Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Scottish Borders council on the cross-border connection.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

National Grid Electricity Transmission has concluded its first consultation on the English section of the cross-border connection, with further consultation expected next year. The Scottish section is being developed by SP Energy Networks; consenting decisions on that portion are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. It is for the developers to progress their proposals and to seek the necessary consents.

[John Lamont]

The mega-pylons comprising the cross-border connection will have a major impact on residents in the Scottish Borders. Data centres, wind farms, solar farms, substations and battery storage plants will follow in the wake of the pylons, but local councillors and residents feel powerless to influence these developments. Will the Minister meet me and local Scottish Borders councillors to discuss their concerns? Will the Government support my Energy and Digital Infrastructure (Planning) Bill, which will provide certainty to local communities and the council on how such developments should be considered?

[Michael Shanks]

I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past, and I am very happy to meet again to discuss these issues, but I reiterate that it is not for me to make decisions on those applications; they are made by the Scottish Government, as are decisions on all planning matters in Scotland. He can shake his head, but it is true. It is important that we bring communities with us on this; that is critical in the planning process. It is why we announced that the communities across the UK who host such infrastructure UK should benefit from bill discounts directly, but there should also be community benefits in communities like his.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The proposed route of the cross-border connection cuts a swathe across the north Cumbria section of my constituency and passes through, or close to, four sites of special scientific interest. I recognise the importance of the project, but will the Minister please urge National Grid to maximise undergrounding on this section of the project?

[Michael Shanks]

As I said, individual projects have to go through the planning process and develop their proposals, but the Government have a preference for pylons, rather than undergrounding—the previous Government had exactly the same position—not least because undergrounding is four or five times more expensive, and it is consumers across the country who pay that additional cost. We are very clear that building the grid is absolutely critical to getting clean, cheaper power to people’s homes and businesses. It is a job that the previous Government never did, and that upgrade is now absolutely critical.

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to help reduce energy costs for businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Given that a regulatory process is under way, I cannot comment on particular projects. However, we have been very clear that any consenting decisions for new oil and gas must be compatible with our climate obligations. We have set that out at every stage of the process, since we inherited the court judgments on the previous Government’s handling of those consent decisions.

[Fleur Anderson]

Many of my constituents in Putney have written to me about this. They are very concerned about Rosebank’s lifetime emissions, which are equivalent to 254 million tonnes of CO₂. As many colleagues have mentioned, this summer, we had extreme weather. The London ambulance service said that it had more call-outs this summer, because of the heatwave, than it did during covid. With that background, can the Minister tell me whether approving Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s climate targets and obligations under the Paris agreement?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me reiterate that I cannot comment on particular projects that are being considered for decisions. On the more general point that my hon. Friend rightly raises, it is imperative that we look at the impact that climate change is having. We all lived through this summer, and have seen the evidence of climate change up close. It is important that any decisions we make are compatible with our climate obligations. As even the Conservatives have now accepted, it is worth remembering that any new projects in the North sea will not take a penny off bills.

[Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?

[Michael Shanks]

As I have said on a number of occasions, we are considering the evidence that has been submitted on these projects. We have had to pick up a process that was left behind by the previous Government, and we have done that as quickly as possible. We will make decisions in due course. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks about common sense, but thousands of his constituents are reliant on jobs in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, yet he stands here, time after time, opposing investment in those things. If he is in favour of jobs in his constituency, he should be in favour of all of them.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is a new Member, but his behaviour counts, just as everybody else’s does. I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

In Canada, Prime Minister Carney has taken a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition than his predecessor, notably by designating the west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. In this country, the Prime Minister says that drilling in the North sea is something that he is pragmatic about. Does the Minister agree with continued drilling in the North sea, and does he see us taking a similar approach to Canada, and securing agreement to emission reductions in return for that drilling?

[Michael Shanks]

It is always useful to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee; I will look into the example he gave. On pragmatism, we have been clear that we want a pragmatic future for the North sea. That means continued oil and gas for many decades, but also investing in what comes next in the North sea, so that there is a fair and prosperous transition. The North sea remains a vital asset for the country, supporting jobs, growth and our energy security. We are determined to make sure that there is a strong pathway for the communities involved, and for jobs. Oil and gas will be important, but it is critical that we build up the industries that come next.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets,

“we can’t have any new oil and gas”.

She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?

[Michael Shanks]

It is pragmatic to say that oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix for decades to come, and the North sea remains an important part of that. We are not about switching off the taps in the North sea—we said that in our manifesto, and we will deliver on it—but we are about building clean energy in the future. The Green party comes here and pontificates on a lot of these issues, but it opposes the very infrastructure that would get us off fossil fuels. It cannot have it both ways.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

We are in a global energy supply crisis, as oil shipments remain stuck; a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies have been disrupted by the war in Iran; and across Europe, gas reserves are at record lows as we head into winter. But there is good news: Jackdaw and Rosebank could be producing oil and gas this winter. The bad news is that we have a Government who are either too scared of their green lobby, or too naive about the supply risks that we face, to act. Now that the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is over, and before we get too close to COP, when will the Government finally take our energy security seriously and permit Jackdaw and Rosebank?

