Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.

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

Q Good afternoon. Thank you for joining us. As a Government we have set out the ambitious clean power by 2030 plan, which involves significant roll-out of renewables. Key to that will be storage and our ambition to build the first long-duration storage in 40 years in this country. I would like to ask Beatrice and Ofgem, what is your sense of the importance of the mechanisms for doing that, particularly the cap and floor financing scheme; and how important is long-duration storage to the energy mix we are trying to build?

Beatrice Filkin: As you said yourself, Minister, we have not seen any large scale, long-duration energy storage built in this country for decades now. We know that the market is not willing to take on those risks at the moment and it is absolutely right that the Government are instructing us through this Bill to expand the regimes and protections.

We support the proposed introduction of a cap and floor regime for long-duration storage. We have seen NESO’s advice to you as part of the development of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan—that increasing the amount of flexible storage on the system is critical to getting through your clean power targets. We are very keen to be part of supporting that. We think the cap and floor regime has proved its worth over the last decade or so through interconnectors, and obviously, we are adjusting it now with input from a wide range of stakeholders to make it appropriate for the long-duration storage schemes.

[Michael Shanks]

Q Christianna, this Bill has a significant amount of planning reform in England and Wales, but the key element in the energy space in chapter 2 is around the reforms to Scottish consenting. We have worked very closely with the Scottish Government to update the Electricity Act 1989. Can you give any sort of sense, from your extensive experience in this in Scotland, of how much those changes are necessary, or perhaps how much of the development is being held back by that planning reform not being updated at the moment?

Christianna Logan: We really welcome the powers in the Bill that create that framework to increase the timeliness and effectiveness of consenting in Scotland, particularly around introducing timescales for determinations and replacing automatic trigger of public local inquiries with a reporter-led process.

Public inquiries are one of the main causes of delay to consent decisions in Scotland, with the impact and cost of that borne ultimately by bill payers and local communities through local authority investment. We believe that to make the powers in this Bill effective in practice, the secondary legislation will be critical. We ask that the secondary legislation providing the details of implementation is delivered in parallel with the Bill, so that it can be laid as soon as decisions are made, and that within determination, timelines are set at 12 months to make sure that we can get timely delivery.

We welcome all the joint working between this Government and the Scottish Government, and we would like to see that continue for that secondary legislation. We welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to a 12-month determination for projects, but we are not yet seeing that in practice. For example, our Sky project, which is both an energy security and decarbonisation project, is still awaiting determination more than two and a half years on. That is why the ask is so important.

[Michael Shanks]

Finally, Dhara, picking up on the questions on connections reform and the wider push in the Bill on how we build network infrastructure more quickly and the ambition of that, how critical is it to the broader energy space—particularly on the questions of energy security, bringing down bills and the wider space on our energy mix going forward—that we build more network infrastructure and get the grid working? How critical is that aspect to delivering in the 2020s, and in the 2030s in particular, to meet the demand that we are going to see, and the Government’s other objective of bringing down bills?

Dhara Vyas: That is absolutely the right question to be asking, because we will not achieve any of it unless we unblock the issues we are seeing within the infrastructure space. The reality is that with these so-called zombie projects, at least half of them are ready to move on to the next stage. In large part, that is down to the work that has been happening as part of the connections reform project. It is really important that we keep on moving with the momentum we have right now, because gaining planning permission and making progress through the new milestones that the National Energy System Operator has set out is the next big challenge for us.

We are in a really difficult position right now. Bills and debt owed by customers to energy suppliers are at a record high. We are still really feeling and living in the long shadow of the cost of living crisis, which was partly down to the energy security crisis following the illegal invasion of Ukraine. Investing in an abundance of clean power will be completely pointless unless we have the infrastructure to move it around the country, and unless we invest in clean power, we will not ultimately bring down bills to the extent that we need to. The other part of that is demand. We will see demand increase by at least sixfold. We are going to have electrification of our homes and our transport, which brings us back full circle to the need to be able to move the electricity around.

[John Grady]

Q I have a question for Christianna, Beatrice and Charlotte. To bring this to life, I am a Scottish MP, so if I am building a set of offshore wind farms in the north of Scotland, I also need to build transmission infrastructure from Scotland down to England. The holdouts of this involve connection queues, planning delays in Scotland and planning delays in England. The Bill, with the reforms in England and Scotland, seeks to reduce those delays. I want to unpick what that means for my constituents in terms of jobs and investment. How much money will be invested in the grid in Scotland over the next five to 10 years, because this Bill helps speed that investment up?

Christianna Logan: Our programme of projects to deliver for 2030 is a £22 billion investment. It is the biggest investment that we have seen in the north of Scotland probably since the second world war, so it is really significantyou’re your constituents. Our colleagues in ScottishPower have their investments in your area as well. Alongside that, there is a significant number of jobs—we expect around 6,000 jobs enabled through our investments in Scotland specifically. Just this year, we will be recruiting another 600 people into SSEN transmission to help with this transformation of our grid network.

All of that, as you say, is dependent on us getting consent to progress all these projects and the necessary regulatory approvals for the investments. We have been working very closely with Government and Ofgem on the reforms, and we believe that the proposals put forward in the Bill will take us forward in that regard. As I said earlier, the secondary legislation and the work with the Scottish Government will be critical to capturing those benefits.

North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), not just for securing this important debate but for the tone with which she introduced it. Her seriousness and passion came through in her contribution. I genuinely thank her for that, as well as for all the conversations we have had on this important topic.

It has been a wide-ranging debate, but at the heart of all the contributions have been three key things, which I will try to sum up. First, we may all disagree on the timing, pace and detail of the transition, but there is an acknowledgment and understanding that a transition in the North sea is under way. It is important to recognise that. Secondly, if we accept that, as it seems we all do, then we need a credible and detailed plan for how to manage the transition. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North put it well by saying that the transition needs to be managed properly, and I will come back to that point. Thirdly, the workforce must be at the heart of any plan and transition. The shadow Minister made the point well: this is deeply personal for anyone with a job in the oil and gas sector, but particularly in north-east Scotland, where there is a significant concentration of workers in the industry.

Many Members have spoken about the importance of oil and gas in our energy story. A few months ago, I was pleased to be at BP’s headquarters to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the first licence being issued in the North sea, and there was a powerful video of the history of some of BP’s offshore infrastructure. The engineering skill that it has taken to extract oil and gas from extremely difficult North sea waters over the past 60 years is extraordinary and, as I have said on a number of occasions, we should be very proud of that workforce and everything it has achieved.

Oil and gas will continue to play a critical role in our energy mix and economy for decades to come. However, as we and the world embrace the clean energy transition, I want us not just to be proud of the history of the North sea but to be hugely ambitious and excited about the opportunities in the next chapter of our energy story. Our clean power mission is about not just driving forward clean power in this country but creating the jobs in manufacturing and industry that go along with it, and it is critical that those jobs materialise in the communities that have been mentioned.

It is right that we recognise that tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in the sector over the past 10 years. The truth is that we should have been planning for this transition a long time ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) talked about Grangemouth. There is no greater example of the failure to plan for the transition than Grangemouth: we knew years ago that it was in a precarious position and should have been planning for the workforce at that point. My driving purpose in my role is ensure that we do not make the same mistake again in the wider North sea sector.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked whether the Government are listening, so I want to say how much we have engaged with the sector and how much time I have spent in Aberdeen listening to the industry—not just the oil and gas companies themselves, but the companies involved right through the supply chains, in decommissioning and in training. I had an interesting visit to a training provider and met apprentices who are working in oil and gas in the immediate term but will transition into renewables. They are being trained both on oil and gas platforms and on the renewables jobs that come next. Exciting work is going on, and we need to capitalise on it and speed up such projects across the city and the north-east.

We have a fantastic opportunity to utilise the skills that are already in Aberdeen, which many Members have mentioned. Given the global race for skilled workers and for much of the equipment and the supply chains for the clean power missions around much of the world, we have a real opportunity to capitalise on that in Aberdeen. I suspect that the ears of Robert Gordon University will be burning after this debate, given the number of times it has been mentioned. I had a fantastic visit there a few months back to go through some of the data in great detail, and it was fascinating.

Members made the point about the number of jobs that are transferable from oil and gas into renewables. That presents us with an enormous opportunity to provide long-term, sustainable jobs for people. The pace at which we do that, and the methods we use to support the workforce to transition, are key, which is why, when we came into government, we were determined to work with the Scottish Government and with industry to move forward on skills passporting, and we have launched the first phase of that. There is clearly more work to do on expanding the passporting process, but that is a sign that we are taking practical action to support the workforce to transition.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about a plan for the transition, which was a good point to make. We have launched our consultation on the future of energy in the North sea. We were keen for that to be a genuinely open conversation with industry, communities and trade unions about what the future of energy in the North sea should look like—not a conversation focused narrowly on a series of specific questions. The consultation is still open: there is a week left for those who have not had a chance to submit their responses—I am sure that many thousands are watching this debate online—so please do submit them. It is a key opportunity. We have deliberately asked open, broad questions so that we can have a genuine conversation about the future of energy in the North sea.

The first section of the consultation deals partly with the data and the science about the decline of the North sea basin. The shadow Minister rightly made the point about language. I have always been careful about the language that I use, but it is important to recognise that the declining nature of the basin means that we have to start planning now for what comes next. As part of my engagement on the issue I have had a number of roundtables, including with trade unions a few weeks ago, to look at the specific support that is necessary for the workforce now.

[Barry Gardiner]

The trade unions and others have made a case for £335 million a year to be invested in skills and training to ensure that workers are not unpaid on their training days, among other things. What conversations can the Minister have with colleagues to ensure that that happens?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. He is right that it is about not just the passporting and the training available but, importantly, the ability of workers to access it. I will take away that point, which also came up in the roundtable with trade unions. We have launched a number of skills pilots in four areas, of which Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is one. The process there is slightly different from that for the other three, because skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, so the UK Government’s role is slightly different, but we want to work in partnership to ensure that we deliver. I will take away the point away and come back to it.

[Andrew Bowie]

I pay tribute to the Minister’s continued commitment to and engagement with the industry and the region. It seems, given the amount of times he is in and out of the north-east of Scotland these days, that he may be buying a second home in my constituency. Of course, we welcome that, because any engagement with the Government is positive. The tone with which the consultation on the future of North sea energy was launched was incredibly positive and has been warmly welcomed. However, there is also an ongoing Treasury consultation on the post-EPL fiscal framework; what engagement is the Department having with the Treasury on what that will look like? Is there any opportunity to speed up the process by which we can replace the energy profits levy?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for making that point. We deliberately launched the consultation on the future of energy and the Treasury consultation on the future of the EPL at the same time, because we want to bring them together to give certainty about the future of industry. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has been in Aberdeen a number of times and, indeed, we have we have had many of the same engagements, dealing with the fiscal forum and others and having the conversations. I engage with Treasury colleagues regularly on this question. The EPL, which has changed many times under both Governments, has not given industry the confidence it is calling for. We have been clear that it will end post 2030, and we want to put in place a regime that gives confidence about what the landscape looks like but still has the recognition of excess profits built into it. The consultation is open for, I think, another two or three weeks.

