Solar Farms

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will make some progress and give way in a moment—I must be fair to other people.

There are solar schemes totalling 13,000 acres within a 6-mile radius of the small town of Gainsborough. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I please use a visual aid here? This map shows loads of solar farms—[Laughter.] I think I got away with it!

The Secretary of State approves these projects immediately; they go through his desk within a week. The cumulative effect of these solar installations is colossal in one small area, with numerous sites having been proposed and accepted in Lincolnshire. I want to say something to the Minister. Can he concentrate on what I am saying for a moment, because this is terribly important?

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

I am listening.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are not arguing against solar farms. All we are begging the Minister to do is take them together. We cannot have all these separate public inquiries. We have to look at the 13,000 acres all over Gainsborough. Is that not a fair point? Otherwise, it is totally unfair on one particular area. That is the only point we are making.

This is all done on a cheat—a so-called nationally significant infrastructure project, which was a device brought in by Tony Blair for nuclear power stations and that sort of installation. The Government are bypassing local democracy. That is what is so unfair, and it is why people feel disenfranchised in certain parts of England. I agree that if the Government distributed solar farms fairly all over the country, as the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there would be no argument, but the fact is that they are concentrating them so much in one small area of England. That is the argument.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) on securing a debate on this important issue. It is the first day in a while that Westminster has not been basking in sunlight, although I did note—contrary to some contributions made by Conservative Members—that solar is currently generating 30% of this country’s electricity, more than any other technology. Solar plays a critical role in our energy mix. The hon. Lady asked whether I would meet her to discuss proposals in her constituency; of course, I am very happy to meet her to discuss these issues, as I meet Members across the House.

I welcome all—or perhaps I should say some—of the contributions to today’s debate. When the debate began, I was not expecting the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) to endorse the clean power mission so comprehensively, not only endorsing our rooftop solar revolution but leading the way in his own industrial empire. I will include him in the next newsletter on the clean power mission; I am sure he will happily receive it. I know that we are short on time, but I am happy to briefly outline the Government’s position and respond to some of the numerous points that have been made. I also hold the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), in high regard, and I will respond to some of her points over the course of my speech.

The clean power mission that this Government have embarked on is not about ideology. It is about delivering energy security, climate leadership, and the only way in which we can move away from volatile fossil fuels setting our constituents’ bills, which is what so many have faced over the past few years. It is the only way to create well-paid industrial jobs and deliver the clean power mission right across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) referenced community benefits and the benefits to individuals of installing solar panels on their own roofs; he is absolutely right about that, and I will return to the issue of rooftops shortly. I welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions, as he is a former pupil at Park Mains, where I used to teach—although for the record, he was not a pupil when I was teaching there.

My hon. Friend also made the point, which I want to reiterate, that this is not a battle between food security and energy security. I will just say one thing, which I am sure Conservative Members will strongly endorse:

“Solar projects and agricultural practice can co-exist. For example, the science of agrivoltaics is developing, in which solar is integrated with arable farming in innovative ways. That is coming on in leaps and bounds.”—[Official Report, 18 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 184WH-185WH.]

We can achieve food security and energy security together for our United Kingdom.

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

The Minister and I have had this conversation a number of times. He will be aware that paragraph 2.10.29 of EN-3 states that “best and most versatile” land should not be used for solar farms. He has already informed me that no solar farm in the country uses more than 50% of best and most versatile land; will he commit to a hard limit on how much of that land can be used for a solar project?

[Michael Shanks]

As I think I said the last time we had this exchange, I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s numerous written parliamentary questions to me—it is a treat to see them every morning, and he does raise important points. I am not going to put a figure on it right now, but we have clearly said that it is important to find the right balance when it comes to best-use agricultural land. I will come back to that issue.

The hon. Gentleman did not let me get to my point. I just spoke about this not being a competition between energy security and food security; those were the words of the shadow Energy Secretary, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), not that many months ago, before the Conservatives went down the hole of denying that the climate crisis is a real thing and that our energy security and food security can co-exist. That was their policy when the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham last brought this debate to the House, which I think was nine months ago.

[Dr Johnson]

The Minister says that this is not a competition between energy security and farming security. It should not be; the reason it is becoming one is that his Government are allowing our best and most versatile farmland, used for growing crops, to be taken over by solar farms.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but it was not me saying that this is not a competition—it was her own shadow Energy Secretary just a few months ago. I do not accept her point, either; I will come to that very briefly, but in a bit more detail, in a second.

Let us not forget that this is also about tackling the climate crisis. The Conservatives might be willing to ignore that crisis, but the truth is that time and again they forget that climate change will have a devastating impact on agriculture and on land across this country. We have to do something about that, and this is part of it. Solar will be part of our energy security in the future, although it will not make up the entirety of our clean power system.

[George Freeman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will make a bit of progress, because I am conscious that another debate is to start soon.

Rooftop solar, as many Members have raised, is important. It is not an either/or. We see a real opportunity to put solar on every possible rooftop right across the country. We have announced our ambitions for new homes and for industrial buildings. We recently launched a consultation or a call for evidence on car parks, too. If there is a rooftop that we can put solar panels on, we are keen to do so, but there will also be a role for ground-mounted solar to play.

Finally on this point, the public also support solar. Many Opposition Members have said that they have done their own surveys—where, funnily enough, they get the result they hope to get. In the most recent poll, 88% of people said that they support solar, and that figure has never dipped below 80%. There is a question about balance, as I have said in this House on a number of occasions and will say again. We want to build a clean power system that brings communities with us. That requires a balance of different technologies in different parts of the country, but it is not credible to come here and say, “We support the building of infra- structure, but please do not build it in my constituency.”

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Michael Shanks]

I will briefly give way to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont).

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the Minister, but what is he saying to my constituents who are genuinely terrified by these large-scale wind farms, pylons and solar farms coming to our area of Scotland, which I am sure he knows well? Just as importantly, what does he say to the hon. Members for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) and for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who raised the same concerns as Members on the Opposition Benches?

[Michael Shanks]

First, I say to the hon. Member that I have one of Europe’s largest wind farms on my doorstep, so I know exactly what it is like. I would also say that bringing down bills and delivering energy security matters to his constituents as much as it matters to mine, and a robust planning system is in place. Opposition Members speak as though there is no process for local communities to be consulted, but there absolutely is; they are frequently consulted, and that plays a critical part in the decisions made about these projects.

[George Freeman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not, because I am conscious that there is another debate to come.

These questions about the planning system are important. There is a rigorous process in place. We recently raised the threshold for solar projects going into the NSIP regime. I seem to remember a number of Opposition Members opposed that, but the whole purpose was to ensure we do not have the issue that we have at the moment, where a lot of projects are deliberately 49 MW, which is just below the threshold. By changing the threshold, we have more projects going through local, democratic council planning considerations, so those Members should welcome that decision. Those planning decisions also consider biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and many other things, and those considerations also include, as a number of Members said, cumulative impact where more than one project is planned in close proximity.

Members raised many other points that I am afraid I will not have time to come to in this debate, so perhaps we should have another debate on some of them. On land use, the guidance makes it clear that wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where development on agricultural land is necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land and so on. On questions of food security, I defer to the president of the National Farmers Union, who says that it is

“important that we’re not sensationalist about the impact on food security”.

I trust his judgment on this question above some others in this place.

I am moving through a number of points as quickly as I can. On land use, a number of Members have asked about how we bring together the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan. I had a meeting about that just this week. The Government should have had a serious look at land use in this country many years ago and at how we strategically plan our energy system right across the country. They will come together. We are also looking at regional energy plans that give a more localised view, too. The National Energy System Operator is currently taking that work forward, and that is an important step.

On community involvement, it is important that communities feel like they have a voice in this process. I have frequently said from this Dispatch Box that I do not for a second underestimate the strength of feeling for communities that have any infrastructure built near their houses or villages—whether that is prisons, the electricity system or new housing—but as a country, we cannot simply say that we will not build any new infrastructure because some people might oppose it. If we did that, we would never build anything, we would never deliver economic growth, and we would hold this country back, so I make no apology for saying it is about the balance between how we bring communities with us and how we get on with building in this country again, and that is important.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham about glint and glare, the impact on the loop-the-loop was one of my highlights of the debate. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, solar panels are designed to absorb light, not reflect it, and glint and glare is considered in the planning process already, so it is taken into account.

I am conscious of the time, and I apologise to hon. Members who raised serious points that I will not be able to address in this debate. I am happy to follow up in writing on a number of those points.

Solar power is one of the cheapest forms of energy that we have in this country. It is deployable at scale, and can play a critical role in delivering our energy security and in our delivering the climate leadership that we need—to tackle not a future threat, but a present reality that will affect farmers up and down the country if we do not do so. I acknowledge that any infrastructure project has impacts on communities. The planning system does all that it can to mitigate those impacts, but we need to build stuff in this country. Infrastructure has to be built, and our electricity system has to be upgraded. We will build on rooftops, we will build a mix of energy technologies right across the country, and we will take on all innovations that are possible. It is fantastic how quickly we are innovating in this space, but hon. Members cannot simply say, “Let’s not build in my constituency”, because that is not a credible option.

I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham once again for securing the debate. Although we might not agree on everything, I take her points very seriously. It is important for me to say that I hear the points that she and others have raised, and I am happy to meet her to discuss them further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Dr Caroline Johnson has one minute to wind up.

Great British Energy Bill

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 14th May 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 2B in lieu.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank all Members of both Houses for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill. In particular, I extend my thanks to my noble Friend the Minister for Energy Security, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his expertise and, dare I say, resilience, which ensured that we reached the resolution that we are here to discuss. Lords amendment 2B was added to the Great British Energy Bill during consideration of Commons amendments, and the Government motion to accept Lords amendment 2B was passed in the other place.

The Great British Energy Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment to establish Great British Energy, which will accelerate clean power deployment, create jobs, boost energy independence and ensure that UK taxpayers, bill payers and communities reap the benefits of clean, secure, home-grown energy. We recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament and from the public on this issue, and particularly on the issue of how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its supply chains. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have consistently stated that they wholeheartedly share that concern and agree on the importance of tackling forced labour in supply chains wherever we find it. That is why we tabled Lords amendment 2B, which is the latest move in the Government’s work to tackle the issue of forced labour while we progress towards becoming a global leader in clean energy.

We expect all UK businesses to do everything in their power to remove any instances of forced labour from their supply chains, and Great British Energy will be no different—in fact, we have stated many times that we expect it to be a sector leader on this matter. Lords amendment 2B makes it clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can take the appropriate steps to act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect from any responsible company.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am sure we can rely on the Minister to ensure that no solar panels are installed on British farms that are made by the Chinese Government, using slave labour. I am sure that he can assure us on that point.

[Michael Shanks]

I have set that out in this debate in a number of ways. We have absolutely committed that Great British Energy will not invest in any supply chains in which there is any evidence of forced labour, and the measures that we are outlining today show how we will deliver that. There is a wider question about forced labour in supply chains for which Great British Energy does not have responsibility, and we have outlined a number of actions for tackling the issue right across the economy. Just a few weeks ago, I hosted the first cross-Government meeting with colleagues from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade looking at how we can make regulations much tighter. We want to ensure that what the right hon. Gentleman wants applies across supply chains, not just in the energy space, but across the economy.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is giving an important speech on a really important topic—a speech that I think everyone across the House will agree with. Does he agree that part of the advantage of having a Government-run GB Energy is that we will have greater control over supply chains, and whether slave labour is being used?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want Great British Energy to be a sector leader in this area. It must meet all the standards that we expect from every other company, but we want it to go further and really demonstrate what is possible in this space. He raises a wider question about the importance of Great British Energy to delivering investment in the supply chain, so that we are delivering not just energy security through the clean power mission, but good, industrial jobs. That is what this Bill is all about.

