be consistent with the Government’s aims to achieve net zero.

Notwithstanding the points made by other Members about the growth in demand for electricity from electric cars, we can do much more to reduce demand for electricity from existing sources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green]

I am concerned about the strategic national interest, but I think that most people at home would need to have reassurance on this: the security risk of the technical aspects, to which people might be more sensitive, is different from the financial aspects, which is what the Chinese involvement is at the moment. Those are two very different things. However, I do acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Mark Jenkinson]

On security, the Office for Nuclear Regulation is considered to be one of the best nuclear regulators in the world. I certainly have faith in its being able to do its job, but is not the reason why state-backed companies are involved in nuclear construction that they have the money to put in up front? Is not this legislation exactly what we need to remove the need for them to be involved?

[Chris Green]

I agree entirely that there are huge challenges for the private sector to come up with the cash for the nuclear sector, because of providing the money up front; it takes such a long time to build a power station before energy or electricity can be produced, and people can get returns for their money. That is why the regulated asset-based model is key. It has been used in other areas successfully, so it is now seen as a reliable way of financing large projects.

Now is the time to make progress in this area. We have the skills base, the national need and the national security questions. All these things come together at the same time to make a compelling argument, so I am pleased that the Government are bringing this legislation forward, whether it is for the larger-scale nuclear reactors or the smaller-scale nuclear reactors. Let me finally say to my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that he has an interest in this—that, in the slightly longer term, if we do develop the fusion reactors, perhaps this funding model could be used there.