East Park Energy: North Bedfordshire

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on securing the debate. Although I disagree with some of what he said, the tone of his remarks is welcome. I will respond to some of his points, but given the time I will not be able to respond to them all.

On a general point, I appreciate that many issues, and planning issues in particular, are contentious. As Members of Parliament, we all know that as such issues are raised regularly. Although we might take decisions as a Government that people will disagree with, I hope that I have always given the impression that I am always keen to hear the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and that other hon. Members raise, and I want to continue those conversations.

Helpfully, the hon. Gentleman said at the outset that I will not be able to comment on the specific application that he references, and it is worth being clear about why that is: the application will come before my Department for a decision. As the Minister with a policy interest in this area, I personally do not see the papers for such decisions and I am not engaged in that process. My noble friend Lord Whitehead usually makes these decisions, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is important that no Minister who has a role in decision making speaks about the specifics, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. However, I can talk in more general terms about how we ensure that solar projects, which are really important, are rolled out sensibly and sensitively, which is at the heart of many of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

To start, I will take us back slightly to the bigger picture about why solar power is so important in the first place, and why it is at the heart of the clean energy mission. We know that far too often energy bills are still being set by the cost of gas, and that deploying renewables faster than we have before is a way that we can reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, protecting bill payers now and in the future. That deployment also provides an economic opportunity to create thousands of jobs in communities across the country. In addition, the Government cares deeply about tackling the most existential crisis that the planet faces. I will return to this point, but the effects of climate change, which we see all too often, cannot be put off until tomorrow. It is hugely important that we tackle them now, so this mission is critical.

Solar is at the heart of the mission—and critical to it—because it is one of the cheapest renewable energy sources that we can deploy, and it can be deployed at scale. The aim of our clean power mission is to achieve at least 45 GW to 47 GW of solar by 2030. We are at around 22 GW today, so if we are going to deliver that goal, we need to rapidly deploy a combination of ground-mounted solar and a roof-top revolution, which I will return to. At the same time, we have a commitment to doing that sensitively for the communities that host that infrastructure, and to ensuring that those communities gain a benefit from hosting it on behalf of the country.

I will pick just some of the hon. Gentleman’s substantive arguments. The way in which we balance the need for this infrastructure across the country—the fact that it has to be somewhere—with the adverse impacts, as well as the potential benefits, that communities face from hosting the infrastructure, is exactly what our rigorous planning system is about. The views and interests of local communities are key to that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has engaged in the process in this specific case—he has already made representations, and will obviously encourage his constituents to do the same. That feedback is hugely important; people should feel that it has a serious role in the decision-making process, because it does, and therefore it is worth participating in that process. Making those submissions and turning up to those meetings really does matter.

Obviously, the planning process itself considers many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including visual amenity, protected landscapes, land use, food production, safety, and traffic conditions during construction. The system for nationally significant projects requires that considerable community engagement be undertaken before a decision is made. The level and quality of engagement is considered during the decision-making process, and these projects are marked down if that is not taken seriously.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of cumulative impact, which is a really important one for us to wrestle with. I do not pretend that we have a single answer to this, but the idea that we should plan holistically—I think the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made this point—to make sure communities do not face multiple projects, with all the cumulative impact that comes from that, is something we want to tackle. We are doing that in two ways.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister is talking about cumulative impacts from projects. Just so that it can be on the record, the point I was trying to make is that one consideration is the cumulative impacts from solar farms; the other is that there are a lot of other types of infrastructure construction going on. Could the Minister be clear that cumulative impact includes consideration of both?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to that point in just a moment. Part of the wider work we are seeking to do across Government is to plan where infrastructure is built holistically and strategically. For example, the land-use work that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing is about looking at the whole United Kingdom and making sure we have a plan in place for future land use, so that all of those things are taken into consideration.