[Barry Gardiner]

The taxation regime is critical to the ability of companies to make profits in the North sea. We have the lowest base rate of tax on oil and gas production companies in the world, and it is only because we have the windfall tax that we take the rate up to the average. The Minister needs to look at the investment that would be available were we not subsidising the operations from the public purse. It is not quite the zero-sum game that he suggests.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, but he tempts me into both concluding a consultation and speaking on behalf of the Treasury—two things that I absolutely will not do. But he made an important point. The purpose of the consultation—again, it is an open consultation with all those in the sector—is to get to the heart of some of these questions.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister agree to consider the timescale of the consultation outcomes so that people have the earliest possible notice, in advance of next year’s budgets, if possible?

[Michael Shanks]

I was going to come to that point, which has been well made. In both consultations, we are looking internally at how quickly we can turn around the responses. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck, particularly in respect of the consultation on the future of the North sea. It is a hefty document and we expect a significant number of responses, which is a good thing. There is also a balance to be struck between turning around a response quickly and having a credible, detailed look at all the evidence that has been submitted, but we are trying to move as quickly as possible with both consultations.

I want to turn briefly to the point about the future, and the points that a number of Members made about investment in clean energy. It is right to say that the future of the North sea has enormous potential for offshore and floating offshore wind, and for a number of other industries, such as hydrogen and carbon capture. Since coming into government we have moved as fast as possible to drive that forward, including establishing, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) mentioned, Great British Energy in Aberdeen—although I cannot help but notice that the SNP did not support that. It is all about driving investment, not just by creating jobs in Great British Energy’s headquarters but through the investments it makes in supply chains and developments throughout the country, particularly in the north-east of Scotland.

We oversaw a record-breaking renewables auction and, as many Members mentioned, we are currently working through the process of the clean industry bonus, which is designed to reward investment in good manufacturing jobs and clean supply chains. This gets to the heart of the point made by many Members about how we bring the benefits of the clean power mission to the UK, delivering the industrial jobs that too often have been missing in our transition. Of course, the clean power action plan will drive £40 billion a year of private investment towards our goal of clean power by 2030.

I am conscious of the time, but I want to reflect on two brief points that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made in her closing remarks. The first is about listening to communities, which is important, and I will continue to do that, as will my colleagues. The second is about the oversight and management of the plan, which is a question we are looking at. I am always slightly resistant to simply saying that setting up a taskforce or a commission is the answer, but the point that the Just Transition Commission made, and that the hon. Lady also made, is right: we need to grasp it at the heart of Government, and we are actively looking at that.

I again thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her important contribution. The future of the North sea is incredibly important for all our communities, particularly in the north-east, but also for our energy and our economy in a wider sense. We are determined to deliver a credible, just and prosperous plan for the future, for the workforce now and in generations to come.

Onshore Wind and Solar Generation

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.

Good afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker. This instrument is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure our country needs to deliver our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity, where potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.

The nationally significant infrastructure project regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, whereby decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy generating projects are deemed nationally significant. Following submission into the NSIP process, an extensive examination period will commence, where interested parties—including local authorities, people of office and the general public—can make written or oral representations to the examination, ensuring that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Rather than traducing what remains of our countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the UK-Morocco power project run by Xlinks, which would deliver 11.5 GW of energy and power about 8% of our grid needs? It would seem that the block to this project is not the Moroccan Government, nor the Governments of countries through whose territorial seas the cable would pass, but resides instead in Whitehall. What is the Minister doing about it?

[Michael Shanks]

I give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the ingenious way he brought that up in a debate on solar and wind in the UK. He raises a good point. We are looking at the detail of a proposal that has been put forward by a private company—I am not going to say anything more on the Floor of the House.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Michael Shanks]

I have given way already.

Turning back to the statutory instrument in front of us, until recently the de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England introduced by the Conservatives limited the deployment of onshore wind in England. Those changes to the planning legislation set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects shrinking by more than 90%, with less than 40 MW of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.

In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past 10 years and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 MW in England will be eligible to be consented under the NSIP regime.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

This legislation is crucial to achieving our net zero commitments. GE Vernova, a renewables company in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, struggled with really long waiting times for an expansion of its site, but it has recently been approved, which means good new jobs for people who live in my constituency. That exemplifies the importance of streamlining the planning process, which will eventually lead to lower bills for people in my constituency and around the country. Does the Minister agree that this legislation is integral to developing the jobs we need across the country, and would he like to come and visit GE Vernova with me?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that warm invitation; I will of course consider it, and I look forward to visiting her constituency at some point. She makes an extremely important point. We are reforming the planning system to deal with challenges that have meant that, for too long, infrastructure that is incredibly important for our energy security has been held back by dither and delays in the process. We want to sweep that away and move forward much more quickly. The prize is energy security, but as she rightly points out, this is also about jobs and investment in communities right across the country.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will, then I need to make progress.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister talks about our energy security. What will increase our energy security is issuing new oil and gas licences so that we can have more home-grown energy. Why will the Minister not change his policy on that?

[Michael Shanks]

We really are stretching this debate, but I am very happy to discuss this matter. The point has been raised on a number of occasions, and the answer is always the same: it is not delivering energy security at the moment. We have said very clearly that oil and gas plays a crucial role in our energy mix now, and it will continue to play a role for decades to come, but the North sea is already in transition. The reality of the past 10 years under the Conservatives was that more than 70,000 jobs were lost, with no plan for how to deal with it. We are determined to deliver on the transition and on energy security, which will get us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices that we are all still riding.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will make a little progress and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. Although we have 90 minutes, I am conscious of time.

This instrument is about making sure that onshore wind projects in England that offer capacity of over 100 MW will be eligible to be consented under the regime. It reflects advances in turbine technology over the last decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects seeking planning consent where they are of a certain scale and complexity, so that local impacts can be carefully balanced against national benefits and the need to meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and grow the pipeline of potential projects in England once again.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talks about national impact. I wonder what provision there is under this legislation for protected national landscapes. Many of the windiest places in the UK are among our most beautiful, whether it is the hills and mountains of our national parks or the downs of our national landscapes, like the North Wessex downs in my constituency, which was an area of outstanding national beauty but is now a national landscape. Many of my residents are concerned, because the Minister is quite right that the turbines that are now being developed are huge. It is likely to mean that for most of our lifetimes we will lose the landscape to these new developments. Will this system still encompass consideration of protected landscape and make sure that it stays as it is for future generations?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I have always said from the Dispatch Box in this role, there is a balance to be struck here. We need to build nationally important infrastructure, and that does mean much more onshore wind in England to match the significant amount of onshore wind that has been built in Scotland over the past few years, including not far from my constituency. But the balance must be struck with protecting land as well. Even if we build the significant number of projects that are needed, there will still be protections for land in the areas he mentions. The planning system allows for those considerations to be taken into account.

The NSIP regime already includes nuclear and solar. We are saying that the ban on onshore wind introduced by the Conservatives was not a rational decision, so we are bringing it back into this process. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that it was absolutely rational, but his party’s former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that it was “always mad”. I think we should remember that not everybody in the Conservative party agreed with it, including, I suspect, the shadow Minister himself.

Let me come to the second part of the statutory instrument: the question of solar. Solar has been subject to a 50 MW NSIP threshold since it was originally set out in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50 MW threshold is now causing a market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. That is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact. That has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system artificially capping their capacity just below the 50 MW threshold, leading to a potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The approach set out in the order is a continuation of the Minister’s work to build the clean energy infrastructure that the country needs. I agree that the capacity threshold and the reintroduction of onshore wind generation stations into the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects will help deliver the triple benefits of decarbonisation, energy security and job creation. However, as the Minister knows, Cornwall is a leader in the roll-out of onshore wind and solar energy. Does he agree that the order will further opportunities for renewable energy growth across Cornwall that would have been ignored by the flat Earth climate change deniers in the Conservative party?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the point, although I am disappointed, because while he normally invites me to visit Cornwall, he did not on this occasion. I will not take it personally. Since he was elected to this place, he has done a fantastic job in delivering jobs in his community on the clean power mission, most recently by looking at some of the raw materials that are so essential. He has made great progress on that, so I pay tribute to him.

My hon. Friend is of course right about the Conservative party’s scepticism of a policy that it used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country. It has now turned its face against that; I am not sure whether that is flat Earth or not. I am sure that the shadow Minister will regale us with his long list of commitments in this space, but it is clear that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing and investment in communities that have suffered for so long under economic decline, as well as delivering on our climate ambitions and energy security. That is the right path for us to be on.

I will return to solar for a second. Raising the NSIP threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. It should incentivise projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are talking about increasing the threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the average size of NSIP projects approved by the Government since last July. If so, why has the threshold been kept artificially low at 100 MW and not raised significantly higher? Otherwise, we will see huge numbers of smaller projects coming through and being classified as NSIPs, such as those approved by the Minister so far, rather than larger projects.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of written questions on this topic to try to get to the heart of the matter, and he is now testing me on the number, which I think we did provide him with in response to one of those written questions. Since it is not on the tip of my tongue, I will write to him with the answer. On the general point, I do accept what he is saying. Part of the reason for the instrument is to try to get to a more rational point where we do not have projects limiting themselves artificially to a level based on a figure.

We settled on 100 MW because we think it strikes the right balance by allowing larger projects that can deliver the outcomes we want in the energy system through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, while limiting the number of projects coming into the national planning process. We think that balance is right, but we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman has raised important points with me in in written questions that I am happy to discuss with him in more detail.

The Government are mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects that may be preparing to enter the planning system might have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a particular planning regime. Therefore, changing the NSIP criteria at short notice could result in projects entering into a different regime from that which they expected, which could increase costs for developers and cause delays. Therefore, the instrument before us also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when the order comes into force. The provisions will therefore ensure that projects already progressing under one regime will not be required to move into a different one.

In conclusion, through consultation, we sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime. We received a range of responses from different groups of people. Most agreed with our approach and the majority agreed with the 100 MW threshold. Indeed, although we initially consulted on the idea of a higher threshold of 150 MW, based on the analysis of those consultation responses, we concluded that a 100 MW threshold would be more appropriate and would reflect modern technology.