Great British Energy will strive to be a leading example of best practice, not just in this space, but right across corporate due diligence, setting a benchmark for ethical standards in supply chain management. That involves ensuring that human rights considerations are integrated into corporate policies, procurement and suppliers’ conduct; we will draw on guidance from leading experts in the sector, such as the Helena Kennedy Centre at Sheffield Hallam University.

Lords amendment 2B will strengthen our framework. It demonstrates that both Great British Energy and the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour. I urge the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B and the position that the Government have reached on this critical issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Well, this is a red-letter day: we are in the Chamber to discuss something positive that is happening with GB Energy. I commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, although it is consistent with the function of a significant U-turn in Government policy. I thank Members of both Houses for their work in bringing Lords amendment 2B to fruition.

The amendment would ensure that no material or equipment produced as a function of slave labour is used in GB Energy’s enterprises, but I heard the Minister talk about “expectation” and “striving”, which are much less unequivocal than “ensure”, so I would be very grateful if he could reassure the House that “ensure” means ensure. Consistent with comments from other hon. and right hon. Members, there is a very straightforward way to do that. It is maybe not legislatively or bureaucratically light, but this is an extremely important issue. If it does not attract a burden of administration to ensure that our collective consciences are clear, what will?

As an engineer, I know that many products that we purchase come with a certificate of conformity. In pursuance of ensuring that there is no slave labour in any enterprise of GB Energy, it would be very straightforward for the Government to mandate that a certificate of conformity must be produced for all equipment, which would explicitly guarantee that the supply chains are free of slave labour. That does not seem to be an especially demanding expectation.

I will make a final point. Can the Minister explain something to me? I am genuinely not seeing this with the clarity that I suspect he is—or maybe he is not. In what enterprises will GB Energy be involved as the decider, rather than the provider, in delivering generation, transmission or storage capacity on the ground and in a meaningful way? How will GB Energy scrutinise or mandate bills for materials to say whether they are provided from this provider or that provider? That is not my understanding of the nature of GB Energy. As has been explained in this House and elsewhere, GB Energy is a derisking device that will inject capital into the market and clear the blockages—it will not introduce purchase orders from this company or that company. I would be genuinely grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I will start with the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), which set the tone. He said that there is an important cross-party consensus on this issue, and I think that that has come through in all the contributions we have heard. Hopefully, that gives us a mandate to push further on this issue than any of our parties has done until this point. That is my genuine intent, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is very helpful.

I always welcome my exchanges with the shadow Minister, as he well knows. I thought for a moment that there was an opportunity at this very late stage for him to change his way and support investment in his own constituency through Great British Energy, but he has once again decided to use this opportunity to say to his constituents that he does not want investment and jobs. We will of course remind his constituents of that.

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

Bring it down to Cornwall!

[Michael Shanks]

Cornwall is ever present in these debates. Nevertheless, however much the shadow Minister’s teeth were gritted, I do welcome his support for the approach we are taking today.

We are debating Lords amendment 2B, which, combined with the previous commitments that I have made from the Dispatch Box and that my noble Friend Lord Hunt has made in the other place, demonstrates that this Government are committed to using Great British Energy as a vehicle for taking this issue seriously. As came through in a number of the contributions, though, this is not solely the preserve of Great British Energy; it is much broader, both in the energy system and in the wider economy.

I have committed to doing some things already. I have committed to appointing a senior leader in Great British Energy who will have oversight of tackling forced labour in the supply chain; we have confirmed that Baroness O’Grady will take on that role. Many Members will know that she has significant experience in this space, and she will bring much effort to important deliberations at GB Energy. I have committed to cross-Government departmental meetings, which took place on 7 May as a starting point. I have committed to including an overarching expectation in the statement of strategic priorities, and that will be delivered within six months. We have demonstrated our unwavering commitment to tackling forced labour in supply chains, and we are resolute in our determination to go further.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The question, however, is this: at the end of it all, how will we know that the supply chains have been correctly declared? If they have not been, it will become a matter of avoidance. America checks, tests and sanctions companies that have lied about their supply chains, and that has forced wholesale change to its supply chain process. I ask the Government to learn from America and get companies such as Oritain to use forensic science to test the company supply chains about which they are suspicious.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to come to his substantive contribution shortly, but I will do so now. The first point he made in his speech is important, which is that there is a real danger with the piecemeal approach he mentioned. That is partly why I have resisted the idea that Great British Energy will solve all of these issues in isolation; it clearly is not going to do so. We think it has a really important role in leading the conversation and leading the effort, and certainly in demonstrating that by its own actions, but we have to look at these issues right across Government.

The meetings I have convened are a starting point in looking seriously at where the Modern Slavery Act falls short. We are committed to doing that, and it sounds as though there is consensus across the House about looking seriously at that. That is not only for my Department, and I want to be careful about overstepping, because to avoid the work being piecemeal, it needs to be done right across Government. However, the points the right hon. Gentleman makes specifically on tracking supply chains are very helpful, and I will take them away.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) made a point about the International Labour Organisation’s principles. Great British Energy will consider the 11 indicators of forced labour, including abuse of working and living conditions, as part of its efforts. I do not think that this Bill is the right place to get into a conversation about defining slavery. We may need to look at that, and I am not against doing so, but this Bill is about creating Great British Energy, and we need to be careful to keep these things separate.

We are already a signatory to a number of conventions, which highlights the Government’s broad support for tackling forced and compulsory labour, and we will continue to take that forward. The Home Office has produced a modern slavery action plan, which sets out the first steps in its departmental responsibilities for tackling modern slavery at its root. The plan, which will be published shortly, confirms that the Government are considering legislative vehicles for strengthening section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.

These are clearly important issues, and I do not for a second seek to say that the Lords amendment or Great British Energy itself will solve all of them, but I think this is an important step, and I welcome all the contributions made across the House.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I basically want to thank the Minister. This has been quite a robust and rough journey, but he has listened to comments from across the House, analysed the arguments we have made and listened to the other place. I think this is now going to be a very strong Act that will help enormously to shift our global supply chains and get the transparency I think everybody in this House wants, so I thank him.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but more broadly, as I have said before, for her significant contribution in this space and for the way she has influenced me and others over the past few weeks on these important issues. I also thank others across the House, because it has been a real cross-party effort, and I think we are in the same place. We want to take this forward, and there is much more work to do. I want the message to be that, while this is progress, it is—as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) put it very well—the beginning, and certainly not the end, of further work.

Without wanting to tempt fate, this is the last opportunity to speak about the Bill in this place, so I close by thanking everyone who has played a role in getting it to this stage. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Hunt in the other place. I thank all the Members from all parties in this place who contributed to the Bill Committee, and the witnesses who gave evidence. I also thank the parliamentary staff who play such an important role in shepherding Bills through this place and the House of Lords. I especially thank the fantastic team of officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, who moved at incredible speed to develop the legislation, but always with good humour, which I have personally appreciated.

Great British Energy is at the heart of what the Government are setting out to achieve: delivering clean power, but delivering jobs and investment as we do it; and delivering energy security and climate leadership, owned by and for the people of this country, and headquartered in the energy capital of Europe, Aberdeen. With investments having already been made, including in community energy in Scotland today, which Members from Scotland might welcome, and investment in supply chains and much, much more, this is the big idea of our time. It will deliver on our energy objectives, but with the public owning a stake in their energy future. I am pleased that Parliament will—I hope, without tempting fate—back it today, so that it can receive Royal Assent and get on with doing what we need it to do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to remind the House that the Deputy Speaker in the Chair today is also sanctioned by the Chinese Government for her bravery.

Energy Security and Net Zero

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the fourth sitting of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee on 29 April 2025.

[Michael Shanks]

Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new paragraph 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.

[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 167.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks):

[Michael Shanks]

Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new paragraph 1A will apply only to applications made to Scottish Ministers, not to those made to the Secretary of State.

New Nuclear Projects: Wylfa

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Last year’s Welsh Labour manifesto said that our two Labour Governments in Wales would explore the opportunities for new nuclear at Wylfa. Could my hon. Friend elaborate a little on that, bearing in mind the extensive history provided by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) gave? I was listening carefully, and it was excellent to listen to. We have, of course, been in power for only 10 months, after 14 years of failure. Will my hon. Friend expand a little more on that point, further to the commitment we made to the electorate in Wales last year?

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

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

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Electricity Security and Decarbonisation: Government Responses

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Written Statements

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

I am tabling this statement to inform Members of two publications relating to the capacity market. Both publications are Government responses to the recent consultation and call for evidence on proposals to maintain our electricity security and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. This supports our goals of making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 and accelerating progress to net zero.

The Government are committed to delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring the security of supply. Making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions. Being on track for clean power 2030 is the Prime Minister’s plan for change milestone for this Parliament.

To deliver this mission, we will rely even more on renewable power. This will result in a wholesale shift in our long-term power system. The variable nature of renewables makes it critical that we have sufficient flexible capacity that can be ramped up quickly when generation from renewable sources is low, such as on dark, still days. The clean power action plan published in December 2024 projected that we will need 40 GW to 50 GW of dispatchable and long-duration flexible capacity in 2030 to support our power system and maintain security of supply.

This will require accelerated deployment of low carbon flexible technologies. The Government are already investing in low carbon technologies to support the transition away from unabated gas. In the meantime, the clean power action plan is clear that we will continue to rely on around 35 GW of existing unabated gas, until it can be safely replaced by low carbon alternatives that can provide the flexibility needed to keep the system balanced at all times.

Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has acted to secure sufficient capacity to ensure consistent and reliable electricity generation. In October 2024, we consulted on proposed changes to the CM to help maintain our existing ageing gas capacity. The Government response to the CM consultation commits to supporting the economic case for lifetime extension of ageing plants, vital for security of supply. It will do this by lowering the scale of planned works needed to access three-year CM agreements.

While we need to maintain our existing unabated gas capacity, the clean power action plan is clear that we will see a fundamental shift in the role and frequency of unabated gas generation. Unabated gas will move from generating almost every day, to an important strategic reserve role, used only when essential. By 2030, unabated gas generation will make up no more than 5% of Great Britain’s total generation in a typical weather year.

The Government response published today reiterates our intention to ensure that unabated gas plants can decarbonise once low carbon flexible technologies are available. We are introducing two further CM reforms:

New decarbonisation readiness legislation comes into effect from February 2026 and will ensure that all substantially refurbishing and new combustion plants are built decarbonisation-ready. We will modify the CM to ensure that all plants prequalifying for the CM in 2025 that would be captured under the new DR legislation commit to comply with the DR requirements.

We will introduce a first managed exit pathway to enable unabated gas generators with multiyear CM agreements to exit early without penalty and transfer to bespoke support, facilitating decarbonisation by retrofitting carbon capture.

We are also publishing a Government response to the CM call for evidence, which aimed to inform further option development to support the decarbonisation of unabated gas and the approach to developing longer-term views of future capacity requirements and supply. This Government response summarises the feedback received.