The legal requirement for a cumulative effects assessment is set out in environmental regulations. The Government have published advice that summarises the process for undertaking that assessment in relation to NSIPs, and the hon. Gentleman’s wider point about the cumulative impact of housing, Universal Studios or transport is also really important. Obviously, my Department has a particular interest in how we plan the energy system, but we are seeking to work much more broadly right across Government. The land use consultation that DEFRA launched closed in April 2025, and the outputs from that and the regional workshops that have been undertaken are now being analysed. That is the first time we have had a national, holistic plan to bring all these things together.

From an energy perspective, which is what I am responsible for, the second point is about the strategic spatial energy plan. For the first time in our history, we will strategically plan the energy system that we need and make conscious decisions about where we site energy infrastructure, so that we are not needlessly building the grid infrastructure that goes with it—so that we are building it next to where we need it the most, reducing the impact on communities and taking into account the cumulative impact of those projects. We should have been doing that a long time ago. I do not blame any particular Government for this, but we have rolled out a huge number of renewables projects across the country without doing any of that strategic planning. That has been a huge failure in the past, and as a result, we are now spending huge amounts of money on building the grid to connect that infrastructure. We have to do that. It is a shame that we did not plan it more strategically in the first place, but we start from where we start, unfortunately.

I am conscious of the time, so I will quickly refer to the point about land use and the use of farmland for solar projects. That point is raised regularly, and it is an important one to raise—food security is also our national security, and it is hugely important. Planning policy makes clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. I understand the point that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire made about this particular site; I cannot comment on that, but he helpfully quoted me to me. I still agree with me—which is not always the case—but I am not going to set a specific figure, for obvious reasons. There is very much a determination in the process that we should be using lower-quality land wherever possible, but that does not mean that we can always do so. We need to realise that for some projects, that is just not possible. However, if we zoom out just a little bit, even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios, only 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to solar in 2030.

There are a number of other points that I do not have time to address, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some responses on them. In the context of what we are seeking to do, I am not complacent about the impact that these projects have on communities—I genuinely understand it. I read all of my correspondence from people who write to me about these points, and he is right to raise these issues. We are seeking to build the infrastructure that the country needs in a way that takes into account the local impact. Communities may feel that has not been done, and for that I apologise, but we are seeking to build a strategic system that deals with many of these issues into the future, so that communities feel that energy is not done to them, but is part of their community and is something that they welcome. At the same time, that helps us to deliver our missions as a Government.

Solar power in this country remains hugely popular and, despite a number of issues, the planning process is rigorous. There is not an automatic yes coming out of the planning system; we look carefully at every single one of these applications. They get a huge amount of consideration, and it is important that communities feel that, and that they know that these applications are taken seriously. If they do not feel that, we have to do more as a Government to ensure that people have confidence in the system. As we deliver this clean power mission, solar will play an important role. We want to bring communities with us, and I commit to doing more to make sure that is the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Fuel Supply: Fees for Military Drivers

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

The Secretary of State will be using powers under the Energy Act 2013 to increase the hourly rate for use of military fuel tanker drivers paid by hauliers during a deployment of this capability. This programme is a long-standing fuel supply contingency measure jointly managed by my Department and the Ministry of Defence to make trained military drivers available to support fuel deliveries in an emergency.

This is a routine increase to keep the cost in line with inflationary increases since 2021, and in line with agreements signed with industry.

A direction under section 148(3)(b) of the Energy Act 2013 was made to increase the hourly price from £28.51 to £34.44. This will take effect on 20 January 2026. I believe this direction is fair and proportionate as it will now take account of inflationary price increases from 2021 calculated using the consumer prices inflation index and has been agreed with industry. The Secretary of State reserves the right to make further changes to the charging regime if that becomes necessary.

[HCWS1259]

Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I am making this statement to fulfil the commitment to inform Parliament via a written ministerial statement whenever the ambulatory reference to the UK low carbon hydrogen standard in the Hydrogen Production Revenue Support (Directions, Eligibility and Counterparty) Regulations 2023 is updated. A new version of the standard (version 4) has now been published.