This instrument is another important step forward in delivering our clean power mission, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports all our work as a Government on delivering an effective planning system—one that ensures that applications are processed efficiently through an appropriate regime and that avoids distortionary effects on deployment. The measures ultimately aim to support our future energy security and resilience, alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I commend the order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the points raised in the debate, but I will not detain the House long, as I know we are keen to progress through the Order Paper.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. The regulations lift the nonsensical ban on onshore wind in England that the Conservatives drove through. For 10 years, that ban has held back energy, security and economic development opportunities across the country. The measures before us come to a rational position on solar in the planning system.

I will respond briefly to the points raised about nature and other issues. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) put it particularly well: the public want us to take action on the climate crisis. The Conservative party might want to pretend that that does not exist any more, but it does. The greatest threat to nature in this country is climate change. We will tackle that, but in doing so, we will deliver energy security.

On the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), let me say that neither of us Scottish MPs will have a vote in the elections in four weeks’ time, but people will have the choice between the Conservative party, which has still not owned up to any of the mistakes that it made in 14 years, and the party that is trying to fix the mess. They can choose between a party that is moving forward to deliver economic growth and energy security, and a party that would rather hold us back and keep us on the rollercoaster of volatile fossil fuels. Today’s vote is a chance for us to demonstrate that we want that economic opportunity, and want to deliver energy security and climate leadership. I urge hon. Members on all sides of the House to support us today.

Question put.

Great British Energy Bill

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, amendments (a) and (b), and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 12.

[Michael Shanks]

I am pleased that the Great British Energy Bill has returned to this House. I would like to thank all Members of both Houses for their scrutiny of this important legislation. I extend my thanks in particular to the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his invaluable support and collaborative approach in guiding the Bill through the other place.

Twelve amendments were made there, which I will seek to address today. Before I turn to them, I remind the House that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to set up Great British Energy, and that is exactly what the Bill does. Since the Bill was last in this House, we have appointed five start-up, non-executive directors and announced Dan McGrail as interim CEO, based in Aberdeen, so that Great British Energy can quickly get the expertise needed to help the company develop. I was delighted to convene the first meeting of Great British Energy’s board of directors last week in Aberdeen.

We are determined to get Great British Energy delivering for the British people as soon as possible. It has already made some incredibly exciting announcements on initial projects, including a partnership with the Crown Estate, and most recently announcements on solar for schools and hospitals across England, with funding also for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We look forward to GBE making further investment decisions on projects this year, driving forward our clean power mission and creating thousands of jobs across the country in the process.

Lords amendment 2 would prevent the Secretary of State from providing financial assistance to Great British Energy if credible evidence of modern slavery was found in its supply chains. There has understandably been significant interest in this amendment from Members in the other place and on both sides of this House. We recognise that concerns have been raised widely on this issue, and I am seeking to approach it in a collaborative and open way with hon. Members.

I will also address amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, as our approach to this amendment is similar. I first of all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for amendment (a). I have been grateful for her engagement with me ahead of the Bill returning to this House. I also pay tribute to her tireless work over many years on this important issue. Her amendment would amend Lords amendment 2 made in the other place by creating a cross-ministerial taskforce to which Great British Energy would need to prove that its supply chains were free of forced labour.

I want the House to be in no doubt that this Government are absolutely committed to confronting and tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains. As set out by my colleague Lord Hunt in the other place, Great British Energy has a range of tools to tackle modern slavery in its supply chains. GBE will prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement when it meets the thresholds set out under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That will outline the steps it is taking to ensure that slavery and human trafficking are not present in its supply chains or any part of its business.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, GBE can reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers that are known to use forced labour themselves or that have it anywhere in their supply chain. I commit here that GBE will utilise the debarment list to ensure that suppliers with unethical supply chains cannot participate in procurement or be awarded contracts by GBE.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

That is not altogether correct. The Minister will know full well that the Procurement Act can only be enacted once a supplier has had a conviction under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. To do that, proceedings have to be able to be taken against the company that is involved in the slavery. A British company involved in agency is not involved in the slavery. It would have to get the Chinese Government to prosecute the Chinese company to make sure that they got a prosecution here. That is never going to happen.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his many years of work on this issue. I will come to some of the detail in addition to this measure, but it is important to say that the debarment list, which was part of the Act passed by the Conservative Government, has been in force since February and will be populated in due course. We will use that list as the basis of challenging the decisions that Great British Energy can make not to take contracts with those on that list. I will look in more detail at the specific points that he raised, and I will come to some of that later in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

My constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff is a Holocaust survivor. She knows what slave labour looks like, and she has written to the Prime Minister to urge that our energy transition does not repeat so many of the atrocities that she has seen. She is awaiting a reply from the Prime Minister. Will the Minister nudge No. 10 to ensure that she gets the response that she needs and deserves on her own behalf and that of victims of modern slavery across the world?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I saw that powerful letter, which was widely reported in the press. I am not sure that nudging No. 10 is quite within my gift, but I will certainly raise the issue for a response. The wider point raised is absolutely right. I recognise the need not just in the energy sector but across our economy to ensure that we remove any risk of forced labour in supply chains. We all share that commitment across the House. We need a number of different measures to make that happen. I am determined that Great British Energy will a leader in the sector on doing that, particularly within the energy space.

Returning to the focus that Great British Energy will have at the highest levels of its work, I can commit today that it will appoint a senior individual in the organisation to lead on ethical supply chains and modern slavery. Further, the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which the Secretary of State will issue to GBE once it receives Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that GBE proactively works to deliver on these commitments and, in doing so, becomes a sector leader in this space, as we would expect from any company owned by the British public.

To further demonstrate our commitment across Government, we will write to all FTSE 100 companies outlining our expectations on responsible businesses to ensure that these issues, especially forced labour and supply chains, are being effectively identified and addressed. Given the importance of tackling modern slavery, it is crucial that businesses play their part to tackle that abhorrent crime. We cannot do this without their support, so it is an important step across Government.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister is explaining what the Government are doing, but they are not doing what Members of this House and of the other place want—not just asking people to do stuff but leading. That is what this amendment does: it would allow the UK to really show its leadership on behalf of the British public. This will be a huge public company. Why will the Minister not just commit to that further step today?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me come to that point, because the specific reason that we disagree with their lordships on this amendment is that it would not actually do what the hon. Gentleman says. It would force the Government to cease all GBE’s activities, rather than give it the scope to address any of the issues that we are raising today directly within the framework that we have outlined. As I said, we as a Government are wholly committed to doing this. Great British Energy will be committed to ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. The amendment would cease the funding immediately, which would not give GB Energy the scope to actually invest in the appropriate supply chains and to tackle those issues directly.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister accept that many people listening to this will see it as evading rather than addressing the issue? We can have the Procurement Act, the taskforce and the letters to all the major companies, but the fact remains that most companies will seek financial assistance for the kinds of projects that they wish to do. If credible evidence is discovered that supply chains have been contaminated by slavery, the easy way of stopping purchases from suppliers who act in that way will be to say, “You’re not getting any support.”

[Michael Shanks]

I do not disagree with that at all, and that is possible. Nothing forces Great British Energy, or any other company, to take investment from any individual or company. They can choose not to do so for a whole variety of reasons, and if one of those reasons is credible evidence of modern slavery in the supply chain, I would fully expect them not to invest in those companies. That is exactly what we are talking about today. The point is that that conversation must be broader than one just about Great British Energy. It is about wider supply chains and companies right across the economy, and that is what we are hoping to tackle.

In parallel, although the energy sector is particularly important to me, I want to work across Government to outline a comprehensive plan to tackle modern slavery, which is a question right across the economy. Rather than dealing with the problem on a company-by-company basis, we must look to do so more broadly. To drive forward that work, I confirm that in the coming weeks I will convene cross-departmental ministerial meetings involving the Department for Business and Trade, the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and my Department to discuss how we can accelerate work across Government on this really important issue.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his speech and the consideration that he is giving to this issue. Will he look at a reverse burden of proof so that, instead of proving an exclusion, it is switched to show no association with modern slavery?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come to that briefly in a moment.

All of this work builds on the implementation of the new procurement regime, which focuses on ensuring fair and open competition and treating suppliers equally, as well as the work that we are doing on the relaunched solar taskforce—it started under the previous Government and has continued under this Government—to develop resilient, sustainable and innovative solar supply chains that are free from forced labour.

We recognise that the landscape has shifted since the Modern Slavery Act came into effect, which is why yesterday the Home Office published updated statutory guidance on transparency in supply chains that provides comprehensive and practical advice for businesses on how to tackle forced labour in their supply chains. Great British Energy will, of course, follow any new measures on modern slavery to which it is subjected, just as any responsible public or private body should. I hope that the new steps I have outlined will reassure the House that Departments across Government will continue to work intensively on this issue.

Before I move on, I will reflect briefly on amendment (b) to Lords amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), which would require the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner to define “credible evidence” in Lords amendment 2. While I thank him for the amendment, we have to resist it as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s role was established to encourage good practice rather than to look specifically into supply chains of individual companies. The amendment would place a significant lawmaking function on the commissioner, which the role was not designed for, and is currently not within the commissioner’s powers. The amendment would also have wider implications for how evidence of modern slavery is assessed and could create unnecessary legal uncertainty and precedent.

I turn to the remaining amendments. The Government were pleased to table Lords amendment 1 and Lords amendments 3 to 12 following positive discussions with peers in the other place. Lords amendment 1 puts community energy on the face of the Bill. The Government had a manifesto commitment to deliver a step change in community energy across the UK. We set up GBE to deliver our local power plan: it is at the heart of our plans for GBE. However, we recognise that during the Bill’s passage, it was highlighted that the role of community energy should be made explicit in the Bill. As my colleagues in the other place said, the Government have accepted that, and it is right that that is now in the Bill.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the amendment. Does the Minister agree that community energy is important not just for jobs and investment but for engaging communities with the transition to a new energy system? Does he recognise the need for the Government to support those initiatives with funding going forward?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Community energy is incredibly important to give communities a stake in their energy future and to deliver the social and economic benefits that go with it. Just last week we announced a significant amount of funding through GBE for community energy projects across England, and funding for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to spend on similar projects, including community energy projects in their own areas.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly, but then I will have to make a bit of progress.

[Dave Doogan]

Can the Minister advise the House on the level of recurrence to that funding? Will it be year-on-year funding? Will he also give us an indication—maybe not precisely, but broadly—what that funding stream will be year on year under GB Energy?

[Michael Shanks]

It will not be recurring in the same methodology. GBE does not yet exist, so we carried out the initial set of investments in a particular way. Going forward, those projects will be on the basis of the individual investment propositions put forward. Individual projects in Scotland or in other parts of the UK will therefore apply for funding, they will be considered alongside other investments and those investments will be made. However, we will not deliver funding on a population share on that basis going forward. Of course, funding is already going to the Scottish Government, with a significant increase in the budget this year to fund, for example, the community and renewable energy scheme and the community energy work, which are going on in Scotland already.