The CM reforms we are introducing will ensure that the CM can continue to uphold its primary objective of ensuring security of supply, while also playing a crucial role in achieving the clean power mission.

[HCWS617]

Energy Resilience

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Efford, for chairing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) for securing it and for all his experience in this area, which is of great value to me and the Government. It is an important topic. I will speak more broadly about the issue of energy resilience, and then come to some of the specific points that he raised. As I said in the House last week, maintaining this country’s energy resilience is a key priority for the Government. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, it goes hand in hand with us taking, as fast as possible, the opportunities from new technologies on our path to net zero.

In the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula last week, this debate is particularly timely. I praise my hon. Friend for his significant foresight in securing the debate many weeks before both of the incidents that he referred to; that is a real skill that we might come back to. I will repeat what I said in the House last week about all those who were affected. We clearly saw significant disruption in Spain and Portugal on our television screens here, but I was glad that power was restored remarkably quickly.

My thoughts are with all those who were affected, and with those who are now carrying out the work to investigate exactly what happened. A significant number of unfounded claims and speculations have been shared by Members of this House, and across social media, about the cause of the disruption. Clearly, given it was such a significant failure, it will take time for the Spanish network operator to carry out an investigation into its exact cause, and it is important that we wait for that statement before rushing to any kind of judgment.

Turning back to the UK, Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, largely because of how diverse it is. In recent years, although we have seen high energy prices, our energy supply has remained reliable because we are supplied from more than one source, including the UK continental shelf, our long-term energy partners such as Norway, international markets for liquefied natural gas and interconnectors to the European continent. That means that we are not reliant on any one particular supplier for security of energy supplies, and we are confident that the system operators have the tools that they need to effectively balance supply and demand in a wide range of scenarios all year round. As my hon. Friend set out, storage is also an important flexibility tool in the GB system, allowing us to respond to short-term changes in supply and demand, especially during colder months.

To further protect consumers, Ofgem sets annual targets on customer interruptions and customer minutes lost, which means that companies themselves are directly incentivised to reduce the number of interruptions, no matter the cause. Of course, I work closely with the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem to ensure that resilience is built into our networks wherever possible.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is an ever-present voice in these debates, is no longer in his place, but I wanted to give my regular response to him: although I take the issues of energy in Northern Ireland very seriously, they are devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and not my immediate responsibility. I think he probably knew that that was what I was going to say anyway.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised our journey to net zero and what we need to do to ensure resilience as the system decarbonises. We are obviously committed to maintaining current levels of resilience and reliability through collaborative work with industry, the regulator and other stakeholders, and there is a variety of ways in which we can do that.

Obviously, the most common cause of any disruption in our network, here in the UK, is storms and weather events. We have seen lessons learned from storms such as Storm Arwen, which led us to introduce a number of resilience measures. There is also the role of critical new technologies, such as hydrogen, which my hon. Friend raised throughout his speech and can be used in energy resilience. He is correct, of course, that we now have an opportunity to design a clean energy system, and that is why NESO is carrying out new functions that will shape resilience policies on our journey to clean power.

I will briefly talk about what we learn from incidents. Our system is remarkably resilient, but, of course, no system is immune from disruption entirely, so we must plan for all eventualities and learn from incidents when they happen. We do that through working closely with the energy industry to ensure that robust plans are in place. We learn from every incident, in strong partnership with others.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the dependencies in our energy system. The recent example from the Iberian peninsula really brought home just how much our lives are dependent on electricity in one form or another. The point about our telecoms and communications systems, which are so reliant on mains electricity now, is really important for us to consider in these resilience plans; we must make sure that we have back-ups in place. That complex interdependency was also demonstrated by the recent fire at the substation in Hayes, which resulted in the closure of Heathrow airport. Such incidents are incredibly rare, but they occasionally occur in a complex system with many thousands of assets, such as ours.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero continues to lead cross-Government work with the Cabinet Office to enhance the resilience of all critical sectors to major energy risks, such as those listed on the national risk register. Events in the Iberian peninsula last week, as well as those in Heathrow in March, highlight just how crucial electricity is to our wider system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester was right to point out that, as we move to a clean power system, the question of storage will be key. That is why I was delighted the Government announced the funding to build the first long-duration energy storage assets in more than 40 years. We have worked to set out the cap and floor scheme so that major infrastructure projects can be delivered. We look forward to those projects coming forward in due course.

My hon. Friend highlighted the role of hydrogen. Although I am not directly responsible for hydrogen, I am as excited by the opportunities it presents as my colleagues in the Department are. It can play a key role in our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower by delivering new clean energy industries. Although it can provide near-zero emission hydrogen, particularly green hydrogen, as my hon. Friend said, it is not yet available at scale, but there is a real opportunity. He made the point about trying to bring people together to recognise that this is a really exciting opportunity and moment. It is everything that the Government are about through our approach to delivering the clean power mission and unlocking the potential of these more nascent technologies to provide significant resource into the future. That is an important point to put on the record. We are very supportive of what hydrogen can do in our system in future.

This is a very important debate. The question of energy resilience is one that we will return to, quite rightly, because it is never a settled subject. The Government have credible plans in place that we test robustly at regular intervals to make sure that, in the unlikely event they are needed, they work as we intend. It is clearly important that we revisit them regularly to make sure they are as detailed as possible.

I reiterate the point that I made in the House of Commons last week: the UK has a secure and resilient energy supply. Our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the best route to improve our energy security into the future. When we have experienced incidents that threaten our energy resilience, we have used those as opportunities to prepare better for future threats. Preparing for outages is an ongoing task that Government, industry and the regulator collaborate on. We are also taking this opportunity to build not just the clean power system that will deliver climate leadership, energy security and bring down bills in the long term, but the storage assets and everything necessary to make sure we can capture clean power and utilise it when we need it most.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester not just for securing this timely debate and the points that he has made on storage and on hydrogen in particular, but for all the work that he is doing generally in Parliament on these really important issues. As we progress towards clean power by 2030 at pace, rapidly deploying new infrastructure, we will continue to work with all those in the energy sector to maintain the high levels of resilience and security that this country needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Energy Grid Resilience

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the resilience of the UK’s energy grid in the context of the widespread power outages experienced across the Iberian peninsula over the past two days. My thoughts are with all those affected by the widespread disruption across that peninsula on Monday. I am glad to hear that power has now been fully restored across the region.

I want to reassure the House that Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network, and that the incident in Iberia has not impacted Great Britain. The Secretary of State has been in regular contact with the National Energy System Operator over the past two days, and it has provided reassurance that there is no increase in risk to our energy supplies or system stability from this incident.

My Department was informed on Monday 28 April by NESO that a power outage had occurred across the Iberian peninsula, affecting mainland Spain, Portugal, Andorra and areas of France. While all power was restored to the impacted areas yesterday, Tuesday 29 April, the disruption had cascading impacts on other sectors across the vast majority of Spain and Portugal. The cause of the outage is yet to be confirmed; it is likely to take some time for the Spanish network operator to carry out a thorough investigation to determine the exact cause of the failure. Various independent reviews have been commissioned by Spain, Portugal and the European Commission to understand the cause.

Although GB is not directly connected to Spain and Portugal’s grid, NESO is in close contact with European counterparts, and is offering support where needed. The Government are closely monitoring the situation and are in contact with the Spanish and Portuguese authorities to ensure the safety and wellbeing of any British nationals in the affected regions.

I turn to our grid’s resilience, and our preparedness in the context of recent events on the Iberian peninsula. An event similar in impact in Great Britain would be equivalent to a national power outage—a total loss of power across the whole of GB—which is listed on the national risk register as a high-impact but low-likelihood event. In its 75-year history, Great Britain’s national electricity transmission system has never experienced a complete shutdown, or anything on the scale of what has happened in Spain over the past few days.

Our electricity system is highly resilient. The National Energy System Operator continuously monitors the condition of the electricity system to ensure there are sufficient inertia and reserves in the system to manage large losses and prevent large-scale power outages. NESO has also introduced innovative new approaches to managing system stability, as well as advanced safety systems to help to prevent such events from happening in GB. The system is built, designed and operated to cope with the loss of key circuits or systems without causing customer impacts. There are multiple redundant alternative routes through which power can flow should a fault occur, minimising the risk of a single fault cascading across the entire system to cause a total or partial electricity system shutdown.

However, as a responsible Government, we prepare for all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. I would like to reassure the House that the Government work closely with industry to continually improve and maintain the resilience of energy infrastructure, networks and assets to reduce vulnerabilities. This work includes having robust emergency plans, summarised in the national emergency plan for downstream gas and electricity, and regularly exercising emergency plans with the energy industry and Ofgem. That includes an exercise carried out by the previous Government; we have been taking forward the recommendations from that exercise. This work is ongoing across Government to ensure we are as resilient as possible as a nation in all eventualities.

We have also empowered the independent National Energy System Operator to carry out resilience functions across the electricity and gas systems, and will continue to work with industry and regulators to improve and maintain the resilience of old, new and future energy infrastructure. Switching fossil-fuelled generation for home-grown clean energy from renewables, nuclear and other clean technologies is the route to long-term energy security. I will speak more broadly about the UK’s energy resilience in a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday.

To conclude, Great Britain has a resilient energy network, and we will ensure that that continues to be the case. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and echo his comments; of course, the Conservatives’ thoughts are with all those affected by the blackouts in Spain, Portugal and more widely.

The Minister rightly addresses concerns about the security of our grid in the context of the shutdown witnessed on the Iberian peninsula, and I am glad that he can confirm that he is carrying on implementing the recommendations from Exercise Mighty Oak, in which I was involved, on the action that would be required if such an event took place in GB. The primary responsibility of the Minister’s Department is to keep the lights on in this country. The images from Spain and Portugal are a sombre reminder of what happens when the grid fails. Extended blackouts are devastating, and it is a relief that power was restored to 99% of customers by 6 o’clock yesterday morning. The grid collapse in Iberia has demonstrated the fragility of the complex, interconnected systems that support modern life, and the very real impacts on human life of such a collapse.

It is the Minister’s responsibility to ensure that the same thing does not happen in Great Britain, as the price for our economy and for communities across this country would be catastrophic. We cannot get away from the fact that this Government’s plans to rush ahead to build a grid that is entirely dependent on the wind and the sun in just five years’ time will make our electricity grid significantly less reliable.

The stability of our electricity grid depends on what is called inertia, which is the ability for the system to resist destabilising fluctuations in frequency. It is the reason our grid has been so secure and resilient over the decades the Minister references. This inertia is provided by turbines, like those found in nuclear, hydro or, crucially, gas power stations, but it is not provided by solar or wind farms. If the grid does not have enough inertia to resist sudden changes in frequency, it can become destabilised, and cascading grid failure can occur. That means blackouts. As the Spanish NESO said in its latest annual report, the closure of conventional generation plants, such as coal, gas and nuclear, has reduced the firm power and balancing capacities of its grid, as well as its strength and inertia. This has also happened here in Great Britain. Data from NESO shows that the inertia in our grid has been steadily decreasing over time, as gas and coal have come off the system, to be replaced by wind and solar. This comes with a hefty price tag, which is the problem with so much of the Labour Government’s approach to energy security. Their imposed targets are saddling the British people with mountains of extra costs, as the Government rush ahead towards a power system that depends on the weather, rather than on firm, reliable baseload.