The Energy Act 2023 makes provision for the implementation of the hydrogen production business model, which is intended to provide revenue support to overcome the cost gap between low carbon hydrogen and higher carbon counterfactual fuels. The HPBM is designed to incentivise the production and use of low carbon hydrogen, supporting the UK’s net zero and energy security ambitions.

Section 57(1) sets out the overarching power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to revenue support contracts. There are a number of provisions in chapter 1, part 2 of the Act which set out the matters that regulations made under section 57(1) may cover. The provision in section 66(5) of the Act enables revenue support regulations determining the meaning of “eligible” in relation to a low carbon hydrogen producer to make ambulatory reference to published documents, including standards, external to the regulations, i.e. as the documents have effect from time to time. Given the nascency of the hydrogen industry and the need for regulations underpinning the hydrogen production revenue support contracts to provide sufficient certainty to investors, the ability to make ambulatory reference in regulations provides flexibility to help ensure the scheme is in line with the latest technological developments to encourage ongoing innovation and investment. This approach also aligns with consultation feedback to ensure alignment with the UK Government definition of low carbon hydrogen when allocating support to projects under the hydrogen production business model.

The regulations were laid in draft in Parliament on 8 November 2023 and came into force on 20 December 2023. Bar certain exceptions for low carbon hydrogen producers who applied for financial support before the commencement date of the regulations, the regulations determine whether a low carbon hydrogen producer is “eligible” in relation to proposals it makes for the production of hydrogen produced in accordance with the low carbon hydrogen standard. The regulations define “the low carbon hydrogen standard” as the document published by the Secretary of State in April 2023 entitled “UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Standard —Version 2” or such standard as may be from time to time published for the purposes of these regulations by the Secretary of State. The regulations provide that where the Secretary of State publishes a new or revised low carbon hydrogen standard for the purposes of the regulations, the publication of the new or revised standard must include, or be accompanied by, a statement in writing that it is published to replace the previous version of the standard.

The standard sets a maximum threshold for the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the production process for hydrogen to be considered “low carbon hydrogen”. It sets out the methodology for calculating the emissions associated with hydrogen production using production pathways in scope of the standard, and the steps producers should take to prove that the hydrogen they produce is compliant with the standard.

On Monday 19 January, version 4 of the standard was published and focuses on ensuring that the requirements set out in the standard are clear and can be effectively applied under hydrogen production revenue support contracts. This update reflects lessons learned from the application of the LCHS to the first hydrogen allocation round, stakeholder feedback and evolving policy priorities to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and keeps pace with the growing hydrogen economy.

Version 4 of the standard replaces any previous versions of the standard for the purposes of the regulations. This means that currently version 4 of the standard is the one that is to be used for assessing eligibility under the regulations, bar certain exceptions as mentioned above.

[HCWS1252]

Contracts for Difference Allocation Round 7: Offshore Wind Projects

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

The seventh contracts for difference auction results have been published today, unlocking a record 8.4 GW of offshore wind projects. We have taken a significant step forward in our mission, showing that clean power by 2030 is achievable and on track. Despite well-known global pressures facing the industry, we have delivered enough capacity to power the equivalent of over 12 million homes. This is a major result and means we can take back control of our energy, meet the growing demand of electricity and get bills down for good for working people.

For fixed-bottom offshore wind, this represents the single largest auction in European history. These projects will be built right across Great Britain, supporting skilled jobs and investment in coastal and industrial communities. The clearing price for offshore wind in this round was on average 90.91 per MWh, far below the auction’s price cap and significantly cheaper than the 147 per MWh cost of building and operating new gas plants.

This proves that clean, home-grown power is the most affordable and secure choice for the country.

These results include Berwick Bank, which is the first new Scottish project to be procured through the CfD in three years, and Awel y Môr, the first Welsh project to win a contract in more than a decade. This will provide a boost to the Scottish and Welsh economies, underlining this Government’s commitment to see all parts of the UK benefit from clean power.