Briefly, Lords amendment 3 came in recognition of concerns raised about the length of time GBE could operate without strategic priorities. We have agreed to an amendment that would prepare a set of strategic priorities within six months, although I will say to the House, as I did in Committee, that we intend to move far faster than that. Lords amendments 4 to 10 were brought about following positive engagement with the devolved Governments and we are committed to collaboration on a UK-wide basis. The amendments, which relate to clause 5, moved from consulting with devolved Governments to consent in relation to devolved competencies. I am grateful to my ministerial colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for engaging so productively and for the Parliaments’ legislative consent motions on the Bill.

Lords amendment 11 introduces an independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Finally, Lords amendment 12 ensures that Great British Energy will keep the impact of its activities on sustainable development under review. I know that was a concern raised by a number of Members in relation to how we conserve nature and biodiversity while advancing clean power. I therefore hope the House will join me in welcoming that addition.

I look forward to this debate—albeit short—and I urge the House to support the Government’s position on the amendments.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

This is a sad and quite incredible day in this House. We have debated this Government’s energy policies on many occasions in the past few months. We have frequently debated the merits, or lack thereof, of Great British Energy, an organisation about which we still know very little—what it is for and what it will do.

We were told by the Labour party that it would bring down bills by £300, but bills have gone up. We were told by the Labour party that it would create jobs, but nobody can tell us how many or by when. We were told by the Labour party that it would be based in Aberdeen, but the interim chairman is based in Manchester and it looks unlikely that we will see little more than a brass plaque in the granite city. We were told that it would employ thousands of people, but that then turned to hundreds. We were told it would generate energy, but it will not—it does not have a licence to do that. We were told that it would guarantee a positive return on every investment, but that is impossible. I therefore ask the Minister again: what will the entity actually do? Do they know? Will it be seeking an electricity generation licence? How will it bring down energy costs in this country?

Turning to today’s proceedings, far from the Secretary of State and the Minister’s insistence that Great British Energy will free us from reliance on foreign dictatorships, this headlong rush to clean power by 2030 will, in fact, make us more reliant than ever on the People’s Republic of China. He and his Ministers are quick to note the reluctance to rely on petrostate dictators. I wonder how he would characterise the People’s Republic of China, where political opposition is illegal, where citizens have more limited political rights than in the Russian Federation, where dissent is invariably punished and where the use of forced labour is proven.

In 2022 we blocked China General Nuclear from involvement in Sizewell C. In 2020 we prevented Chinese influence on our communications networks under the guise of Huawei. Yet despite serious concerns about the national security implications, the ethical implications and the high climate emissions, the Secretary of State and Ministers are opening the gates to Chinese technology in our North sea wind farms, to solar panels made with slave labour and to using coal power.

It is in the context of our increasing reliance on foreign states that I wish to speak to the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 2, tabled by Lord Alton of Liverpool. I am grateful to him, and we all recognise his long-standing dedication to this serious matter.

I said that this was a sad day, and I feel for those Labour MPs, for many of whom I have a great deal of respect, who came into this House, into politics and specifically into their party because they believed in social justice and decency, and for whom this is not just a job but a vocation. They came here in July believing that they would be part of a project to create a better world, in the spirit of Bevan, Attlee, Hardie and Wilson. I wonder what those titans of that proud labour movement would make of this today, because it was on this day in 1807 that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received Royal Assent, and 218 years on, Labour MPs are going to be whipped to allow the state to directly fund imports of goods built by slave labour in China. [Interruption.] They complain, but it is true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

With the leave of the House, I will sum up the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate, although it has been short, on a number of the amendments but perhaps most importantly on forced labour and modern slavery in our economy. I want to reflect on some of the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, but let me start by saying that I hear the very strong views that have been expressed on this issue. It is right that Governments of whatever party constantly challenge themselves to go further in tackling these issues, because—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it—even one person being affected by forced labour is an absolute disgrace. We should collectively tackle that issue using whatever means we can.

As such, I want to reiterate clearly that contrary to some of the contributions we have heard from Conservative Members, Lords amendment 2 is about amending the Great British Energy Bill, not about the Government’s wider commitment to tackling modern slavery. It can be repeated as often as Conservative Members like, but it is simply disingenuous to come to this place and suggest that the Labour party has suddenly decided not to care about this issue. I really do take issue with that.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for a lot of the debate, but I will give way to him.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I think the Minister would accept that Lords amendment 2 is a very modest proposal that could make a significant difference to people’s lives and outcomes in China. There is talk of Labour buying off its Back Benchers by saying that further legislation is coming down the line—is that in six months’ time, a year’s time, or two years’ time? When is it going to come?

[Michael Shanks]

First, the right hon. Gentleman cares so much about the issue that he has only just turned up to the debate. Secondly, he was a senior member of the Government for 14 years. If this was an issue that he cared about so much, why are we here debating it now? The truth is that the previous Government could have tackled this issue in a much clearer way. I will not follow him on that point.

As I said clearly in opening the debate, which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here for, there should no modern slavery anywhere in our economy or our supply chains. To deliver, we must work across Government and across the economy, because it is not just about the investments that Great British Energy makes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Shanks]

I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and then I need to finish.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023 do not work in this area. To do anything, two criteria must be met, and they are only advisory. In the World Health Organisation, we had to prove that organ harvesting was not an “ethical organ transplant system”, and we cannot get to the supply chains, which are state-invented, state-imposed and disguised. I urge the Minister to give a commitment that he will listen to the argument in these two amendments.

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument that my hon. Friend is making, but the issues she rightly highlights, as other Members have, go much wider than Great British Energy, which the Bill sets up as a publicly owned energy company. Those issues are about the wider economy and investment across our supply chains.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I need to close. I am sorry.

In part, we are setting up Great British Energy because we want to deliver home-grown supply chains and an industrial strategy, in spite of the Conservative party having completely failed to deliver that for 14 years—in fact, it had a complete ignorance of how to build supply chains. Had it delivered on some of the supply chains in this country, we might not have to import so much. [Interruption.] Opposition Members can shout all they want; they know that they failed on this matter, and we are picking up the pieces.

For those Members who were in the debate, I want to respond to the points raised, in particular in the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). On her point about how widespread the problem of forced labour is, that underlines why a piecemeal approach, legislating on individual companies here and there, is not the right one. We need to work across Government to tackle the problem throughout the economy. She asked for clarity on some of the points made. She is right to reiterate the point that I intend to pull together Ministers from across Government, including the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and my Department, to look at how we can collectively tackle the issue. There will be a designated leader within Great British Energy to drive this work forward. We will utilise the debarment list.

More broadly, we fully expect Great British Energy to do everything in its power under the relevant guidance and legislation to remove any instances of forced labour from supply chains. GBE must not approve the use of products from companies that may be linked to forced labour.

This is an important debate on a Bill that was in our manifesto. It delivers the first new national publicly-owned energy generation company in 75 years. It is backed by the British public, and it will deliver jobs and investment all over the country. It will deliver the deployment of clean power. We will tackle the supply chains to ensure that jobs come to this country and that we tackle the scourge of modern slavery, not just through GBE but across the economy. That is our commitment. I urge Members to support the Government’s position. In the 15 seconds I have left, I reiterate the point I made earlier: I am willing to work with Members across the House to tackle this fundamental issue, which is of extreme importance across the Government.

Great British Energy: Rooftop Solar Power

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Hundreds of schools, NHS trusts and communities across the UK will benefit from new rooftop solar power and renewable schemes to save money on their energy bills, thanks to a total £200 million investment partnership between Great British Energy and the UK Government, including the Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care.

In another step forward for the Government’s plan for change, the Energy Secretary has today, Friday 21 March, announced the first major project for Great British Energy—a company owned by the British people, for the British people. It will immediately begin working with schools, the NHS and the devolved Governments to install rooftop solar panels, build local clean power and bring down energy bills.

In England, around £80 million in funding will support around 200 schools. This could lead to lifetime savings of up to £140 million. Estimates suggest that, on average, a typical school could save over £25,000 per year.

Additionally, £100 million will be allocated to nearly 200 NHS sites in England. This covers a third of NHS trusts. The NHS is the single biggest public sector energy user, with an estimated annual energy bill of £1.4 billion. This has more than doubled since 2019. Great British Energy’s investment could save the NHS up to £260 million per year—up to £45,000 per hospital.

The first panels are expected to be installed by the end of summer 2025. This will save schools and hospitals money for the next academic year. There is also the potential to sell leftover energy back to the grid.

Schools and hospitals have been hit with rocketing energy bills in recent years, costing taxpayers millions of pounds and eating into school budgets. This has been driven by the UK’s dependency on global fossil fuel markets. Great British Energy’s first investment could see millions invested back into frontline services, targeting deprived areas, with lifetime savings for schools and the NHS of up to £400 million over around 30 years.

A further £9.3 million will power schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These projects can be a mixture of installations on public sector buildings, new community or local renewables projects, and other complementary technologies such as battery storage solutions. This funding has come from the budget allocated to GBE local delivery in the 2025-26 spending review, which has been apportioned between all four nations by population share. England has supplemented this with funding from existing budgets, including health and education. The devolved Governments may similarly choose to use this new funding alongside existing budgets to deliver ambitious new projects or expand existing schemes.

In addition, local authorities and community energy groups will also be supported by nearly £12 million to help build local clean energy projects—from community-led onshore wind to solar on rooftops and hydropower in rivers—that can help drive growth.

Great British Energy’s community energy fund will provide £5 million in grant funding to support community energy groups to develop their own clean power supply projects. These could generate profits that could then be reinvested into community projects or take money off people’s bills.

The UK Government will continue to fund the local net zero hubs in England, with a total of £6.8 million for existing hubs. These offer a free-to-use service for local authorities to access the expertise and resource to get clean energy projects up and running.

Great British Energy is also launching partnerships with strategic mayoral authorities. The metro mayors can apply for a share of £10 million to deliver clean power projects in every region of England.

We have been clear from the start that expanding support for local and community power is a core ambition for Great British Energy. This announcement demonstrates an immense commitment by Great British Energy and the UK Government to support local and community energy now and in the future. These schemes will deliver clean, secure, home-grown power for our core public services and local communities.

[HCWS543]

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

7. What recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030.

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

Our clean power mission will end our dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, giving the British people the energy security they deserve and driving jobs and investment into our communities. We are already seeing the impact of the clean energy transition, with thousands of jobs being created across the country in CCUS—carbon capture, usage and storage—hydrogen and offshore wind, and more nationally significant solar power being approved in eight months than the previous Government managed in 14 years.

[Mr French]

The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?