Tens of billions of pounds are spent subsidising wind farms, expanding the grid, and providing back-up from reliable gas plants. The Government set their 2030 target, and now they are trying to work out how they can achieve it, but they refuse to be honest with the British people. They refuse to do an open and honest assessment of the costs and risks that come with this approach. It is no wonder that even Tony Blair has said that the present policy solutions are inadequate and doomed to fail.

The Conservatives believe in a system that delivers secure, affordable and clean energy for the UK. A cyber-attack has been ruled out by the Spanish Government as a cause of their grid collapse, but we know that the threat of interference from hostile states is constant. Will the Minister update the House on the action he is taking to protect the grid from hostile activity? When will he finally tell us which single Minister is responsible for the safety and security of our offshore energy infrastructure?

The lessons from the incident on the Iberian Peninsula are abundantly clear. We must retain inertia in our grid to keep it stable and resilient. Nuclear power provides vital baseload power generation, along with inertia, which would have helped to mitigate a cascading failure like the one earlier this week. Will the Minister give the nuclear industry the certainty that it is asking for, and commit to 24 GW of nuclear power, as the previous Government did? Will he ask NESO to provide this House with a full, transparent update on the role of inertia in our power system, on the consequences of declining inertia, on the impact that has on grid stability, and on the costs associated with it?

Finally, the Minister has said that Great Britain has never experienced a complete shutdown such as that seen on the continent. What assurances can he offer this House that work is being undertaken, so that NESO and the National Grid are prepared for a black start, if ever that is needed?

[Michael Shanks]

I shall start with the more serious of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and then, in reply to some of his other questions, I might gently remind him who was in office not that long ago. On a serious note, I agree entirely with him on his opening point: the first priority of my Department and the Government is to ensure our energy security. The past few days in Spain and Portugal have brought to light just how much of our day-to-day lives are dependent on a functioning electricity system, so he is right to make that point, and we are very aware of it.

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise the work that the previous Government did on building the renewable system, and on introducing inertia into the system, because that all started a number of years ago. We have a resilient grid in this country, and it is important to continue to have that. That means building new grid infrastructure, which he and a number of his colleagues quite often oppose. It is important to build that grid infrastructure and to invest in it. We will continue to work with NESO and others to understand the full causes of this outage. I will not be drawn into speculation on what may have caused it, because clearly the first priority of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments has been restoring power, but they will carry out investigations to find out the cause, and we will implement any lessons from that.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman was right to reflect on Operation Mighty Oak, which was carried out under the previous Government. We have been taking forward those recommendations right across government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is looking at resilience across Government. These are all important points. However, I say gently that energy security is an absolute priority for this Government, which means building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and not opposing it at every turn.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

There are some inconvenient truths for those on the Opposition Benches who wish to blame low-carbon energy for what happened in Spain and Portugal. As the Minister has said, the cause of the outage is unknown at this stage. In 2003, when there was a blackout in Switzerland and Italy, and in 2006, when the same happened in Germany, affecting the whole of the continent, there were no renewables in the system. That goes to show that it is far too early to speculate.

Gas sets the price for our electricity 98% of the time in this country. Those who oppose the transition to low-carbon energy generation are opposing energy security for this country. They are opposing lower prices for our constituents and good, well-paid jobs. That is what this agenda is really about.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for his question. Let me reiterate the point that he made and that I will, I suspect, make a number of times during this statement. I will not be drawn on unfounded claims and speculation about what the causes might be. It is rightly for the authorities in Spain and Portugal to carry out the investigations, exactly as it would be if any incident happened here, and for them to share that information. Of course we will be in close contact with them about that, but it is far too early to make any hasty conclusions, particularly when they are based on unfounded claims.

The broader point that my hon. Friend makes is right: constituents right across the country continue to pay too much for their electricity. That is because of the role of gas in setting the price in our system. The more renewables that we build, the more that we push gas off as the marginal price setter, the more that we bring those bills down, and also the more that we make sure that they are not subject to the volatility of the fossil fuel markets as they are at the moment. My hon. Friend is right: this is the right journey for us to be on; it is right for the British economy; and it is right for energy security. The Opposition parties should support that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our thoughts are with all those affected by these power outages, which are a stark reminder of how key our energy security is to our national security. That is why it is vital that the Government learn from this latest incident by acting now to boost our home-grown energy by supporting community-owned projects and increasing supply chain capacity.

Our constituents will be concerned to know about preparations in this country. What conversations has the Minister had across Government to ensure that the UK has robust plans in place in the event of similar situations occurring here? In particular, can he outline what contingency plans are in place to protect our transport network, our hospitals and urgent healthcare settings and our emergency communication capacity? The latter currently relies heavily on the mobile network for our emergency alert system, as well as being the primary way that most people stay up to date.

[Michael Shanks]

Let me repeat the point that I made to the shadow Minister. It is absolutely right to point out the widespread cascading impacts of power failure and just the sheer amount of our lives that is now driven by electricity. The hon. Lady also made the same point as the shadow Minister, which I did not respond to at the time, around preparations across Government. I am Minister in the Department responsible for energy resilience and security. The Secretary of State takes a very serious interest in this area. Right across Government, we have a number of meetings that are chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for resilience, which includes looking at specific impacts. Most recently, we discussed some of the communications impacts of power cuts caused by storms, to make sure that people can still communicate, particularly via the mobile phone network. These are important points that we are taking forward.

Clearly, the energy system in this country is resilient, but the job of Government is to prepare for all eventualities, however low the chances. We take very seriously not just the preparations in place, but making sure that Government are ready to try out some of these processes and to learn from experiences such as this. There will be things that we can learn from the Spanish and Portuguese Governments, and we stand ready to do that.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

SAE Renewables is establishing a new battery storage facility, repurposing an old coal-fired power station in Newport, which, when complete, will have the capacity to be one of the biggest in the UK. As we scale up our renewable energy prediction, battery storage facilities such as this are vital. Will the Minister come and see this for himself and say a bit more about what he is doing with battery energy storage companies to support their work?

[Michael Shanks]

Storage will be crucial in the clean-power system that we are building. Batteries will play a critical role in making sure that we can store the clean, cheap energy that we are generating for times when we need it most. We have also announced the first long-duration energy storage in 40 years, building the assets that will allow us to store eight hours of power for when it is needed most. Therefore, storage is key in a system such as this. And finally, I am always happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Harriet Cross—and congratulations on your remarkable London marathon time.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think we can all stop that now.

Centrica operates the Rough gas storage site, which provides about half of the UK’s current gas storage capacity. Centrica stands ready to invest £2 billion of its own capital to redevelop Rough into the largest long-duration energy storage facility in Europe, capable of storing both natural gas and hydrogen, which would improve resilience and protect customers from price spikes. To unlock this £2 billion, the company needs assurances and clarity from the Government, not least over regulatory support and a workable cap and floor mechanism. Will the Minister set out what progress has been made in discussions with Centrica to develop this cap and floor mechanism? Given that the Government can make decisions quickly when they choose to, as we saw with British Steel, why has a decision on this mechanism been allowed to drag on for months?

[Michael Shanks]

I congratulated the hon. Lady yesterday on her remarkable marathon; I think she ran it two hours faster than I did, which leaves considerable room for improvement on my part, but congratulations to her again. She is right to raise this point, and I have answered questions on it before. I have met Centrica on several occasions to discuss various things, including that proposal, but it is a commercial matter for Centrica to bring the proposal to us. The Rough storage facility, which we last talked about in this House a few months ago, was mothballed for a number of years under the previous Government. We are looking in the round at the role it could play in energy security and at the value-for-money arguments. We want to ensure that value for money for the public is protected alongside the security of energy.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My issue with the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is that she has knocked me off my place as the second-fastest woman MP marathon runner—but I will be back.

While thousands of airline passengers were impacted by Monday’s outage across Spain and Portugal, only 500 flights were grounded out of a possible 6,000, the rest managing to fly. That is because there were no airport closures. Is there a lesson here for UK airports?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is perhaps referring to the most recent situation at Heathrow. The Secretary of State commissioned a report after that incident to find out what the causes were, and that report is due. Airports in this country are private businesses, but given that they are clearly critical national infrastructure, the Government have a role in ensuring that they function. If there are any lessons we can learn, it will be invaluable for us to learn them, but I do not want to be drawn on the conclusions of a report that the Government have not yet seen.

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

Just before the Spanish blackouts we had two unexpected outages—one in Lincolnshire and one at the other end of the Viking Link. The NESO was not going to tell us about it, but thanks to a whistleblower we now know. It seems to me that with the ever-increasing reliance on renewables, many are concerned about fluctuations from the voltage and about that becoming a serious risk. While the Minister is confident about the situation, will he confirm to the House that the NESO will tell us and be completely transparent about all future unexpected outages?

[Michael Shanks]

While Great Britain’s energy network is incredibly resilient and robust, there are outages for a whole range of reasons. The system continues to function, as it did entirely, without any concern at all, in the instance he raises. While it is not a regular occurrence, outages do happen in any system, particularly in the energy system across the whole of the UK. I will take away the point about whether there can be more transparency, but I suspect that the answer will be that this is the day-to-day operational running of the electricity system, and it is not something to be alarmed about at all.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the measured way in which he has approached the situation. As he and other Members have said, these kinds of blackouts happen, whether systems are dominated by fossil fuels or renewables. I particularly welcome the Minister’s rejection of the approach of some Opposition Members, including the honourable Inspector Clouseau, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has already jumped to blaming renewables. Is it not the case that some on the Opposition Benches want to weaponise this situation because of their ideological obsession against clean energy, which will leave my constituents colder and poorer while they enjoy the warm embrace of Vladimir Putin?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend always makes his point in his particular style—perhaps a more political style than I will use from this Dispatch Box, but Inspector Clouseau is a new one that I will certainly add to my list.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The broader point here is that we do not know the causes of the outages, and any sensible Member of this House will, I am sure, await the full response of any investigation that will be carried out by the relevant authorities in this case, rather than just jumping to speculation. As my hon. Friend says, the rush to conclusions betrays the truth of the matter, which is that many hon. Members in this place have an ideological, extreme and damaging opposition to clean energy. That includes Members in the party of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other parties, including the Conservatives, who defended this for such a long time and now seem to be working together against it. They want to leave us colder, poorer and in the pocket of Putin. We will not accept that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Can the Minister please explain what exactly the Government disagree with in the considered written foreword by Sir Tony Blair to his think-tank report?

[Michael Shanks]

I have to apologise to the former Prime Minister, but I have been a little busy over the last few days and have not read all of his report.

[Andrew Bowie]

Not even the foreword!

[Michael Shanks]

Indeed. I apologise and will prioritise it for my weekend reading. What I did see is that the Tony Blair Institute outlined very clearly its support for clean power as an important transition for this country. The shadow Minister earlier said that this was all about wind and solar, but that has never been the position for this transition. Nuclear will play a critical role, as will carbon capture, usage and storage as well as hydrogen. All of that was outlined in Tony Blair’s report.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive statement, particularly his comments on the importance of batteries. He is right that energy security is national security. Technology owned by, run by and based in foreign states is being added to the grid. This technology is smart and, very worryingly, can be operated by third parties. Can the Minister set out what we are doing to protect the grid from the influence of those who wish to do harm to our people and our way of life in Newcastle-under-Lyme and up and down the United Kingdom?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The issue of cyber-security across our critical national infrastructure becomes more and more important day by day. As our energy system becomes more complex and as smart systems become part of how we all interact with our daily lives, there are increased risks. That is why the Government take cyber-security very seriously and are looking across Government at how we can have processes in place that are as robust as possible.