These results also represent major progress in our efforts to lead the world in the emerging technologies of the future, securing 192.5 MW of floating offshore wind capacity. Winning projects include Erebus in the Celtic sea, and Pentland in Scotland, backed by pioneering investment from Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. This success builds on last year’s leasing round 5 auction of 4.5 GW of seabed. These additional projects will boost regional economies and ensure that Britain continues to reap the benefits of clean power.

This auction will unlock around £22 billion in private investment in every corner of the country, supporting at least 7,000 jobs in areas including Scotland, north Wales, Norfolk, and Yorkshire and the Humber—delivering a major boost for the economy.

In a world of increasing instability, this Government are determined to back secure, clean, home-grown power to drive down costs for families, and provide the energy security our country needs.

[HCWS1239]

SSEN Transmission Orkney Link

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I wish to inform the House that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to undertake a contingent liability under the statutory spending authority under section 50 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It is a bespoke, time-limited, capped policy indemnity offered by the UK Government to SSEN Transmission to satisfy the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s permit requirements for SSENT’s Orkney transmission link project, under the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018. Upgrading and expanding the grid is critical to the Government’s clean power mission and growth objectives. The project was granted initial regulatory approval by Ofgem in 2019, and final regulatory approval in 2023, and was awarded a marine licence by the Scottish Government in 2020, which was extended in 2022 and 2024. This indemnity will enable the project to proceed, and avoid potential delays, by satisfying a regulatory requirement, subject to SSENT obtaining the necessary permits, ensuring long-overdue progress in connecting Orkney to the GB transmission grid. This critical grid infrastructure will unlock significant clean power capacity that Orkney possesses—including community renewable projects—and bolster security of supply for the islands, helping support a stronger local economy and delivering a more efficient grid for GB consumers which is fit for the future.

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability that is novel, contentious or repercussive to present Parliament with a minute, in line with “Managing Public Money”. In line with this guidance, the liability will not be entered into until 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute.

The indemnity covers the extremely unlikely scenario where SEPA determines that an intervention is required, by virtue of SSENT’s construction activity resulting in a statistically significant increase in irradiated particles washed up onshore from disturbing irradiated particles on the seabed, and that the required intervention is beyond the scope of the Nuclear Restoration Services’ existing particle monitoring and recovery programme. The indemnity is time-limited for 20 years. Due to the extremely remote probability of this risk materialising, it is highly unlikely that this full cost would crystalise. HM Treasury has approved this proposal.

A departmental minute has today been laid before Parliament setting out full details of this contingent liability. In accordance with “Managing Public Money”, the liability will not be entered into until 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute. Subject to satisfaction of the relevant conditions precedent, the Orkney indemnity will become live as soon as practicable after 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed following the laying of the minute.

[HCWS1227]

Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

On 30 June 2025, I made an oral statement regarding the deeply disappointing news that Prax Lindsey oil refinery had entered insolvency, and I made a written ministerial statement on 1 July 2025. I also made a written ministerial statement on 22 July 2025 providing further information on the insolvency process led by the official receiver. Today, I am updating the House on the sale of the site and the assets.

The insolvency process at PLOR is led by the court-appointed official receiver, who must act in accordance with his statutory duties and independently of Government.

After a thorough process to identify a buyer for the site, the official receiver has determined Phillips 66 Ltd is the most credible bidder that can provide a viable future for this site. The sale is expected to complete in the first half of 2026.

Phillips 66 is an experienced and credible operator, and this sale allows it to quickly expand operations at its neighbouring Humber refinery, with all remaining 250 staff guaranteed employment until the end of March 2026.

Phillips 66 plans to integrate key assets into its Humber refinery operations. This will expand Phillips 66’s ability to supply fuel to UK customers from the Humber refinery, boosting domestic energy security, securing jobs including hundreds of new construction jobs over the next five years, and driving future growth opportunities for renewable and traditional fuels.