[Michael Shanks]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman draws attention to the London power tunnels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited them recently and they are a fantastic example of engineering and of what we can achieve if we set ambitious targets in this area. I gently disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the wider point, however, as we are going to have to build infrastructure across the country to get the benefits of the renewable energy that we are generating, and battery storage is important for that. Of course communities have a voice through the planning system and it would be wrong for me to comment on individual applications, but the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues must remember that we cannot simply block every infrastructure project that needs to be built. We need to build for the economic growth of the country and for our energy security.

[James Wild]

Once again the Minister has failed to answer the question about the cost estimate, but we do know that the Government’s dogma-driven 2030 target will drive up costs and that we will see pylons and substations imposed in Walpole in my constituency and across the country against the wishes of local people. That will damage our countryside and it relies on Chinese supply chains, which the Energy Secretary visited only over the weekend. When will the Government realise that their approach of ruling out underground options and attempting to buy off local communities on the cheap, rather than listening to them, will only drive opposition to their plans?

[Michael Shanks]

Once again, we hear from Conservative Members about all these grand plans that they wish they had done in the 14 years that they were in government. They could have moved forward on undergrounding if they were so keen on it, but of course they did not. The reality is that it is for individual companies, not us, to set forward the design of individual projects, and cost estimates for undergrounding are five or 10 times more expensive.

The bottom line on all of this is that the leader of the hon. Member’s party earlier today moved away from the commitments that she had made on net zero. Just a few years ago, she said that

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has made it clear that relying on authoritarian regimes”

can make it

“harder…to heat our homes”.

They recognised then the importance of this net zero transition; now they are running away from how we deliver on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

UK electricity bills are the highest in Europe compared to gas. Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are absolutely right to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it is a shame that some Opposition Members have abandoned an evidence-informed approach to policymaking. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering rebalancing the infrastructure levies on our energy bills, as a way of reducing electricity bills in the immediate future and as a down payment towards 2030 and beyond?

[Michael Shanks]

The Select Committee Chair makes an important point. Along with the Minister for Energy Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), I am looking at all options, because it is important that we bring down bills and that we are building an energy system that protects us from the volatile fossil fuel markets in the future. There are trade-offs to be made when rebalancing that we need to be aware of, in particular whether a diminishing number of gas customers can pay bills if we were to transfer levies, but we are looking at all options and are, of course, looking at how we review with Ofgem the wider question of standing charges to make sure we bring down bills. My hon. Friend is right to say of the journey that we are on—and that the Conservative party used to be on, and on which there used to be consensus—that our transition to net zero is important for energy security and for the climate, but also for protecting bills in the long term.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

The Minister is clearly aware of the foolhardy decision by the Opposition to abandon the political consensus on net zero, but has he made an assessment of the cost to the consumer of pursuing that disastrous path, which would lock us into our dependence on polluting fossil fuels, volatile oil and gas prices, and the whims of foreign dictators?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that where once there was consensus in this country on how we tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, how we deliver the economic and industrial advantage, that consensus seems to have been splintered by the Conservative party. It was only two years ago that the leader of that party made an important point, which I agree with strongly, when she said

“if we get our strategy wrong, we risk being left on the backfoot as other countries seize the advantage.”

The Conservative party now wishes us to be on the backfoot, but we are determined that we will drive forward because that is the best policy for consumers, economic growth and energy security.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Government’s rush to decarbonise the grid means more hidden costs, more curtailment payments, more balancing payments, more subsidies and a higher carbon price. Will the Minister guarantee that our carbon price will remain lower than the European price for the remainder of this Parliament?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly. The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that. We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.

[Nick Timothy]

That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?

[Michael Shanks]

Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago. We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme on the living standards of the recipients of that pension.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the development of large-scale solar farms.

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

Meeting our clean power mission will require a significant increase in the deployment of both ground-mounted and rooftop solar projects. As well as consenting record amounts of ground-mounted solar, we want to see a much greater deployment of rooftop solar power. We will soon publish the solar road map—work that started under the previous Government—to bring together our next steps in this area.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Government say that only 1% of agricultural land will be taken up by solar farms, but in the pipeline around Gainsborough 10,000 acres have already been put aside for solar farms, with another 4,000 announced a couple of weeks ago—up to 15% of my constituency, which is the most arable and most fertile in the country. I make one quite reasonable request of the Secretary of State: will he consider applications in the round rather than individually, and look at their cumulative effect on food production and the local environment?

[Michael Shanks]

Under even the most ambitious scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land would be occupied by solar farms. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about their being holistically planned, the strategic spatial energy planning that we have taken forward is important in having a coherent view of the entire energy system. That is work that we should have done many, many years ago. We are now moving at pace to do it, but individual planning applications are—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Luke Murphy.

[Michael Shanks]

I think we have rehearsed the arguments about the absolute failure of the previous Government over the past 14 years. The Conservatives have just gone further back today. On GB Energy, I was delighted to be in Aberdeen yesterday to join the board of GB Energy for its first board meeting. The Bill will soon, we hope, complete its passage through Parliament. It can then get on with delivering for the British people.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T4.   I welcome the plans brought forward last week to provide money off for people living near new energy infrastructure. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another thing that the Conservatives promised, but never had the ability to deliver?

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

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister may be aware that SSE is supporting more than 1,000 new homes in rural Scotland to aid energy infrastructure development. Does he agree that the SNP Scottish Government’s failure to get a grip on our rural housing crisis is a major barrier to infrastructure development, and will he urge SSE to expand the scheme into my constituency, where we have key projects around the communities of Killearn, Lochearnhead, Tyndrum and Crianlarich?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He underlines the importance not just of delivering on energy projects but the wider economic benefits from building infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that the Conservatives now oppose. He is right that in order to deliver these projects, we need to see investment in rural communities by the Scottish Government. We will continue to press them on those issues.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

T9.   Kent county council plans to introduce 10,000 on-street car chargers over the next decade. To put that in context, Kent has a population of 1.6 million people. At this rate, Kent will have burned down by the time we all have electric on-street car charging. What can the Secretary of State do to speed this up?

--- Later in debate ---

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

There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?

[Michael Shanks]

Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?

Viking CCS Pipeline: Development Consent Application

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Written Statements

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

This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Chrysaor Production (UK) Ltd for the construction and operation of an onshore underground pipeline for the transportation of CO₂ from Immingham to Theddlethorpe in Lincolnshire.

Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report, unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.

The statutory deadline for the decision on the Viking CCS pipeline is 5 March 2025.

I have decided to allow an extension and to set a new deadline of 5 June 2025. This is to allow time to request further information.

The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.

[HCWS498]

Management of Italian Nuclear Materials in the UK

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Written Statements

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

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) made the following statement today:

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has agreed to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority:

Taking ownership of approximately 1.58 tonnes of separated civil plutonium which was previously owned by an Italian counterpart;

Taking ownership of approximately 700 tonnes of reprocessed uranium which was previously owned by an Italian counterpart.

These transactions, which have been agreed by the Euratom Supply Agency, will not result in any new plutonium or reprocessed uranium being brought into the UK, and will not therefore increase the overall amount of plutonium or reprocessed uranium in the UK.

The Department has agreed to these transactions on the grounds that they offer a cost-effective and beneficial arrangement, facilitating the conclusion of historical European nuclear material contracts. The revenue from the transactions is sufficient to cover the cost of the management of the plutonium and reprocessed uranium involved.

The UK has committed to publish annual figures for national holdings of civil plutonium and uranium at the end of each calendar year to improve transparency and public confidence. The most recently published data can be found at the following link: https://www.onr.org.uk/publications/regulatory-reports/safeguards/annual-civil-plutonium-figures/2023-annual-figures-for-holdings-of-civil-unirradiated-plutonium/ This data will be updated in due course to reflect the changes in ownership described above.

In January 2025, the Department also announced the decision to immobilise the UK-owned civil separated plutonium inventory at Sellafield.

[HCWS472]

Cost of Energy

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Good morning; it is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Western. May I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and, actually, for all our engagements over the past seven months? She always helpfully challenges the Government from a place of real passion and commitment, and I appreciate her words of wisdom, even if I do not always entirely agree with them. In fact, we have had countless debates on energy policy with a number of people in this room—it is beginning to become a bit of a weekly club here in Westminster Hall—and I appreciate all the points that have been raised.

May I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I just cannot get enough of his contributions? Having not spent enough time in the Commons yesterday, we are back again today, but I am appreciative none the less. I will come to his points about Northern Ireland later.

I will start where the hon. Member for Bath started: on the public’s view about the cost of energy. She made an important point about how central energy costs are not just to the cost of living crisis that our constituents are still living through, but to their belief in the Government’s ability to change things, so it is important that we tackle these issues. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) rightly said, this Government were elected on a manifesto that contained pledges on energy. I am privileged to have the job of Energy Minister, because for the first time in a very long time we have a Government with a key mission to fix the energy system in this country. The truth is that it needs to be fixed because of what we inherited from the previous Government.

The energy crisis in 2022 was just the peak that highlighted how vulnerable we are to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. The cost of energy continues to have a devastating impact on our constituents and communities right across the country. Although consumers are protected to a certain degree by the energy price cap, our energy costs are determined by volatile markets outwith our control. As long as we remain exposed to that, the risk to our constituents is that we will face yet another price spike in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made the point well that after 14 years of Conservative Government, we have to not just turn around one bit of the energy system, but deal with the whole series of occasions on which the previous Government failed to make decisions that would grapple with the scale of the problem. That is why I announced yesterday in the main Chamber our transitional support for Drax and biomass. The truth is that we got a good deal for consumers and for sustainability, but we had to make that decision. We had no other options because the previous Government left us with no long-term plan for energy security.

That is why we believe so firmly in our clean power by 2030 mission, which, by creating home-grown renewable energy, will help us to reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets and will protect bill payers for good. Great British Energy will play a vital role in that mission by accelerating our deployment of clean energy so that Britain can become a clean energy superpower. Crucially, it will also invest in the supply chains that bring manufacturing jobs for renewable energy to our country.

[Sir John Hayes]

I understand the Minister’s desire to create more economic resilience by ensuring energy independence. By the way, I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of this contribution and the previous one. The key thing is transmission and distribution costs, which make up 15% of every energy bill. No Government have looked at that seriously. If we distribute energy production to small solar plants spread right across the kingdom, we will maximise the costs and damage the resilience that the Minister seeks. Will he focus on the concentration of energy production and bring it as close to consumption as possible?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission costs later, because it is important, particularly when it comes to how we grapple with constraint costs. The truth is that we will have to build more network infrastructure. I hope he will support the construction of that, although I suspect he will not. We also want to review energy market reforms to look at how we deal with some of these issues. I will come back to the important point, which a number of hon. Members raised, of how we build an energy system for the future. The question of balance is key. We do not want a renewables-only system, although renewables will be incredibly important. We announced last week our commitment to rolling out much more nuclear to provide the baseload and the security of supply. We have the ability to place small modular reactors across the country near centres of demand, such as the data centres that we will see in the future.