We do not for a second think that any of the actions we have taken will always be enough. We are constantly looking at how cyber-security develops and changes and how we can do more. But our energy system is resilient. Ofgem has a role to play in making sure that suppliers and individual electricity companies, as well as Government, take this issue very seriously, and it is an issue that I will continue to spend time focusing on.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that Peterhead gas station is Scotland’s only high-power, high-inertia facility and that it has an independent black-start facility. Key to the future of that site is the Acorn project, another thing he will be very familiar with. Can he confirm his Government’s intention to fully fund and license that project as a track 2 project as part of the comprehensive spending review in June?

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) made a point yesterday about black start, and it is one that the Secretary of State will take away, particularly around black-start capabilities across the whole UK. On the Acorn point, we have said on a number of occasions that it is a really important project. My Department and the Government support the project, but it is a question for the spending review, which will come in June.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

Energy resilience comes from a secure supply of clean and cheap energy. The major cause of the financial crises that the world has experienced over the last 40 years is the insecurity of supply of the fossil fuel markets, with Ukraine being just the latest case. As for cheap, the last Government in answer to a parliamentary question admitted that the levelised cost of gas was £114 per megawatt-hour, whereas offshore wind was £44 per megawatt-hour. As for clean, the House may be aware that wind and solar are not known as great emitters of greenhouse gases. So renewables are clean, cheap and secure. Renewables and resilience go together.

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of these issues for a long time, and it will not surprise him or the House to hear that I entirely agree with him; clean, cheap and secure is absolutely right. We know that because when we invited many countries around the world to the energy security summit last week, it was clear that it is not just the UK that is on the transition. The rest of the world is also moving at pace to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the renewables that deliver the secure energy system and remove the volatility that all our constituents continue to pay the price for. It is the only way forward, and the Government are determined to continue with it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

The Minister is fully aware of my total opposition to the construction of a 90-foot-high converter station on the Minster marshes in east Kent. National Grid’s sea link project is very vulnerable to physical attack and cyber-attack, and it is largely based on the provision of power from weather-related sources. Is it not time that we revisited all this and looked seriously at speeding up the process of acquiring small nuclear reactors?

[Michael Shanks]

I am happy to agree with the right hon. Member on his final point. Small modular reactors will play a really important part and are an exciting proposition that the UK can be at the forefront of. The technology competition will conclude shortly.

On the broader point, we get to the heart of the contradiction. The Conservative party wants to talk about resilience of the network but does not want to build any new network infrastructure. I am afraid that the two go hand in hand. If we want to have power and a resilient network, we cannot stay in the same place we were 60 years ago. We actually have to build some stuff.

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving the statement and congratulate him on the Floor of the House for completing the London marathon on Sunday. Does he share not just my utter disappointment but my concern that Conservative Members have wasted no time at all using the unfortunate events affecting our friends in Spain and Portugal to further their dated opposition to clean power, which risks panic and misinformation at a time when we need patience and clear heads?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for drawing attention to my appalling time in the marathon. [Interruption.] That is kind of the shadow Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend made an important point. The serious response to an unprecedented incident like this is to take stock of what happened, to introduce some facts into the debate—some people do not like to see facts in these debates—to allow a proper investigation to find out what caused it and, yes, to learn lessons from it. There will be lessons to learn, but I will not rush headlong into an ideological argument that damages our energy security by suggesting that somehow we should go back to the past and then everything will be fine. The clean energy transition is right for climate, right for jobs in the supply chains, right for bringing down bills and right for this country.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister has outlined and his reassurances about resilience, particularly to a cyber-attack. However, there is also the danger that if we hand over the on/off switch for vital energy supplies to a foreign country, they can be switched off without our control. What mitigations are the Government considering for projects like the vast wind farm in the North sea for which the Chinese company Mingyang wants to provide the hardware?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on an individual commercial arrangement that a project may or may not have. As I have outlined, in any investment case the Government will carry out a number of checks, one of which will always be a national security check, so these questions will be looked at. I reject the suggestion that there would somehow be an on/off switch—that is not the position that the Government would take—but we look at all these investment decisions individually, and that is not for me to do on the Floor of the House.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

The role of businesses regarding the grid is important. GE Vernova in my constituency makes rotating stabilisers, from which my hon. Friend the Minister and I probably could have benefited on Sunday while we were running the London marathon. The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) clearly did not need them; I congratulate them on their superb, very fast times—much quicker than my hon. Friend and I.

Rotating stabilisers are enormous electrical motors that are being deployed around the UK, as part of National Grid’s pathfinder programme, to strengthen vulnerable areas of the grid. GE Vernova tells me that one is operating in Scotland now and has proven that it can prevent more serious grid disturbance, and the company has other projects to deliver the stabilisers across the UK. The Government are investing more than ever in grid upgrades and infrastructure, which is good for the country and good for the economy, and it affects places like Rugby, where we build vital parts, with a knock-on effect on the local supply chain, on skills development and so on. This is a really good thing that should be celebrated.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. He raises what we are doing to deploy technologies in the clean power system to make it more resilient, and rotating stabilisers in particular. Those technologies were introduced in some cases by the previous Government, so there was recognition of their importance and we will continue to build on that.

My hon. Friend also raised the wider point that the transition to building a clean power system is about not just the generation we get out, but the good, well-paid jobs in the supply chains that deliver it and investing in industry right across the country, including in his constituency. We have committed to driving that forward. That is why the Prime Minister announced £300 million of supply chain investment at the energy security conference last week, and why we will continue to fight for this transition while the Conservative party turns against it.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I did not run the London marathon and I never will, but I am hugely admiring of all colleagues who did, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and her incredible time.

The Minister referenced the point I made yesterday about the grid in Scotland and previously expressed concerns about the amount of time it would take to reboot that grid if there was an outage. As we have seen in Spain and Portugal, there is significant disruption if the grid is off for hours, but if it were off for days, that would be very significant and much harder to manage. Will he confirm again that the Department will look specifically at that issue?

[Michael Shanks]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman: never say never. I am sure he has it in him.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. In the news we saw the impact on day-to-day life of what happened in Spain and Portugal, and he is absolutely right that if that was to go on for longer than a few days, there would be quite significant impacts. We look closely at the cascading effects and at what parts of the system we reboot faster than others to deliver priority services, such as in the NHS. We will continue to do that. The point he raised yesterday and again today about how quickly different parts of the UK and Scotland would be rebooted is an important one that I will take away.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

With all these marathon runners in the House today, I wonder whether we might be able to generate some kinetic energy rather than the usual hot air. [Interruption.] I apologise; I did not expect a pylon for that—sorry, another energy joke. My genuine congratulations to all those who did run.

The major concern of residents in my constituency is the ageing grid infrastructure. What work has the Minister done to ensure that we have the infrastructure we need to ensure that constituencies like mine have the power to shine?

[Michael Shanks]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you need to make a ruling on drawing marathon-related puns in the House to an end, but the subject is a really important one. Of course, that is why we are in this sprint towards building more network infrastructure—[Interruption.] Thank you.

There are two really important things to recognise with our network. First, it cannot stay in the state that it is in forever; it needs upgrading. Secondly, the demand that we fully expect to see—potentially a doubling by 2050, and maybe even more than that—means that we will have to build more grid to bring the power to where it is necessary to deliver economic growth. It is right that we move forward with that, but everyone will need to recognise that, to deliver that system—whether we are delivering clean power or not—the network is necessary, and stuff does have to get built somewhere. The Government are committed to building it and the Conservative party is committed to opposing it.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

Will the Minister expand a little on a question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young)? The PSTN, or public switched telephone network, switch-off means that by the end of 2027 all landlines will require an electricity supply. This means that the mobile network becomes ever more vital for people who require their mobile phones for medical care or even to make a 999 call in the event of an emergency. What assessment has been made of the resilience of the mobile network in the event of power outages? What more needs to be done to make sure we are ready for that kind of situation?

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. I was here after Storm Éowyn, when we discussed that a number of people who no longer had a copper wire line were not able to contact emergency services. It was a really important point.

There is resilience built into the mobile phone network to ensure that masts should be able to operate in circumstances when even the power to them is cut off. It is a question for Ofcom to look at and I have spoken to my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that that is happening. There is more that we can do. We are engaging with the Energy Networks Association, which works with distribution network operators, to make sure that all the resilience plans join up and that the practical impact that the hon. Lady rightly raises is taken into account. I will write to her with updates.

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

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has already highlighted, synthetic inertia technologies are used to simulate the benefits that traditional turbine technologies provided to an electricity grid now increasingly supplied by renewables. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficiently invested in those technologies to provide resilience across the grid? Is there an argument that surge protection devices, which wiring regulations mandate for nearly all new domestic and commercial installations, should be installed in all homes and businesses?

[Michael Shanks]

I will take that interesting point on surge protection away and speak to my colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

On the wider point around inertia, as the system changes, there is a constant balancing job for the National Energy System Operator to make sure that we design a system that is resilient. We are deploying technologies to ensure that the system is resilient and there is sufficient inertia by procuring the alternative technologies that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) referenced, but we will keep it under constant review.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I assure the House that, not wishing to inflict a by-election on the citizens of East Antrim, I will not be running any marathons—not now or at any other time in future?

The Minister has rightly said that the cause of the outage in Spain is yet to be identified, but the fact is that it is linked to 53% of electricity on that day being generated from renewable sources. That should be a sobering warning to all in this House who have been championing the decarbonisation of electricity and the net zero policy.

I am glad that there is inertia built into the system, but the Minister has already accepted that that increases the cost of electricity every week because we have to build a new network to deal with the spikes in electricity; build battery storage, which increases the cost of electricity; and keep gas generators idling over expensively, the cost of which is added to consumer bills, in order to bring them on grid when the wind drops.

I know that the Minister has to defend the policy of his boss that we will get cheaper electricity, even though there is no evidence of that, but will he accept that building inertia into the system will add considerably to consumers’ bills?

[Michael Shanks]

I am afraid that I do not accept anything that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. He said in his first breath that it was right to wait for the outcomes of an investigation and then prejudged that investigation with his own conclusions. I want to wait for some evidence from the authorities on that.

The right hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the cost. People often forget that gas in our electricity system does not just appear out of thin air; it comes with a cost. It comes with the cost of building new gas power stations in the first place, which we would have to do if we did not move gas off the system. It also comes with the volatility of being an internationally traded commodity—all our constituents are still paying the price of the energy crisis of a number of years ago. We will have to build infrastructure. If we were not building clean power infrastructure, the grid would still be critical because we have to get electricity to people’s houses. It is important to say that there are no zero-cost options here. We are investing now in a clean power system that delivers considerably cheaper power in the long term.

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

I commend what the Minister said at the outset on the need to insure against high-impact, low-probability events. In a non-dogmatic spirit, may I appeal to him to reconsider the way in which the Government are dealing with the question of the two shale gas wells, which they have decided, under normal circumstances, they do not wish to see exploited? Surely those wells should not be sealed so permanently that if we were in a wartime conflict situation they could not be reactivated?