This agreement marks the next step in securing an industrial future for the site and the workers, who were badly let down by their former owners.

The former owners left the company in a poor state and gave the Government very little time to act. That is why the Energy Secretary immediately demanded the Insolvency Service launch an investigation into their conduct and the circumstances surrounding insolvency. That investigation is ongoing.

[HCWS1220]

Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statements

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I laid three updated energy national policy statements before Parliament for parliamentary approval on 13 November 2025: EN-1 (the overarching NPS for energy), EN-3 (renewable energy infrastructure), and EN-5 (electricity networks infrastructure). I am therefore pleased to inform Parliament that I am today publishing them as national policy statements under the provisions of Section 6(9)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, and laying copies before you as required by Section 6(9)(b) of the same Act. The statements are made under the Planning Act 2008, which applies to England and Wales.

The updated national policy statements support Government’s clean power 2030 mission and our efforts to build an energy system that meets clean power by 2030 and net zero objectives. These national policy statements provide clarity for industry and stakeholders on the Government’s clean power mission and are pivotal to our reforms to provide the UK with clean, affordable energy security.

[HCWS1222]

Nuclear Energy Infrastructure National Policy Statement

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

Today I am pleased to announce we have designated the national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7, according to the Planning Act 2008. EN-7 now provides the planning framework for all nationally significant infrastructure projects proposing to use nuclear fission to generate energy, replacing EN-6, which applied to projects deployable by the end of 2025.

This marks an important milestone in delivering our ambition to make the UK a clean energy superpower, in part through an expansion and diversification of the UK nuclear energy industry. The designation of EN-7 builds on the momentum of recent Government action, including the publication of the Prime Minister’s strategic steer to the nuclear sector following the report from the nuclear regulatory taskforce. Our implementation of the report’s recommendations will shape a modernised, more agile regulatory environment, while maintaining the UK’s high standards of safety, security, and environmental protection.

Alongside EN-7, we will be publishing the EN-7 supplementary information. This document clarifies the planning and regulatory requirements for nuclear energy projects, helping applicants to navigate the process for applying for development consent, and to engage effectively with regulators and expert consultees. By providing practical advice, the supplementary information aims to streamline project delivery, reduce uncertainty, and support robust safety and environmental standards. It will be updated regularly to reflect stakeholder feedback, ensuring it remains a valuable resource for all involved.

The EN-7 and supporting documents, including the EN-7 supplementary information, are available on gov.uk.

[HCWS1208]

Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I apologise in advance to the Committee for my voice; I am full of the joys of the season, which are going around this place at the moment. I hope we get through this in one go.

The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 November under the affirmative process. Like so much of what I seem to bring to these Committees, the draft regulations may appear technical, but they are hugely important. They are essential to the effective sharing of data within UK carbon capture, usage and storage and the offshore petroleum industries—data that underpins collaboration, transparency and innovation, all of which are critical to advancing our energy security. The data-sharing rules set out by the regulations will support the effective use of the UK’s carbon storage capacity and the contribution that it can make to delivering the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and accelerate our journey to net zero.

Carbon capture, usage and storage is a set of emissions reduction technologies designed to prevent carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide captured from a range of sources, including power generation and industrial processes, will be transported for permanent storage offshore, deep underground, rather than being emitted into the atmosphere. Complementing our transition to home-grown clean energy, not only is CCUS essential to meeting our climate commitments, but it will safeguard our energy security and decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives economic growth.

The Oil and Gas Authority, now operating under the business name of the North Sea Transition Authority, regulates the secure permitting of carbon dioxide stores on the UK continental shelf. That means that anyone who wishes to explore for, or use, a geological feature for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide on the continental shelf must hold a carbon storage licence issued by the NSTA.

As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting to the NSTA of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee activities. In our view, the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource, and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCUS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, another thrilling statutory instrument, which came into force in May. Those regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must be retained. These requirements ensure the preservation of valuable data on carbon storage activities on the continental shelf.