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), representing the former Government, tried to mischaracterise the need to upgrade the grid as a cost of renewables, but does the Minister agree that we need to upgrade the grid regardless of what technology we use? We lose 10% of the energy we generate through transmission. It is an old grid and, regardless of the technology we use, we need to upgrade it.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Upgrading the grid is important for transmitting the clean power that we want to generate in the future, but it is already 50 or 60 years old, and it is creaking under the pressures it has operated under for a very long time.

There is real need to upgrade the grid right across the country. The truth is that the previous Government recognised that that was important. They launched the idea of the great grid upgrade before we did, but they are now running away from a lot of that. That is hugely disappointing, but it will not get in the way of our moving forward to make sure that we build the grid of the future. Yes, we need to meet the demand for now, but we know that by 2050 electricity demand is likely to double in this country. If we do not build the infrastructure now, it will be the weakest part of our economic strategy in the future. It is essential we build it now, but we want to bring communities with us.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not also true that although we need to upgrade an old grid, the challenge of the future is a decentralised energy system, and that that is so often misunderstood? We had big power stations; now we have decentralised and smaller energy providers. That is a big challenge that we all have to recognise rather than criticising a particular Government—as tempting as it is to just criticise the Government of the day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

Never will it be said that I enjoy criticising the former Government.

I would flip what the hon. Member for Bath says on its head: that change also presents a real opportunity to look at the electricity system in a different way—I will come back to that point, particularly on community energy. It is right to say that the days of big cities with power stations right next to them are long gone, so we need to think of a different way to build our transmission system into the future.

On Clean Power 2030, advice from the National Energy System Operator said that the clean power system can be cheaper than today’s system for consumers. Contrary to what some Members have said, we know that renewables are by far the cheapest to run. There is a cost to building them, but there is also a huge cost to building new gas or nuclear power stations that is often not factored into the debate. Renewables come at a cost but are then incredibly cheap to operate on our system.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke very passionately about climate change. That is really important. The mission we are on is about building an energy system for the future that gives us energy security, but it is also about tackling the climate crisis, which we can no longer think of as a future threat. As we look around the world, we can see from just this year alone that it is a present reality. It is increasingly difficult to read the statistics and not think that we should be taking more decisive action.

I gently say to the hon. Lady, as she prods this Government for not going fast enough, that in seven months we have launched the Clean Power 2030 mission, lifted the onshore wind ban in England—which was an absurd policy—and approved more solar than the previous Government did. We have had the biggest renewables auction in history, with 131 projects, we have created the pathway to clean power by 2030 and have already delivered record investment in the supply chains that will deliver some of the infrastructure upgrades we need, including £1 billion by ScottishPower. We launched the solar taskforce and the onshore wind industry taskforce. We are also looking at the Offshore Wind Industry Council and how it can deliver more. I am not sure we could move much faster, but if the hon. Lady has some suggestions, I am happy to take them on board.

Finally, on the point about the rooftop solar revolution, we agree that it needs to be not an either/or, but both. We will need ground-mounted solar, which plays a really important part, but we have rooftops right across the country—in car parks, warehouses and industrial units—that we should be covering in solar panels wherever we possibly can. We will do much more on that. We reconvened the solar taskforce, which the previous Government ran, to try and increase the ambition, and it will report in due course.

[Jamie Stone]

To return to my earlier intervention about the switch-off of the radio signal, on infrastructure, does the Minister agree that the data communication company must be exhorted and encouraged in every possible way to get on with the roll-out? Otherwise, people who are very vulnerable will pay more for their electricity.

[Michael Shanks]

I had a segue planned in my speech that was going to get me to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he pre-empted me, and he is quite right to do so. He is right. This is a real challenge. The switch-off is the right thing for us to do in the long term—I think that everyone agrees that as a system that is outdated—but we do need to be absolutely certain that no one is left behind.

The Minister responsible for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has already had a number of meetings with Ofgem and with industry to make sure we speed up the roll-out. The service ends in June, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, and the taskforce that has been put in place to roll it out is now moving at pace. I think it is fair to say that it should have been moving faster up to this point, but they are very aware of the issues and we will keep that under review; it is of course essential that people are not left behind when the signal is switched off.

Moving on to short-term support, we recognise that by 2030 the clean power system will be crucial to bringing down bills in the long term, and to protecting consumers from the price spikes that we have faced in recent years. However, short-term support is important for households that are struggling with their bills while we are in that transition. That is why the Government continue to deliver the warm home discount, which gives a £150 rebate off energy bills for all eligible low-income households, and it is expected to support 3 million households across the country this winter.

The Minster for energy consumers has worked with energy suppliers to agree a £500 million industry support commitment to help specific customers who are struggling this winter. We also extended the household support fund until March 2026 with an extra £742 million, with additional funding for the devolved Governments as fuel poverty is devolved through the Barnett formula.

A number of hon. Members raised the question of a social tariff. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made a passionate case for it, and we are looking at what bill support could look like in the future, including the possibility of a social tariff. I acknowledge that there is a broad consensus on the idea of a social tariff. The challenge is that it means different things to different people. One of the challenges that we are grappling with is how we define a social tariff, and how we can reach, in a very targeted way, the people who need it the most.

Part of that is the issue of data sharing, which a number of hon. Members have raised—that is, how we bring together the information that the Government have about the individual people who could most benefit from such a scheme. The Minster for energy consumers is leading that work, alongside industry bodies such as Energy UK and stakeholders. They are looking at how we can improve affordability and accessibility, and they are working with the Department for Work and Pensions on how we might be able to share some of the data that it has.

The question about levies has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and I think the Conservative party is now pledging to abolish levies entirely. It is an incredibly complex subject, but it is something that we want to grapple with, and we need to be very mindful.

I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath at the beginning of the debate. While the wholesale price will come down as we put more renewables on to the system, and as we squeeze off gas as the marginal price, if bills do not come down because levies remain high, people will not see the benefit. It is really important to bring communities with us. The truth is, it is a complex issue. I am not going to stand here and say that we can just abolish levies, or that we can just transfer them entirely on to taxation. Neither option is possible in completion, but we are considering how we look at the future of levies, and we are open to suggestions from all parties on how we do that.

On the point about rebalancing—how we move electricity costs, in particular, on to gas—that is also a challenge. We want the number of people who use gas to decline in the coming years, as we decarbonise. The challenge will be making sure that we do not put charges on to a dwindling number of customers. Potentially and inadvertently, some of the poorest people in the country might be those who are the last to convert from gas to alternatives. I do not, for a second, dismiss the points that have been raised; they are incredibly important. However, I want to be very clear that we are working relentlessly in this Parliament on how we reduce the wholesale costs, and we want to make sure that it follows through on to consumers’ bills.

Related to that, of course, is the point about standing charges on bills, which, as many hon. Members hear from constituents, seem to be such an unfairness because they are not based on consumption or on particular customers’ circumstances. We are committed to looking at the future of standing charges. In December, Ofgem provided an update on reform. It included quite a radical proposal for introducing a new zero standing charge option under the energy price cap, which would give consumers greater choice in how they pay for their energy bills. It is for Ofgem now to consult on that proposal, which it will do this year. The driving force behind that will be making sure that any reforms are fair to all customers.

To underline that this is not straightforward and we cannot just simply abolish levies, I note that there would be unintended consequences if we were to transfer some of the costs on to other people. We could inadvertently find ourselves raising bills for some people without that being the policy intent. We are committed to reforming standing charges, but we want to do it in a way that is fair.

[Mr MacDonald]

Would the Minister spare a minute to talk about community benefits?

[Michael Shanks]

indicated assent.

[Mr MacDonald]

Thank you very much.

[Michael Shanks]

I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to stop at that point. I saw him in his place earlier and knew that I would talk about community benefits. I will turn now to the points about community energy and community benefits; both are important.

On community benefits, in all of this, we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is important. We have made a very clear case that this Government intend to build the energy infrastructure we need, the transmission infrastructure we need, the homes that people need and the industry that people need to grow our economy, which is important. For far too long, this country has not built the infrastructure it needs. In doing so, we want to streamline the planning process so that applications are dealt with far more efficiently and far faster, but we want to bring communities with us. That is absolutely vital.

We will be saying much more very soon about community benefits on several fronts. The first will be how we expand some of the community benefits for particular technologies. That process is already well established in Scotland, for example with onshore wind. The absurd policy of the onshore wind ban in England means that it has not developed as much, but we can look to Wales and to Scotland for advice on that. We also want to expand that to other technologies, particularly solar, which does not have the same community benefits at the moment, and to network infrastructure. I have always said that, if we build network infrastructure and a community is hosting that infrastructure that is essential for the country, it is doing a favour for the rest of the country and should feel some benefit from it. We will announce a package of community benefits shortly.

On the wider point about community infrastructure, we do not only want communities to benefit—we want them to actually own the infrastructure that gives social and economic benefits as well.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not, because I am going to come to the point made by the hon. Member. He has made the point about a highland pricing formula in the past—he is very reasonable about the issue—and it is something we will look at. The reform to the energy market will be part of that work as well. I am afraid I do not have time to come to much detail on mitigations on radar, apart from saying that we recognise the problem and we are working on it.

As always, this has been an incredibly useful debate. The passion from hon. Members is important, because this is one of the most important challenges facing our communities. We are committed to ensuring that energy is affordable for households across the country. Our clean power mission will help us deliver on that, but we have much more to do and we recognise that fact. We will work with Members from all parties, with industry and consumer groups, with charities and with individual constituents who raise these issues to make sure that we support everyone with this transition, to bring down bills in the long term and to support families with their energy costs.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.

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

The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.

On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.

Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.

More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just for clarification, you do not have jurisdiction on the planning issue, and it is no longer in the court, so I am a little bit confused by your assertion that you will be involved going forward.

[Michael Shanks]

I am happy to provide clarification based on the advice that I have, which is that this is a matter for the applicants in the court case, who are entitled to appeal the judgment, should they wish to do so. If they wish to make a further application in this matter, my Department will be responsible for making that judgment, and I seek not to prejudice an application by giving an opinion one way or the other on these matters. I hope that that sits well with you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.

[Andrew Bowie]

In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.

The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.

Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.

The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—

[Andrew Bowie]

New applications?

[Michael Shanks]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.

What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the Government’s commitment to supporting production in existing North sea oil and gas fields and for confirming the desire to partner closely with industry and workers on the transition away from fossil fuels. Does he agree that the workers and communities that rely on the North sea would be in a much stronger position if we had not witnessed over the last decade a chaotic mismanagement of the decline in the basin that he has just referred to, and the failure to plan for the loss of 70,000 jobs in that decade alone?