[Michael Shanks]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as on staying in the energy brief. She eloquently outlines the exact problem at the heart of the Conservative party’s policy. She said clearly that the issues in the middle east leave us exposed to an energy crisis, but her party’s plan is to increase that exposure by having even more gas in our energy mix—it is simply not credible. The Conservatives’ plan has already been ridiculed because the figures were wrong when they published it; it had a gas price not based in reality, given everything going on in the middle east. We will make pragmatic decisions on the future of the North sea, but we are also all about our energy security long into the future. They remain stuck on the very exposure that is driving up everyone’s bills.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

11. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of constructing energy infrastructure on peatland on the climate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

13. What recent progress she has made on reforming electricity grid connections.

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Our electricity grid is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the country, but it was allowed to get into a complete mess through under-investment and a failure to tackle the grid connection queue, which got to over 700 GW under the previous Government. We have grappled with that legacy head-on, reducing the queue by 300 GW and ensuring that accurate connection offers are issued. We have made progress on that, but there is much more to do to make sure that the grid works for the people of this country. That is why we are injecting public control back into the system by launching Great British Grid.

[Darren Paffey]

Southampton’s port electrification and decarbonisation projects are ready to go, but we still cannot get the national grid upgrades that we need for at least another decade. The Prime Minister himself has said that this drives costs up, drags growth down and holds Britain back, so I really welcome the announcements about Great British Grid. Will the Minister say when GB Grid will be able to start filling those gaps that exist at the moment, and will he meet me and Southampton’s businesses so that we can find a way forward and get good green growth in Southampton’s postcodes?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the point that the Prime Minister made about how critical it is to fix the fundamental problems with connecting to the grid. That is why we have announced that we have set up Great British Grid as part of Great British Energy. We have made substantial progress on reforming the queue, but we do have to build the grid after decades of under-investment. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue, and I am fairly confident that we can make sure that National Grid is part of that conversation as well.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

Bute Energy is planning to build a big wind farm in mid-Wales, and it is going to connect that wind farm over 47 km of pylons into a substation in North Shropshire that does not yet exist. I found out on the National Energy System Operator’s website that that substation is likely to be a 24 bay, 400 kV substation in a place with no substantial roads and a good amount of useful farmland. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the appropriateness of the site? I think it could go elsewhere, which would require a shorter run of pylons for Bute Energy. There are more appropriate places to build it than Lower Frankton.

[Michael Shanks]

I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue, as I am always happy to meet Members from across the House. It is not for me as a Minister to decide the exact locations of substations, but I am happy to engage with her and to raise the issue with the relevant transmission owner.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

T4. St Ann’s school, Grove House nursery and North primary school in Ealing Southall are all getting new solar panels because of this Government’s investment in Great British Energy. Does the Minister agree that the work he is doing to bring down energy bills for schools will allow more money to be spent where it matters—on teaching and learning?

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I congratulate St Ann’s, Grove House and North primary school on getting solar panels on their rooftops. I have visited schools that have had solar installed; it is fantastic to see the young people learning about renewable energy at the same time as bills go down in the school and more money is invested in frontline teaching. That is exactly what we want Great British Energy to deliver.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

T3. Families on the Isle of Wight were interested to hear the Prime Minister wanting to do his bit to help by telling us where we could buy cheaper fuel at the forecourt via the fuel finder app. Our interest waned somewhat when we discovered that the cheaper fuel was available in Portsmouth, which involves a two-hour round trip on a ferry. Does the Minister accept that this is a city-focused Prime Minister leading a city-focused Government who do not understand the realities of life in rural and coastal communities, including high energy costs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. The Government entered office with a target to decarbonise the grid by 2030. The Public Accounts Committee looked at the previous Government’s plans to do so by 2035, which were over-optimistic. I welcome the new Secretary of State to her position. Will she reassure us that she will get into the detail of that project, and when will she announce to the House what the real date will be?

[Michael Shanks]

When we came into government, we set this incredibly ambitious target to decarbonise the power system, which meant 95% of our electricity coming from clean sources. We have done everything possible to move towards that, and we are closer than we have ever been. It is worth saying that every single solar farm and wind farm that we switch on helps us to get off gas. In just the past few months since what has been happening in the middle east has taken course, we have been saving £5 million a day in displacing gas from the system because of the clean power mission. We are making huge progress and will continue pushing towards it.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Ministers have repeatedly stated their intention to establish local trading to unleash the full potential of community energy, but details are still not forthcoming. Will the Minister set out a timeline to give community energy projects the clarity that they have so long been waiting for?