[Michael Shanks]

I am not aware of the specific circumstances mentioned at the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I am happy to look into that particular case. The broader point is that we do not see licensing for new oil and gas and fracking as part of our future, and there is a presumption against fracking in other parts of the UK as well. We have a resilient energy system that does not require that. I will, however, take away the point he raises and write to him.

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

The Minister has left himself exposed to the climate deniers in this Chamber because he has come of his own volition to make a statement in the absence of any understanding of what has actually happened in Spain and Portugal, thereby denying Parliament an ability to discuss any kind of strategic comparative assessment between the resilience of the GB grid and that of the Iberian grid. If he had delayed until he had the answer, we might be having a more valuable discussion.

The Minister has been forced to say that his Department is ready for all eventualities; well, tell that to the tens of thousands of radio teleswitch service customers who will be left high and dry by his Department. He says that he has every confidence in the National Energy System Operator. I did not have a lot of confidence in it on 7 January when, but for the reinstatement of the Viking interconnector, we would have had a very difficult situation on the GB link. I know that that is distribution and not transmission. There is also the matter of trying to instil confidence in GB among electricity consumers after an episode on 21 March at Heathrow, which saw global consequences for a relatively localised disaster in the UK energy market. How does the Minister have confidence after those two events?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman brings his customary sunny demeanour to his questions and I am grateful for that on this of all days.

First, I am giving this statement because a number of hon. Members across the House asked questions of the Government on this issue, and it is right that the Government respond to such questions. In fact, I would be criticised if the Government did not offer a statement when questions are being asked. This statement is therefore in response to hon. Members across the House and from different parties.

On the capacity questions in January, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The repetition of those quite wrong statistics on social media and in this House reduces confidence, and they are not based on truth. To be clear to the House, the standard operating reserves held by NESO at all times is for the largest power generator in the system, which, according to NESO, was 1.4 GW on Wednesday 8 January and not 580 MW, which is the figure in the public domain. The overall headroom on that day was never lower than 3.7 GW. It is simply not true to repeat the idea that we had 580 MW of capacity left in the system; it was never lower than 3.7 GW.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Recent events in Spain and Portugal highlight the wide range of challenges facing power grids, and we have heard many in previous questions. Those incidents show the complexity of effective reporting and the ability to respond rapidly, and the skills required span multiple Departments, including the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, DSIT, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Met Office, which is based in my constituency. This raises an important question: who is responsible for co-ordinating reporting for similar incidents in the UK? More importantly, does the Minister’s Department have the right skillsets to respond?

[Michael Shanks]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman, because that is a really important question and one that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been wrestling with? Under all Governments there are individual Departments that take a responsibility and there are Departments that lead on parts of this, and the covid inquiry has raised a number of questions about how some of these resilience questions are answered, so it is a really important point.

My Department has a number of civil servants with expertise in how the energy system works. I pay tribute to the team, who are often there out of hours when storms and other incidents occur. They do a remarkable job. The question about reporting, however, is important. Partly what the Government seek to do with our mission approach and with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s work is to bring together the whole of Government so that everyone who has a responsibility is at the table, feeding in their views. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

There are over 100 battery energy storage system—BESS—facilities operating in the UK, and another one is planned for Hawkchurch in East Devon. Residents there are very worried about fire risk. South Korea is a global leader in BESS, yet the safety issues are plain. There were 38 fire incidents linked to BESS in South Korea up to 2022. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the safety of BESS technology and exploring energy storage solutions that are less subject to fire risk?

[Michael Shanks]

I would first say that fire is a risk in a whole range of scenarios, and I do not think we should jump to the view that because there have been some incidents in one particular piece of infrastructure it is somehow inherent in the infrastructure. It is important to say that batteries will play a critical role in our future energy system, but we obviously take issues of safety very seriously and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise them. The Health and Safety Executive has a role in this and the planning system also has a role in considering some of the fire risks, but we will keep this under review, particularly as the number of battery schemes increases.

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

When the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, electrons do not flow, and that happens drearily predictably in northern Europe, particularly in the cold, dark winter months. As the Minister plans to increase the resilience of the UK grid, will he look at a place where the wind does reliably blow and the sun does shine—namely, south-west Morocco—and support the UK-Morocco power project, which could potentially deliver 8% of the UK’s grid needs reliably and resiliently?

[Michael Shanks]

I anticipated the right hon. Gentleman’s question after his first few words. I think the Secretary of State gave him an answer yesterday. This is a private proposal that has come to Government for consideration. It has not been driven forward by Government. We are considering it at the moment and, as I think the Secretary of State said yesterday, we are happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman on the details of where we are at with it. We will make a decision in due course.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice.

To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 9

Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications

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

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 9, page 14, line 6, after “distribution system” insert

“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.

This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which the power under clause 9(1) may be exercised may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 37 to 40.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

New clause 19—Increasing grid capacity—

The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a plan to—

(a) reduce the cost of, and time taken to make, connections to the transmission or distribution system;

(b) permit local energy grids.

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the time and financial cost of connections to the electricity grid and to allow local energy grids.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. We thought a change in the tone of the Committee for a few clauses would be helpful, before we return to the other Minister.

Amendment 36 clarifies that a modification made under clause 9 may include changes to the order of the queue for connections, which works towards the broader aim of improving the management of connections to the transmission and distribution systems. The purpose of all this work is to reorder the connections queue. That is essential to deal with the extreme level of oversubscription in the queue, and enable a move from the “first come, first served” proposition that we have at the moment to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach. The amendment is essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses, which is to provide the means to implement connections reform should the current Ofgem and industry-led process face delays or be unable to realise its benefits in full.

Amendment 37 clarifies that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to modify a licence or agreement may be exercised only for the purpose of improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, which places an additional safeguard on the use of that power. Amendment 38 clarifies that the Secretary of State or Ofgem may modify an agreement under the powers in clause 9 even where the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement, which provides consistency with the existing wording in clause 12. It is also essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses. Finally, amendments 39 and 40, which are purely consequential on amendment 38, move the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” within clause 9.

I turn to clause 9 more broadly. As many Members will know, the current first come, first served electricity grid connections regime is causing considerable and unacceptable delays. It is blocking clean power projects from connecting to the grid, and blocking demand projects that are critical to our economic growth as a country. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem are reforming the electricity grid connections process to a strategically aligned first ready, first connected system. The reformed process will require projects to meet readiness, technological and locational criteria to progress.

The reform requires complex amendments to codes and licences. Clause 9 therefore enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support the existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary. It is intended to be used should the existing processes enacting connections reforms face significant delays, including alignment with strategic energy plans. The Government or Ofgem will then be able to expedite a set of changes outside the standard process to ensure that our clean power mission is delivered at pace. The clause is focused on improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, and follows precedent in being time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. Similar powers have been taken in the past, including in section 84 of the Energy Act 2008, but they were also time-limited and are therefore no longer in force.

Clause 10 details the scope of the power in clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents or agreements. The clause first defines the power to modify in clause 9, which includes the ability to amend, add to or remove provisions, and to add or release parties from agreements. It will enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support Ofgem and NESO’s existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary.

The clause further details how the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exercise the power, which includes allowing for general or specific modifications, incidental changes and provisions that do not necessarily relate to the activities authorised by the licence. It ensures that modifications to standard licence conditions are reflected in future licences, and specifies the conditions under which licences can be revoked. Finally, it allows agreements to include conditions that must be met before the taking of specific steps, or provision about the procedure for varying the agreement. Similar scope and procedure have been outlined previously in legislation, including in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.

Clause 11 details the procedure around the provision in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents. It aligns with the precedent established in section 8 of the 2022 Act, which detailed the procedure to modify a generation licence of a relevant licensee nuclear company. The clause obligates the Secretary of State or Ofgem—I am not sure how many more times I will say that in this speech—to consult a list of specified persons, such as the holder of any relevant licences, NESO and any other appropriate individuals, before making modifications. Details of those modifications must be made public as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure transparency with wider stakeholders. However, the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exclude from the publication any information that could harm commercial interests.

I will respond on new clause 19 after it has been spoken to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

What I have to say about these clauses will not be arduous, partly because I am not a shadow Energy Minister—as many Members will be pleased to note, including me—and my focus will be on the planning amendments. This is, however, a very important part of the Bill.

The Minister said he keeps mentioning “Ofgem and the Secretary of State”, but if he would like us to helpfully have a word with the Prime Minister to recommend that he becomes the Secretary of State, we are more than happy to do so. The Opposition believe that even he, as the Under-Secretary, could not do as much damage to our energy system networks and future growth as the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). [Interruption.] It is a policy disagreement.

This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.

The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.

The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.

The Government have also watered down the proposed community benefits of new energy infrastructure, which they lauded before the press a couple of weeks ago, to just £750 per person.

[Michael Shanks]

Just!

[Paul Holmes]

From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “Just”, under his breath. It was not me who went to the BBC and leaked a report saying that the Government were going to give more money than they are now proposing; that has been reduced by his amendment, so, yes—“just”.

Furthermore, the Government have abandoned a number of reforms, including a review of the presumption in favour of overhead lines, stronger protection for prime agricultural land against large solar developments, and enhanced safety measures for battery storage facilities. Expanding and improving the electricity system is necessary, but it must be done in a way that balances affordability, reliability and community concerns. We are concerned that the clauses in the Bill remove this transparency and add costs, but will not deliver the streamlined or more rapid benefits to the system that the Minister outlined.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I rise to speak to new clause 19. First, the Liberal Democrat members of this Committee support a lot of what the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. Creating electricity grids of the future is a critical route to decarbonising and has the potential to reduce consumer bills.

It is much to the UK’s credit that we are making good progress in efforts to decarbonise our electricity generation. Wind and solar in particular account for a growing share of our power generation. However, the transition from one-way transmission of electricity from a small number of very large power stations to a more distributed and multi-directional movement of power creates some challenges. We are going to need major upgrades of our electricity grid to accommodate the growing number of solar installations, as an example, more of which my hon. Friends and I would like to see on new and existing buildings. Making further progress will help our national energy security and reduce consumer bills at a time when energy inflation and the cost of living are still significant problems.

There are examples where cost and/or process have acted as barriers to the ability to feed surplus solar energy into the grid, or to the commissioning of new clean and renewable electricity production. Local energy grids have the potential to benefit communities and use the energy much closer to its source of generation. Therefore our proposed new clause would go further than the Government in the current Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to, within three months of the passing of this Bill, lay before Parliament a plan for how the Government will facilitate the creation of local energy grids and deal with the cost and time of grid connections. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on the Government Benches will embrace this amendment as a way to help continue our country’s journey towards becoming a clean, renewable energy superpower.

[Michael Shanks]

I will first respond to a few points in the debate generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East—across the Clyde from my constituency—made the absolutely right point that sums up what this connections reform process is all about: the absence of reforming the queue is driving away investment. Reform is critical for investment in our generation capacity and for how we connect demand projects that will be so important for unlocking economic growth. With more than 750 gigawatts currently in the queue to connect in the UK, the truth is there is no scope for that to happen without some radical reform of the queue. The Conservative party, when in government, recognised that that was a challenge and had already set about some reforms to make that happen.

We think we need to go even further. The shadow Minister, in a ray of honesty, said he was glad he was not the shadow Energy Minister. Based on the script on net zero, I think we are all fortunate that he is not the shadow Energy Minister, frankly, but it is the same script we are hearing from everyone at the moment.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said:

“I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.]—

only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.