[Michael Shanks]

The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point, which is that the failure to acknowledge that the transition is already under way is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything will carry on as it was. The reality is that in the past decade a third of the oil and gas workforce—70,000 workers, as my hon. Friend says—have already lost their jobs and the transition is under way. We are determined to ensure not only that the transition leads to a future in the North sea energy sector that, yes, involves oil and gas for many years to come, but that we build the industries of the future now so that there is no gap. The alternative is to do what the previous Government did, which was to pretend that the transition was not under way and then somehow deal with the shock that would come when North sea oil and gas inevitably declined to the point where workers’ jobs were not protected. We are determined to build what comes next and to protect good, well-paid jobs in the North sea for many decades to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

The decisions that we make in the next decade on energy will make or break the planet, and this is also key for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields. Should the proposed developers apply for a new development consent, the ruling gives the Government the opportunity to take a rational, science-based approach and make a decision on the future of the field based on what is best for the planet, the people of Britain and the UK’s international leadership.

Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), approving these oilfields this will not protect UK workers. Despite promises of jobs, not a single UK design or construction role has been created. Instead, that work has been outsourced to Dubai. Business leaders agree that a fair transition away from oil and gas will boost our economy, create jobs and attract investment. The Liberal Democrats oppose the oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead of pouring money into an energy source that is not consistent with our climate commitments, we should be calling on the Government to invest in renewables and an ambitious green energy strategy that lowers costs, creates jobs and secures our future. What assessment will the Minister make of our climate commitments?

[Michael Shanks]

For the reason I outlined in previous answers, I will not comment specifically on these two projects. In answer to the hon. Lady’s broader point, any future applications for the North sea have to recognise the Supreme Court’s ruling that the end-use emissions, the scope 3 emissions, must be taken into account in any application.

We are now working through the significant number of responses to our consultation at the start of this year, on how people who wish to apply for consent to extract hydrocarbons from the continental shelf can comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment. An environmental assessment will be absolutely necessary. That is not a decision we have made from a political point of view; it was required by the Supreme Court.

We will follow the law of this land, as I would expect any Government to do, although apparently not a Conservative Government. We will put in place a robust system to ensure that any applications that come before us are judged fairly on their merits.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, constrained as it is by the legal situation. What a cheek the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has. He comes to the House pretending to be a hero and protector of the oil industry, when 70,000 jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out, were lost on his Government’s watch.

On the point at issue, there must be balance in the necessary transition from carbon to renewables. It is not an either/or. We have been in the North sea for two generations, and we will be there for two generations more as we wind down the basin. Politics is often about symbols, and the renewed consents for Rosebank and Jackdaw, if they come, offer an opportunity to reassure workers in this industry that they will not be left behind when we plan for a fair and just transition from the old to the new.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. This industry has many thousands of extremely talented, skilled and experienced workers, whom I have had the great privilege of meeting over the past seven months in this role. We have to ensure that we build a resilient industry for many decades to come.

Some of that will be the oil and gas that is already licensed and consented, and any other projects that come through the process, but it will also be about building the industry that comes next. It would be irresponsible of any Government to focus on one at the exclusion of the other.

The reality is that the North sea is a super-mature basin. A transition is already under way, and it is incumbent on us—and on any responsible Government—to build the industry that comes next while continuing to support the oil and gas industry that we have today.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a double standard in the Government backing Heathrow expansion to drive economic growth, but not providing the maximum possible support for our domestic oil and gas industry?

[Michael Shanks]

The Chancellor was very clear in her speech that there is no conflict between our net zero commitments and the industrialisation that we want to see. Economic growth projects such as the runway at Heathrow will be important but, as the Chancellor said, they will have to be in line with our climate obligations.

Importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said, this is not an either/or. Oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we have to plan for what comes next and take cognisance of our legal and climate obligations.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Where was the question?

[Michael Shanks]

I will find the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that historical transitions in key industries have left workers high and dry, instead of recognising that a transition is under way and supporting that workforce into what comes next. The coal industry devastated large parts of my constituency in Lanarkshire, and areas across England and Wales, which continues to have consequences for generations. We are determined that that will not happen with the North sea, but it requires us to plan the transition and to put it in place now, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

What will workers in Scotland be thinking right now, as they watch the UK Government, and a Scottish Minister, going out of their way to accelerate the decline in North sea oil and gas jobs, in advance of replacement jobs coming onstream, as they can see at Grangemouth? Does the Minister not understand that the reduction in attrition to North sea oil and gas production must be commensurate with a reduction in demand and an increase in renewables jobs? He has got that mix all over the place.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the Scottish National party cohort seeking to move to our other Parliament, but the SNP’s position in Holyrood is the same as ours, which is that we must be cognisant of climate change obligations with regard to any new licences. Perhaps he has a different position from his colleagues in Holyrood—I am not sure—but the SNP recognises, rightly, as we do, that the future requires investment in oil and gas for many years to come, to which we are committed, and that investment must match our climate obligations. The transition that is now under way must have Government at its heart, supporting the jobs and industries that come in the future. If the hon. Gentleman supported some of the investment that we propose, such as at Great British Energy in Aberdeen, instead of deriding it at every single turn—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I have again united all the Members of Parliament from north-east Scotland who oppose investment in their own constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman supported that investment, maybe he would see the jobs of the future coming.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Under the previous Government, thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost in the North sea, energy bills hit record highs and the Government put Britain’s energy security in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Having made a patently unlawful decision on Rosebank, the Conservatives are lecturing us on energy policy. The truth is that our clean energy mission will deliver the jobs and economic growth of the future, our commitment to climate action and lower bills. The Conservative party is stuck in the past. Will the Minister remain focused on the future and deliver our clean energy mission, which will deliver the economic and environmental benefits the public want to see?

[Michael Shanks]

As my hon. Friend says, the long-term future of our energy security in this country is not in oil and gas, as important a part as it will continue to play for many years to come. The clean power mission that we are driving forward at pace is about building home-grown renewable power that will deliver energy security in the long term, although oil and gas will continue to play an important part for many years to come, not just in our energy mix but in our country’s wider economic system. We will support the jobs and industries in north-east Scotland to ensure that transition is fair and prosperous for all.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?

[Michael Shanks]

We are still digesting the detail of the judgment, but my understanding is that, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, the Supreme Court made it clear that applications should take account of scope 3 emissions. In the process that we put in place, which I will not pre-empt, we will have to justify how the applications have met that requirement. It will then be for the North Sea Transition Authority to make a judgment and the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make a decision. If somebody wanted to take that judgment to a judicial review, they could be entitled to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision will be for the Government.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that.

I recognise what the Minister said about court judgments. May I press him, though? His predecessors had to admit that there was no energy security in proceeding with Rosebank because 80% of the oil and gas that it would provide would not be for the UK market, so it would not drive down British consumers’ bills. Is that still his understanding of the project? Is that not another good reason why we should rethink it?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.

On the balance that we want to strike, yes, the oil and gas industry is important to our economy and to our energy mix, but the long-term future requires us to move towards clean power. Even if gas is extracted from the North sea, it does not help with consumer bills in this country, because it is traded on an open market to the highest bidder and sold by private companies. This is not a nationalised industry—it is owned by private companies, and gas is extracted by private companies and sold by private companies—and consumers in this country do not benefit from their gas coming from abroad or from the North sea.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.

[Michael Shanks]

To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.

We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.

On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.

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

We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology—[Interruption.] It is about the Government responding to a legal judgment of a court—not just the Court of Session in this particular case, but the Supreme Court—on a decision taken by the previous Government to grant consent unlawfully. We now have to respond to that Supreme Court judgment and ensure that any future application process is robust and does not end up in the courts again—that is what we are determined to do. It will be for individual applicants to bring forward their applications.

On the wider point on jobs, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that there is certainty in the north-east of Scotland. I have spent a lot of time in this job making an effort to get to know not just the individual companies, but the supply chains, support companies and those on apprenticeships that work in the north-east. It is important to me, as it is to the hon. Lady, but I say to her and her whole party that we cannot move forward simply saying that oil and gas is the only future for the north-east of Scotland. They are finite resources, and we are clearly saying that the balance requires us to start investing now in the transition, so that there are good well-paid jobs for many generations to come.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that

“We will not issue new licences to explore new fields,”

but I remind him that there was another part to that paragraph. It says:

“because”

—there was a reason for it—

“they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”

Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?

[Michael Shanks]

We have outlined in the seven months we have been in government our determination to deliver the energy security that this country has lacked in the past 14 years. The previous Government displayed a lack of preparedness not just for our energy security in future, but for the bills—higher than ever before—that all our constituents paid and that led to the cost of living crisis. That was because the Conservatives were happy to have us at the casino of fossil fuel prices. We are determined that that will not be our future and that we will no longer be in thrall to petrostates and dictators. Even though very little of our gas comes from those countries, we remain vulnerable to the prices set by international markets. We are determined that that will not happen, and we are building the clean power system that will take us away from it.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I give credit to the hon. Lady for the ingenious way she got that important question into the urgent question. She makes the good point that, as well as ensuring we have built the clean power system for the needs of the future, we want to reduce as much as possible the need for households to heat their homes by making them much warmer in the first place. We are doing that by improving the standard of homes through the work being done by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on the warm homes plan. We know that some of the poorest people in our country live in substandard homes that are cold and that take far too much of their monthly budgets to heat. We are determined to do something about that, as well as working across the piece on energy-efficiency measures that reduce demand in the years ahead.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

The remaining global carbon budget is extremely small, amounting to just five years’ worth of present global emissions. There is significant evidence that burning all oil and gas in existing fields globally would exceed the 1.5°C global limit. The climate pollution from burning Rosebank’s reserves would be more than the combined annual CO₂ emissions of all 28 of the lowest income countries in the world. Does the Minister agree that we should focus on a fair transition for our communities and workers as we move to other forms of energy, rather than giving CPR to an already declining industry?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend outlines again the importance of tackling the climate crisis that is with us now. That is why the Government have been determined to move faster, through our clean power action plan and through the Department’s wider work to decarbonise across our economy. That is incredibly important and we do not have a moment to waste.