The draft regulations set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be so disclosed. They will also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences; the timeframe for that was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Period) Regulations 2018. This amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment.

Information and samples play a significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry. Access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academics and the public will help to deliver efficient ways to utilise the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and the overall advancement of the sector. That includes accelerating the North sea’s energy transition. The NSTA helps to drive that transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon abatement resource. The draft regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with very significant potential for storing carbon dioxide in the depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations on the UK continental shelf.

The NSTA consulted on the carbon storage and the offshore petroleum aspects of the regulations—under the previous Government, I might say. The consultation on the amendment to well data confidentiality closed in 2022; a response was published in 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information closed in April 2024; a response was published in October 2025. Feedback from both was positive and has been carefully considered to ensure that the draft regulations reflect industry needs and best practice.

CCUS is critical to the UK’s future energy security and to our industrial ambitions. The draft regulations may be technical, but they are imperative and will enable a wealth of data to be made accessible, which will ultimately support the advancement of the CCUS industry and the future of industries on the UK continental shelf. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It is always a pleasure to end the year on a high with the shadow Minister agreeing with the Government. I wish it happened more often.

[Andrew Bowie]

Don’t get used to it!

[Michael Shanks]

I think the shadow Minister was actually congratulating his own work when he was in my role several years ago, but it is a treat nevertheless. I thank him for his support and echo his comments about the NSTA; its primary role is that of a regulator, but it also does a phenomenal amount of work to bring the industry together to look at how it improves on its practices. I also echo his thanks to Stuart Payne and the team for their work.

I turn to the shadow Minister’s questions. First, our purpose is not just to bring both sets of regulations into alignment; it is also important to recognise that a lot of the decommissioning work is moving further and further to the right. It will be a huge economic opportunity for us if we can ensure that that work happens. This is partly about making sure that the regulations are aligned, but it is also about ensuring that action can be taken against those who are not meeting the deadlines. Beyond the draft regulations, wider work is going on to ensure that we are enforcing our expectation of decommissioning work being concluded, not least because the public will end up on the hook for many of the costs if that work is not done.

On the question about the administrative burden, we look at these issues in the round, but there were consultations with the industry in 2023 and 2024 and no objections were raised by industry bodies. I think we had 11 responses, including three from industry representative bodies and five from individual companies, and overall the consultation received a positive response, so our sense is that the draft regulations will be warmly welcomed.

On the specific question of enforcement, one of the issues that we addressed in the North sea plan was how we will look at the enforcement powers of the NSTA. We will say more about that when we introduce legislation in due course.

I welcome the support for these measures, and indeed the work of the previous Government on setting up the landscape for carbon capture and storage. It is a huge opportunity for our country, and we look forward to moving it forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Small-scale Fracking Ban

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for securing this debate, for her fantastic speech and for all her campaigning on this issue and many others since she was elected. She is a fantastic champion for her community. I also thank her for all the conversations we have had on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby noted the importance of this Government’s climate commitments. I think it is useful to restate those for context. In the face of a fractured consensus—pardon the pun—this Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate emergency. That is why our clean power mission and everything we are doing in Government is about getting us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It also means managing the role that oil and gas plays in the country at the moment.

Just a fortnight ago we published our response to the consultation on the future of the North sea—our “North Sea Future Plan”—which includes not just the future actions in the North sea, but our approach to the onshore oil and gas sector. We have set an ambitious and pragmatic approach to cease new oil and gas licensing and explore new offshore and onshore fields while managing existing fields for their lifespan; I will come back to that point later. That is all about helping manage our transition from fossil fuels—what we have to do for climate change—but also how we invest in what comes next and the clean energy that will bring down people’s bills and deliver our energy security.