[Michael Shanks]

I recognise, as I always do, the hon. Lady’s championing of the sector. We on the Government Benches agree with her about the importance of community energy. She will not have to wait very long.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

T7. My constituent Chris Harris has developed EnviroShip, a battery-based solution for transporting excess renewable energy via repurposed liquefied natural gas ship to areas of high usage around the UK. Will the Minister meet him to discuss the role that this solution could play in meeting our energy demand and net zero goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about carbon capture more generally. We are absolutely looking at alternatives for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. The Peak Cluster is not a Government-backed project; it is for the scheme to do all the community engagement. I have heard from many Members across the House that engagement has not been as good as it should be. I would encourage those at the cluster to ensure that it is as strong as it can be, and the project will obviously be subject to a planning application when it comes forward.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I want to return to Jackdaw and Rosebank. Last week, Jess from my office organised a showing of the “National Emergency Briefing”, which was very well attended. Afterwards, I do not think anybody I spoke to thought that Jackdaw or Rosebank should go ahead. I know the Secretary of State will not be drawn on this for legal reasons, but it would be good to hear her acknowledge the deep concerns that many people have about this issue. One person asked that if it does go ahead, could every single penny of the money raised by the Government be invested in the transition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I am proud to stand behind a Government who are taking climate action seriously. However, we are already overshooting critical limits, and climate change will only get worse if we do not stop burning fossil fuels. Will the full direct climate impact of Rosebank and the implications of the international community’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels be considered in making this decision?

[Michael Shanks]

As I have said in a number of answers, I cannot comment on the particular projects. On the general point, the very reason we are in this situation with these consents is that, because of the court judgment, we have to take into account the scope 3 emissions of these projects, which means there will be a full environmental assessment, and we have been very clear that that environmental assessment is critical in the consenting decisions that we will make in due course.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State says, the Falkland Islands are independent, but she seems to gloss over the fact that the Foreign Secretary still has to give approval to oil drilling. Will she therefore give her full-throated support to the decision today and support the Falkland Islands in this important venture? Will she also tell us when she was consulted on the decision?

[Michael Shanks]

This is quite a change to the Conservatives’ foreign policy if their position is now that we should interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the Falkland Islands Government. That was not their position when they were in government, and it is not the position of this Government.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Ahead of the Budget, I have been talking to many small businesses in my constituency. The Minister might be particularly interested to know that that includes 12 independent breweries, which are really struggling with their energy bills. What representations have been made to the Chancellor about the need to support them?

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

When Torness closes in 2030, Scotland will be left without a nuclear power station for the first time since the 1950s. That steady, low-carbon power will still have to come from somewhere, but the SNP Government still refuse to back nuclear. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about keeping Scotland’s lights on once Torness closes?

[Michael Shanks]

I know the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this subject. I completely agree with her: Torness nuclear power station has been keeping the lights on in Scotland every single day of the week, and it is a disgrace that the Scottish Government are refusing to accept the critical role that that firm power plays in Scotland’s system. There is absolute potential for new nuclear and for good jobs in every part of Scotland. It is missing out on thousands of jobs because of the anti-science, ideological position of the Scottish Government. I take every opportunity that I can to persuade SNP Members of the error of their ways, but since they do not even bother to turn up in this House, I am afraid I will have to continue that debate with Scottish Ministers.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

Last year, some of us warned that distributing heating oil support through local authorities carried risks, with some councils imposing strict means tests that help too few and others setting limited criteria, meaning nearly all applicants were successful but got very little and then blamed the Government for insufficient support. In Cumbria, that is exactly what happened. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the right people receive the right level of support?

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Earlier this year, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency ceased production, creating job losses and meaning that a greater proportion of our diesel products have to be imported at greater cost. Do Ministers now regret not giving additional support to the continuation of production there?

[Michael Shanks]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as we went through that process. As the House will remember, the insolvency was driven by decisions that the directors of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery had made at the time. The investigation into their actions continues. We tried everything we could to find a buyer. I am glad that Phillips 66, next door, has taken over the assets so that we can continue to make use of the site and to do everything we can to support the workers, who do an incredibly important job.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. £15,000 in 1991 is certainly not £15,000 now, so will the Secretary of State meet with me to discuss amending the outdated schedule 4 to the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to raise the £15,000 statutory cap on the home loss payment so that my Coalsnaughton constituents can receive fair compensation as they face the demolition of their homes?

[Michael Shanks]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work with the community in Coalsnaughton. I visited recently and met with householders, and they are going through a hellish situation that is not of their own making. The Mining Remediation Authority is working on a case-by-case basis with individual households to ensure a process is in place that works for individual households. We are limited by the legislation, but the UK Government have been clear that we will meet all the costs for those householders. I am happy to meet with him to discuss the issue further.

[Alicia Kearns]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister did not mean to, but one might say he seemed keen to misrepresent the relationship between the Falkland Islands and the UK Government. The Falkland Islands are independent, but the Foreign Secretary has a responsibility to sign off any such decision on oil drilling, which is not what the Minister said. It was also a surprise that when I directly asked the Secretary of State my question, she chose not to give her support and directly answer the question. How might I get Ministers to ensure that they accurately represent the relationship between the overseas territories and ourselves?