A fair transition is key to ensuring that we move away from a carbon-based economy. We have already closed the last of our coal power stations, which was an important moment, and my visit to Ratcliffe on Soar was an important moment for me to recognise how a transition can be done well—[Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), chuntering that that was done under a Conservative Government. It was an example of where the Conservative Government recognised that the coal industry was declining and that a transition was necessary, but he seems not to recognise that the same is true of the oil and gas industry, which is declining. If we do not start planning for that future now, we will leave those workers with nothing.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Government profess to want growth and jobs, yet they are giving no incentive or indication whatsoever to the developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw that if they spend millions of pounds on a new application, the Government will or will not grant consent. As a result, those developers are much more likely to say, “I won’t bother; I’ll invest my money elsewhere.” Will the Minister give an indication—yes or no to a compliant application?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond what I said at the beginning by asking me not just to give an opinion but to adjudicate on applications, right here in the House of Commons, before either company has applied. I think he knows fine well that I will not do that. We have put in place a robust process whereby the Supreme Court judgment will set out a clear pathway on exactly what companies must do in future applications. It is highly likely in this case that both companies involved in those projects will seek to apply again. They will do so and the Government will make a decision in due course. On the wider point about investment, the Government are doing everything to make this one of the most investable places in the world to come and do business—that is important. Our clean energy action plan, which he opposes, will deliver up to £40 billion of investment every single year in the industrial future of this country, and he should get behind it.

[Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and appreciate his approach in not wanting to prejudice the judicial process. I wonder whether we would be discussing this if Conservative Members had had a similarly responsible approach to government. In very general terms, does he agree that it is vital that the Government honour not just the letter but the spirit of our manifesto commitment, and that this proposal was originally approved over 20 years ago?

[Michael Shanks]

It is important to separate the question of licences in these two cases from the consent process—licensing and consenting have always been different processes. We have said that we will absolutely respect licences that have been issued. We have no plans to and will not revoke existing licences, but neither will we issue new licences to explore new fields. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there have been licences for those fields for a very long time, and we will not revoke them. The question now is about specific consent applications for those projects. That will come before the Department when we have put in place the process to respond to the Supreme Court judgment, and when the companies, if interested, re-submit their applications.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?

[Michael Shanks]

On 20 June last year, the Supreme Court ruled that regulators must consider the impact of burning extracted oil and gas in the environmental impact assessment for new projects. Of course, we were already in an election cycle by that point. I do not know what the previous Government would have done, but a Supreme Court judgment gave a very clear steer that regulators must consider that impact, so I find it very hard to believe that they would have continued to defend a case that the Supreme Court clearly stated could not continue. This Government took the view that it would be wrong to put more public money into the case, when the two applicants themselves accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the Opposition are saying that they would have continued to pour public money into such a case, I would be very surprised—or perhaps disappointed, but not surprised.

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

Conservative Members are speaking up now, but I was present at the United Nations General Assembly when they risked investor confidence in the UK. The then Prime Minister rowed back on net zero commitments, risking investor confidence in the UK and risking our global reputation on climate leadership. This Government are putting us back on the world stage when it comes to climate leadership, and we have a goal: to deliver clean power by 2030. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s key growth sectors of the future include renewable energy, and that there will be jobs for the future in renewable energy and our own Great British Energy?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend’s point about investor confidence is important. Investors lost all confidence in this country under the previous Government; not quite knowing who was going to be in No. 10 or No. 11 at any given moment certainly did not help investor confidence. We are building back that confidence, and have already seen tens of billions of pounds in investment since we came to power, and 70,000 new jobs.

It matters that this country takes a leadership role on climate, because the transition that we want to deliver here is also being delivered right across the world. The country with the fastest transition to clean power last year was China. In some cases, Members of this Parliament are trying to row back on our net zero commitments. We are determined to double down on those commitments, because that is the best way to deliver stability and energy security, bring down bills and create the industrial future and jobs that this country needs.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Hardly a day passes in this place when Ministers do not tell us how broke the country is, yet here we have a Minister who cannot give a commitment to extracting the liquid gold that lies under this country, although it could generate jobs and tax revenue, give us energy security and reduce the import bill. Is it not a fact that the court judgment has driven a hole through the growth strategy, because due to the legal targets for CO₂ reduction that we have set, every major infrastructure project in this country will be legally challengeable, and could be turned down on the basis that it generates CO₂?

[Michael Shanks]

The reason we are in this situation is that the Court ruled that the previous Government made an unlawful decision by not taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court. That is not me saying that from a policy perspective; it is the Court saying that, and we are now moving as quickly as possible to put in place a process that gives confidence to industry and allows applications to come forward. We have said that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for many years to come. We will not revoke existing licences, and therefore it is open for applications for projects to come forward, which will be considered on their individual merits.

However, the right hon. Gentleman and I will always disagree on the fundamental point that tackling climate change is in all our interests. Right around the world, we see the impact of not tackling climate change. It is a clear and present danger to our country and our national security, and we will tackle it.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

Another day, another Labour Minister cleaning up the mess of the Conservatives who came before them. The only reason why we are having this discussion today, and why there is any lack of clarity for workers in the north-east, is that the Conservatives messed up in government. However, does the Minister agree that supporting projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw is entirely compatible with our drive towards a net zero economy? We will continue to need domestic oil and gas to 2050 and likely beyond, and therefore we should maximise UK production, since we can do so with the highest possible labour and environmental standards, and should secure and create jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right. We are putting in place a robust and clear process, so that applications can come forward that are in line with what the Supreme Court ruled, and can be decided on their merits. That is important. On UK production, as I have said a number of times and will keep saying, oil and gas will play an incredibly important role in the UK for many years to come. That investment is important, as are the jobs and the skills in the north-east.

My hon. Friend mentions environmental standards. In my past few months in this job, I have been pleased to hear about the huge amount of work that oil and gas companies have undertaken to decarbonise their work through electrification and other means. This question is about the scope 3 emissions, however, that the Supreme Court ruled must be taken into account; that is about the end use of the hydrocarbons as well. We will put in place a process to deal with that.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?

[Michael Shanks]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, we are moving as quickly as possible. Having built on what needed to be done about the scope 3 emissions, we introduced the consultation as quickly as possible. We sped up that consultation, and engaged with the industry to make sure that we still got a substantial number of responses. We now have those—it closed two weeks ago, I think—and we are considering them. We will issue information about the process as quickly as possible. I cannot give him an exact date, because we have to analyse the consultation responses; it would be pointless to seek consultation responses and not look at them.

More broadly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Grangemouth. It is, of course, extremely disappointing that Petroineos has decided to cease refining there. For the benefit of the House, I will say that when I arrived in the Department seven months ago, the first thing in my in-tray was Grangemouth’s closure. Of course, that did not arrive in July with the Labour Government’s election—it had been known about for many, many years—but not a single plan had been put in place by the Conservative Government, or the SNP Government in Edinburgh. We moved as quickly as possible to invest in the future, and to give funding to Project Willow to make sure that there was a viable economic future for that site. I wish that I was in power five years ago to start that work, but the Opposition and the SNP failed to do anything about Grangemouth for at least 10 years in which we knew that its situation was precarious. The right hon. Gentleman will have to answer for that.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for the Government’s rapid action, which he alluded to earlier. Does he agree that it is thanks to our record-breaking investment in not one but two first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects that we are getting on with delivering the good jobs that our communities deserve?

[Michael Shanks]

I do think that carbon capture is important. We were delighted to put forward the investment to get the track 1 projects over the line, and we are looking forward to seeing those develop. That was about giving investors confidence after a protracted period, under the previous Government, in which those projects fell by the wayside several times. We were determined to get them over the line, and I am delighted that we did.

We remain supportive of the track 2 projects, particularly the Acorn cluster in Scotland, which may have an impact on areas such as Grangemouth in future. We want to see investment there as well. Such investments are incredibly important for building the jobs of the future. That is partly why the Government are determined to look at what comes next, and not just to support the oil and gas industry, as important as that is at the moment.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Minister has talked long and loud about confidence in the industry, but disappearing investment does not engender any confidence. The 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector in this country will look askance at GB Energy, which looks less like the second prize and more like the booby prize. The point is that the oil and gas that we are taking from the North sea fulfils existing demand; it does not create new demand. It keeps the lights on in our homes, shops, offices and schools right now.

[Michael Shanks]

The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman repeat the point that the £8.3 billion investment in Great British Energy is not welcomed by the Conservative party, but it will create jobs—including, I am sure, in his constituency—through supply chains. We never said that all the jobs would be in the head office. There will be an important head office in Aberdeen, in recognition of the skills there, but the investment made will create tens of thousands of jobs, which is important. In the past 10 years, a third of jobs in this industry have already been lost. Either we accept that a transition is under way, and we put in place a plan and processes to build the industry of the future, or we bury our head in the sand and continue to see thousands more jobs go. I am determined not to do that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The highly respected Grantham Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, said that a UK Government decision to proceed with Rosebank and Jackdaw would

“signal to all other fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Russia,”

that they support a “business as usual” approach to the oil and gas industry. Does the Minister acknowledge the leadership role of the UK Government internationally, and agree that such leadership is best shown by our investing in the sustainable green jobs that North sea communities need, not by granting further unjustifiable permissions?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on the applications in this case, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about the important leadership role for the UK in building the green industries of the future, and on climate change. At COP29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero communicated the importance of leadership on this most pressing issue, and of seeing it not as a future threat, but as a present reality. The UK has an important leadership role to play and, critically, can help deliver the industrial future that we need and the clean power of the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware that fuel in Northern Ireland is exceptionally costly, and the rise of all other costs of living is leading to businesses finding it difficult to keep their head above water, let alone turn a profit. The cost of energy is sewn into every facet of business and home life. How will the Minister ensure that the vast resources that we have at our fingertips are utilised? Does he acknowledge that while renewable energy is something to work on, we need energy now? Consent must be considered quickly, and the correct decision must be made on behalf of every home and business in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised those questions with me on a number of occasions in different debates, and they are incredibly important. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate, he educated me on how many off-grid households there are in Northern Ireland—it is a surprisingly high number. The issue of where our oil and gas comes from is also relevant, because they are traded on an international market, and the prices that his constituents and others pay are based on what the fossil fuel market does across the world. Given all the geopolitical uncertainty, we want to get away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and on to renewables, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from that as well.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that a workforce with skills honed in the North sea oil and gas sector will have an increasingly vital role in the renewables sector? Given the crucial role for GB Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, in managing a fair and phased transition, is it not extraordinary that the Conservatives and the SNP have failed to support this proposal in this Parliament?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend—

[Stephen Flynn]

Shocking! No way!

[Michael Shanks]

It is a huge shock, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, because failing to back an £8.3 billion investment in your own constituency seems an odd approach for a Member to take, whatever election they are standing in.

Let me make a broader point about other work that we are taking forward. One of the most important things we did recently was get the skills passport over the line. That is about recognising the huge skillset of offshore oil and gas workers; 90% of those skills are directly transferable into renewables and other technologies. Passporting is about ensuring that those skills and experiences are recognised, so that those skilled workers can find jobs in the renewable industry. This important work is about the transition to the jobs of the future. We announced that Aberdeen will be one of the first skills pilot areas, in recognition of the importance of that skills transition for the whole north-east of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The final question is from Tom Hayes.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?

[Michael Shanks]

In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.