[Michael Shanks]

There is always a quote, as they say, and my hon. Friend is always there with the quotes at his fingertips, which is helpful. The truth is that the only way we are going to bring down bills and deliver energy security is the sprint to clean power. This is a crucial element of that, and of how we unlock investment—predominantly private investment—over the next few years as we build that clean power system. Even if we were not doing that, the grid is essential. It is an essential part of how we deliver electricity to homes, businesses and industry and it is critical that we upgrade it anyway.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.

[Michael Shanks]

We are straying far from new clause 19, which I am keen to return to, but the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. Gas traded on the international market is exactly why all our constituents pay more on their energy bills. The answer is to get off gas as the marginal price setter, not to have even more of it.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made a helpful speech, although I will resist his new clause. We are in agreement about the issue of connection delays and the first come, first served process not working, and it is important that we reform that. We are of the view that our proposals do that, and the National Energy System Operator has worked with Ofgem and is of the view they are sufficient to do that.

The question of local power and local grids is an interesting approach that we are looking at. We take seriously the role of community-owned power—it is in the Great British Energy Bill, recognising our commitment to it—but we do not see it in itself as a barrier to what we are trying to do here. The infrastructure, including for local networks, that incorporates generation and demand is already permitted under the existing system. It can be constructed and operated by distribution network operators, by independent network operators or by a private wire under a statutory licence exemption provision.

We agree about the importance of community energy and are looking at a range of things, in particular at how communities might to sell power locally. They are all important points, and all this is how we will unlock the social and economic benefits of the clean power transition. For the reasons I have outlined, and because we think it is already entirely possible, we will resist new clause 19.

[Gideon Amos]

People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.

[Michael Shanks]

I betray my lack of English geography. I am sorry, but I assume that the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage are both in complete agreement with new clause 19. In any event, I thank them, but disagree with them both, instead of just one of them. I commend Government amendments 36 to 40 and clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Amendments made: 37, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3) only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”

The amendment makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the GEMA to modify a licence or agreement may only be exercised for the purpose of improving the purpose of managing connections to the transmission or distribution system.

Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 14, line 15, at end insert—

“(5A) A relevant authority may under subsection (1) modify an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or a qualifying distribution agreement even if the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement.”

This amendment ensures consistency with clause 12(8) in clarifying that modifications made to a particular connection or distribution agreement under clause 9(1) may be made even if the effect of the modification might amount to the repudiation of that agreement.

Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

This amendment, together with amendment 40 moves the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” into subsection (7); this change is consequential on amendment 38.

Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 14, line 27, at end insert—

“‘qualifying distribution agreement’ means—

(a) the terms subject to which a connection is made by an electricity distributor in pursuance of section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, or

(b) a special connection agreement as defined by section 22(1) of that Act;”.—(Michael Shanks.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 39.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Directions to modify connection agreements

[Michael Shanks]

I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (1).

The effect of this amendment is that a relevant authority may give a direction under clause 12 without first having exercised its powers under clause 9(1) to modify an electricity licence or an electricity industry code.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 42 to 47.

Clause stand part.

[Michael Shanks]

Government amendment 41 will allow the Secretary of State or Ofgem to direct the NESO or a distribution network operator to amend an agreement under the clause without the need to have previously modified licences, codes and associated documents under clause 9. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to use the power to direct the National Energy System Operator or a DNO had not the modification powers in clause 9 —to make changes to licences, codes and associated documents—also been exercised. The amendment will mean that the directive power in clause 12 is no longer contingent on the use of the powers in clause 9.

An example of where the amendment would be needed is if an Ofgem and NESO-led process to amend licences and codes under the framework is successful, meaning that the powers in clause 9 do not need to be used, but the NESO or DNO has not accordingly amended its agreements with customers connecting to the electricity network. The directive powers could be used to ensure that the implementation of connections reform is successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.

One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.

As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?

Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.

We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.

The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.

The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out

“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”

and insert

“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.

Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert

“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.

This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.

Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”

This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.

Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—

“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—

(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and

(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.

(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).

(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.

(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”

This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.

Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—

“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”

This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.

Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—

“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—

(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—

‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;

(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—

‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)

This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc

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

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 13 will require NESO and the DNOs to have regard to strategic plans designated by the Secretary of State when they carry out functions related to connections. The Secretary of State will designate one or more strategic plans, with the current intention that this will include the clean power 2030 action plan in the first instance and the strategic spatial energy plan going forward. There is precedent in imposing a duty on a body to have regard to a strategic document—for example, the designated strategy and policy statement under section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, which outlines the Government’s strategic priorities, policy outcomes, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing energy policy.

Let me turn to the detail of the objects set out in the clause. It amends part 5 of the Energy Act 2023 to include a duty for NESO to have regard to designated strategic plans. It also amends the Electricity Act 1989 to place a duty on DNOs to have regard to any designated strategic plan, and adds a further exception to the duty on DNOs to connect in cases where it would not be in accordance with the designated strategic plans. The clause will support the implementation of ongoing connections reforms led by NESO and Ofgem, and will provide guidance and support for NESO and DNOs in making decisions on issuing new connection offers. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has been clear in outlining how the clause relates to the previous clauses, and how he wants to overwhelmingly reform the electricity system. I do not see the clause as particularly controversial; it moves on from what he has previously described. Despite my previous speech—I have nothing against the Minister—the Opposition obviously want to be constructive where we possibly can be. The clause is simple and enables the process to carry on, and we will not contest it.

--- Later in debate ---

We have tabled the amendment to make sure that residents get that benefit, and to make sure that when fees come in, they are not kept by Scottish Ministers but are redistributed to local planning authorities, so that decisions can be made in a more streamlined, quicker way. That is what this Bill, and particularly this clause, could do for people living within those communities.

[Michael Shanks]

Normally, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is my sparring partner in both the Scotland and energy spaces, so it is nice that he has made an appearance in this debate, but I disagree with his amendment. The main reason is that it concerns a devolved competence. This is a UK Government Bill and it is right, given that the resource of local planning decisions and planning authorities is devolved to Scottish Ministers, that they make the decision on how they resource statutory consultees and local planning authorities.

On the point about community benefits, the Scottish Government already have an established process. The 10-year onshore wind ban in England was not in place in Scotland, and the process of good practice for community benefits for onshore wind, for example, is already quite well developed. Processes are in place. Over the past 12 months, developers have offered more than £30 million in community benefits.

We are, of course, exploring all options and the Bill includes bill discounts for network infrastructure—we will come to that shortly—but we are open to much more on community benefits generally, because we agree that if communities are hosting nationally important infrastructure, they should benefit, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly said. However, for the reasons I have outlined—this is a devolved competence and not a matter for me as a UK Government Minister—we hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I completely understand where the Minister is coming from. He does not want to tread on the toes of devolved Administrations. I thought he might be more encouraged to do so, considering that the Scottish Government are run by the Scottish National party, which is not doing a very good job at the moment. However, I also understand that he may not want to give them any more money to screw up the job that they are doing.

[Michael Shanks]

I agree.

[Paul Holmes]

Good—we have some consensus across the Committee. However, the Minister should not be fearful about giving those Ministers greater powers in this respect. We are trying to enable a greater amount of money to be devolved to the local authorities that are going to be directly responsible for ensuring community benefits from community infrastructure for the people who elect them. The Minister has said throughout our discussions that it is important to be transparent and to be able to resource some of the radical reform he is making. He should not be fearful—

[Michael Shanks]

I do not disagree with a single thing that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is not for me to dictate to the Scottish Government. They are democratically elected, and as much as I may disagree with much of what they do, they are none the less the Government of Scotland, and if they want to ringfence funding for a particular part of the process, they should be able to do so. In particular, diverting any funding away from the more speedy processing of planning applications would not be in the interests of the projects we want taken forwards. It is not that I disagree with him, but this is a devolved competence.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that, and I agree with him that it is a devolved competence—that is a fact—but he could be giving Scottish Ministers and constituents in Scotland a present by allowing the Government to make those decisions.

It is not just that the Government could be taking money from Scottish Ministers and giving it to local authorities under proposed new subsection (4)(a), but there is scope in the amendment for Scottish Ministers—the devolved Ministers—to be given the power to allocate consumer benefits packages where they think fit. That is strengthening the hand of devolved Ministers, not taking anything away from them. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “It doesn’t stop them.” No, but this would strengthen their hand. I think that giving devolved Ministers the power to give consumer benefits packages to Scottish people who are affected by infrastructure is a good thing.

I am not the intellectual powerhouse of the House of Commons, but even I can calculate that we would not win if we pushed this to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, at end insert—

“Consultation requirements (Scotland)

1B (1) Where an application is made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under section 36 or 37, the Scottish Ministers must provide for the holding of a public consultation.

(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about the holding of consultations.

(3) Regulations may include—

(a) the length of consultation periods in urban and rural areas;

(b) requirements on applicants to publish the projected local economic benefits and other specified information in advance of a consultation;

(c) requirements on applicants to respond to or demonstrate consideration of submissions to consultations.”

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend for—

[Michael Shanks]

Gordon and Buchan.

[Paul Holmes]

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review.

This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas.

This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.

[Michael Shanks]

Amendment 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), concerns public consultations under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It is worth making it clear that the planning systems of Scotland and of England and Wales are very different, and the starting points are very different.

The 1989 Act—which we will come to shortly, in relation to the necessary updates to consents more widely—provides for the process of notification and objection at the application stage. This is very different from aspects of the planning regulations in England and Wales, in that there are already opportunities for consultations, but clause 14 creates a further power to make regulations to set out such matters relating to applications for consent, including a pre-application consultation requirement. That requirement will be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, but its purpose is to ensure that the application is proportionate, adaptable and future-proofed.

As much as I politically disagree with the incumbent Scottish Government, we have been working together incredibly effectively, since we came into government, on some key aspects. The reforms of the 1989 Act are a good example. To take the earlier point about the changing energy system, that Act was legislation for a different time, and the planning system in Scotland has not kept pace with the reforms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reforms that we are proposing give Scottish Ministers a framework to introduce regulations to allow for a pre-application consultation process, and to give both communities and statutory consultees meaningful opportunities to influence applications and have a voice early in the process. For that reason, I see much of amendment 84 as replicating provisions already in the Bills, so I hope the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought the Minister would recommend that I withdraw the amendment. I will put on the record that I am delighted that the Minister believes in pre-application consultation, because in one breath this morning—

[Michael Shanks]

In a very different system.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 14, page 19, line 9, leave out from “application,” to end of line 12 and insert—

“(b) consider the objection and the reporter’s final report,

(c) hold a public hearing, and

(d) allow a period of one month to elapse

before determining whether to give their consent.”

This amendment would require the Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

The amendment is in the name of the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who I know the Minister would be delighted to hear from—[Interruption.] I heard the “boo”. Amendment 81 is similar to amendment 84 but more specific. I suspect that the Minister will come back with the same argument, so I will take only a short time on this. The amendment would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing, and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

Put simply, that would allow local residents the right to provide feedback on proposed infrastructure. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that it is right that people can have their voices listened to by Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. The amendment would create one mechanism to ensure fairness in the planning system, by allowing not only the pre-application consultation but people to generally give feedback and a say, as they currently can in the English planning system. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the shadow Scottish Secretary, or acting shadow Energy Secretary.

[Michael Shanks]

Both.

[Paul Holmes]

Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.