I have listened closely to the points made by my hon. Friend in today’s debate, and in the correspondence that I have had with her and our other meetings. My Department has also been aware of these concerns through correspondence from other Members in this place and the recent e-petition that was considered. I want to be clear on this Government’s position towards hydraulic fracturing—both high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and more conventional low-volume hydraulic fracturing.

Regarding high-volume fracturing for shale gas, the Government have committed to end fracking for good, as my hon. Friend noted. On 1 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced legislation that will be introduced soon to end new onshore oil and gas licensing in England, including new licences that could be used for high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which is commonly understood as fracking.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a powerful point about our opponents in this debate. The idea put forward by Reform that we should not only not continue with our moratorium, but embrace fracking as a form of energy and start doing it all across the country, goes into the bucket with so many of their policies that are backward, dangerous and ill-conceived. We will absolutely reject that approach and we will legislate to make sure that our commitment will stand in the statue books for the future.

There is already an effective moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas—fracking—in England, and that will continue to apply to all existing licences. That is in place because of concerns that were raised around the prediction and management of induced seismicity in that type of fracturing. There are similar restrictions in place in other parts of the UK; taken together, that existing moratorium for currently licensed fields and the end of licensing for new fields means that no fracking for shale gas takes place anywhere in the country, and no new licences will be granted that could be used for that in the future.

The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is about low-volume hydraulic fracturing, which has been the focus of today’s debate. I want to be clear that this Government make policy based on evidence. Although I have listened very closely to her points today and in the past, the evidence base is not there at the moment to suggest that low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas.

A small number of those activities take place—including, for example, proppant squeezes at volumes lower than the thresholds for fracking generally, as currently defined in legislation. The small number of those activities are not currently in scope of the effective moratorium that is in place. She rightly asked whether I would consider a review of that definition; of course, I keep all these things under review, and I am very happy to continue to review new evidence as it comes forward, but any change has to be based on evidence. We have to see additional evidence to what we have reviewed on the definition, but that is not there at the moment.

Low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities under existing licences take place in the context of conventional oil and gas operations. They require a range of permissions and consents before they can be undertaken, which include planning permission from the relevant local authorities and the necessary permits and consents from the North Sea Transition Authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. That system ensures that operations meet the safety and environmental standards and obligations set out in law, and activities will be approved only if each of those stages is positively completed.

My hon. Friend noted the point about existing licences, and I want to reiterate what our manifesto said. There were two parts to that commitment: we said that we would not issue new licences to explore new fields—we will legislate for that soon—but that we would not revoke existing licences. It is the Government’s position that existing licences are in place and we do not intend to rescind them.

This is clearly a complex issue. I understand, as my hon. Friend has raised today, that there are real concerns from communities about any of these kinds of projects. Although the evidence base is important for us to make decisions here, I do not discount for a second the concerns that communities have. I want to hear those concerns from across the country. I remain very open-minded, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to new evidence coming forward to look at this definition, but for obvious reasons, it is important that the Government make policy decisions based on evidence that can stand up to scrutiny if ever challenged in court. That evidence base is critical.

[Mr Charters]

In that evidence, will the Minister include water scarcity? In York and across the region, people have not been able to fill up a paddling pool, so why should water be used in low-volume fracking?

[Michael Shanks]

I appreciate that point; I am sorry for not mentioning it earlier, as my hon. Friend made it before. It is an important point, and we need to look at water scarcity right across the policy landscape. Demand for water is increasing in a number of areas—for example, I am looking at it in terms of data centres at the moment. The Government must look at the uses of water, as well as building new reservoirs to ensure we have water supply. That is an important point that will be taken into consideration by the Environment Agency and as part of the local planning process, but I will take it away and see whether there is anything more we can do on that.

The Department and I are keeping low-volume hydraulic fracturing under active review. We are open to receiving objective evidence, wherever that may come from; we will review that and look at whether definitions need to change and whether other legislation is required, but the position is as I have set out at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and other hon. Members who have participated. I appreciate the engagement on the issue, which I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue. I look forward to that.

Question put and agreed to.