[Michael Shanks]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way he is discussing these topics. I appreciate that they are from a planning system alien to the one with which he is, I am sure, very familiar—I am tempted to say that the shadow Energy Secretary could join him on the Bench, but he is not here.

I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the Scottish system, a public inquiry can be triggered with one objection into the planning system. The public inquiry can take years to conclude and often is not reflective of actual community sentiment on a particular project. This system does not exist in any form anywhere else in the UK. The purpose of these consenting reforms is to deliver significant efficiencies in the consenting process, and to make decisions faster—not necessarily to make positive decisions faster, just to make decisions faster. Introducing another element that feels like the element that we are removing takes away from that.

As I have said previously, there are still significant opportunities for communities to participate in the process. One of the key aspects that we are introducing is the right of a reporter, who is an experienced specialist in planning and consenting, to consider representations about whether there should be a public hearing on a particular process. That reporter will then make the decision about whether it should go forward into a hearing session or a public inquiry. That is rather than what we have at the moment, which is an automatic trigger that holds up projects for a significant length of time.

I am always happy to meet with the shadow Scottish Secretary on a range of things. I am happy to engage with him, because I appreciate that his part of Scotland has a significant amount of network infrastructure being built; but for the reasons I have outlined, this amendment goes counter to our objectives, and does not sit with the reforms we are making to the Scottish planning system, as distinct from the planning system in England and Wales.

[John Grady]

I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood.

These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.

The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 15 stand part.

New clause 53—Reforms to consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—

“Where any reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland are proposed, the Secretary of State must ensure that such reforms—

(a) do not reduce requirements for community engagement or public consultation;

(b) include measures to address local concerns, environmental impacts, and impacts on all key sectors including but not limited to agriculture and tourism.”

New clause 54—Annual report on consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—

“(1) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on applications for consent for electricity infrastructure in Scotland.

(2) A report under this section must include—

(a) the outcomes of each application for consent relating to an energy infrastructure project in Scotland;

(b) evidence of community consultation undertaken in relation to each application and, where applicable, how consultation has influenced the design of the infrastructure to which the application relates; and

(c) estimates of economic benefits to local communities from the relevant project.”

[Michael Shanks]

I will begin with a brief explanation as to why clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made a moment ago, and one that I have made before, which is that these reforms were in the pipeline under the previous Government. They are reforms to a long-standing piece of legislation that is long due for updating.

I thank officials in my Department and in the Scottish Government for working closely and at speed, with a similar set of objectives and an open-book approach to making this work, to draft the measures in a way that works for all of us. It is a reset of the tone of how we work as two Governments.

On enabling the introduction of pre-application requirements, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley referenced, in the Scottish legislation there are currently no steps to give the public an opportunity to engage as there are in the NSIP regime in England and Wales. This is about improving the quality and readiness of applications at the submission stage. It is important to say that this was driven by the views of Scottish Ministers, who said that they thought it was a useful process, but it will be directed in detail in regulations so that it can be updated and adapted to situations, unlike the process that we have in England and Wales at the moment, which has been held back and has added time and complexity to projects and not delivered what it was intended to do. It will give Scottish Ministers the powers to charge fees for pre-application services, enabling them to better support applicants in developing good-quality applications.

Secondly, the clause establishes a power to set time limits through regulations for key stages of the consenting process, which will support the timely determination of applications and bring down overall processing times. Thirdly, it will establish a proportionate process for responding to objections by relevant planning authorities through a reporter-led examination process. The reporter will choose the most appropriate procedure for gathering any further information they need to provide recommendations in a final report to Scottish Ministers. That may include inquiry sessions, where the reporter considers that that is the best approach to take to address particular issues. Such an approach is similar to the well-established process in which appeals in the town and country planning decisions are currently addressed.

Clause 15 enables regulations to be made that prescribe new processes to vary electricity infrastructure consents in Scotland after they have been granted. The clause addresses the current anomaly that there is no prescribed procedure for holders of overhead line consents to apply to Scottish Ministers for a variation to their consents. The current position forces consent holders to make full consent applications in order to authorise often very modest variations. The clause also allows Scottish Ministers to vary an existing generating station or overhead lines consent due to changes in environmental circumstances or technological changes. Such variations will be made with the agreement of the consent holder. Finally, the clause allows Scottish Ministers to correct any errors or omissions made in consents for generating stations or overhead lines.

I will come back to the new clauses later, but I want first to underline the importance of the consenting process. In Scotland, we generate a significant amount of electricity, and there are further projects in the pipeline, including both floating offshore wind and onshore wind. It is critical that there is an off-taker for that power in the rest of the UK, and that requires us to build significantly more network infrastructure to bring that clean power to where it is required. Although these changes to consenting relate to Scotland, they are of critical importance for the energy security of the whole United Kingdom.

[Paul Holmes]

I would like to move new clauses 53 and 54, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them first.

[The Chair]

Minister, are you happy to do that now?

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister wants to hear more! New clause 54 is in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross)—I want the shadow Minister to say, “Gordon and Buchan”, just so I can hear his pronunciation. The clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report providing detail of electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made in Scotland in previous years.

As hon. Members will be aware, responsibility for the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—not the UK Parliament—for the decisions that they make, for the rationale behind them and for what information they choose to provide on consenting decisions. I am aware that the Scottish Government publish all their decisions, which includes information about what public consultations have taken place and consultations with community councils, for example.

It would be inappropriate and potentially duplicative for the Secretary of State to have such an obligation, but fundamentally, to come back to the point I made earlier, there is a particular concern about putting a statutory obligation on what is a devolved power when there is a democratic link between Scottish Ministers and their democratically accountable Parliament, which is the Scottish Parliament and not this Parliament.

[Paul Holmes]

Do I move the new clauses now?

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly.

I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too.

I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.

[Michael Shanks]

That is reserved.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce.

Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.

It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.

[Michael Shanks]

I am in danger of going into British constitutional politics 101, but the hon. Gentleman is introducing the West Lothian question.

[The Chair]

We have to be very careful given the subject of the amendment. I gave the shadow Minister a bit of leeway.

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister is introducing the best example I have heard in a long time of the West Lothian question. The fundamental thing is that this is not a political question about the Scottish Government or the UK Government. There are reserved matters for which this Parliament is responsible for holding UK Government Ministers to account, and there are devolved matters that Scottish Ministers have responsibility for delivering and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for holding them to account for.

It would ride roughshod over this Parliament’s fairly consistent support of devolution in the UK for us to now suddenly say that those Scottish Ministers are also accountable to another Parliament. I think that we agree on the nature of devolution in this country, although we may strongly disagree on the actions that devolved Governments take, but we cannot support the new clauses, for the reasons I have outlined. This is not about thinking outside the box; it is about recognising the role that the devolved system plays in our constitution. For those reasons, I will resist the new clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 16 amends section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which provides for a statutory appeal to be brought by any person who is aggrieved by a decision made by Scottish Ministers—perhaps the shadow Minister. A challenge to an offshore electricity infrastructure consenting decision made under section 36 is by statutory appeal. The clause extends this, so that statutory appeal also applies to onshore electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made under section 36, decisions made under section 37 and all variation decisions.

The clause will create consistency in Scotland by making the challenge process the same for both onshore and offshore consents, and ensuring they are brought in a timely manner. A challenge will have to be brought within six weeks for onshore consents, as is already the case for offshore consents. This will bring the timescale for challenging large electricity infrastructure decisions into alignment right across Great Britain.

Clause 16 also amends the Electricity Act so that the six-week timescale for bringing a challenge commences from the publication of the decision by the Scottish Minister, instead of the date on which the decision was taken. This is a new requirement for both onshore and offshore, and is compliant with the Aarhus convention compliance committee’s recommendations relating to the timescale for challenging planning decisions. There is also a consequential amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of directions relating to deemed planning permission. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.

[Gideon Amos]

We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees

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

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 17 will confer a power on Scottish Ministers to make regulations to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for processing necessary wayleave applications that they should make in Scotland. Necessary wayleaves are statutory rights that allow electricity licence holders to install and access their overhead electricity lines and associated infrastructure on land owned by others, and in Scotland they are processed and granted by Scottish Ministers.

The objective of the change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleave applications by the Scottish Government. It is important to act now.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?

[Michael Shanks]

Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that amendment 80 was about forcing Scottish Government Ministers to spend funds on community benefits and other things. This clause is saying that the Government will have the power to raise application fees if they choose to do so. Of course, they could choose not to, but under this clause they will have the power to raise them.

[Lewis Cocking]

It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?

[Michael Shanks]

As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.

[David Simmonds]

A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.

I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?

[Michael Shanks]

In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.

I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.

I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.

[Paul Holmes]

Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.

[Michael Shanks]

No, we have not. A series of work will be necessary to come up with that figure, because the fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis. It is not a money-making exercise for the Government. That is in line with approaches in the rest of Great Britain. There will clearly be a significant number of such applications in the coming years—more than in previous years, probably—but the detail will be worked out with the Scottish Government. We do not know in advance exactly how many wayleave applications there might be, so we cannot give an exact figure.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will forgive me for intervening again; it will mean that I speak less later. In outline, has he started any engagement with Scottish Ministers to find out whether the intention of the clause will be borne out in reality? If the costs are being recovered on a cost recovery basis, has he secured the necessary assurances from Ministers that the money collected will be used to process the decisions more rapidly, and that it will not be spent in other devolved Scottish areas?

[Michael Shanks]

I am sorry to come back to this point, but the Government do not bind the hands of devolved Governments in any spending area. When this Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the Bill gives them the power to do that, which they do not currently have.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will carry on answering this point, if that is okay.

We are very enthusiastic about clause 17—who would have thought it? To be clear about this point—I feel as if I am the only Scottish MP on this Committee, but I am not—when this Government increase spending in a particular area, that results in a budget transfer to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive, which they can spend on whatever they see as their local priorities. An increase in NHS spending in England does not lead to the exact same in Scotland. We will not bind the hands of every single decision that is made in this case. This is about conferring a power on Scottish Government Ministers to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for necessary wayleave applications in Scotland.

[John Grady]

I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.

[The Chair]

Order. Let us stick to the point.

[Michael Shanks]

Thank you, Mr Twigg. That is helpful.

[Lewis Cocking]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Shanks]

No, I will respond to that point, if I may. I respect the view of the Conservative party and the argument that Conservative Members are making. I completely understand it, but I am trying to make the point gently that this is not about our directing specific decisions that will be made by Scottish Ministers. It is about how—in this case, as it is across wayleave applications in England and Wales as well—fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis in line with UK and Scottish Government policy on managing public money.

[Lewis Cocking]

Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government:

“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”

The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?

[Michael Shanks]

I am trying to find the exact wording. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have outlined to him three times now why it is different. I do not have amendment 80 in front of me at this precise moment, but it had two parts to it, one of which was about community benefits. It was directing the Scottish Government to take funds and direct them to a specific purpose. This Parliament does not do that in any other aspects of devolved policy, because it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. I think that I have made that point clear, but if not, I will write to the Committee and make it even clearer. [Interruption.] I am grateful. I now have amendment 80 in front of me. It mentions

“consumer benefits packages, or…local planning authorities”.

Neither of those things is in the gift of the UK Government to direct the Scottish Government to do. Consumer benefits packages are ill-defined, if nothing else, but local planning authorities are democratically elected in their own right, and the Scottish Government make budget decisions to local government, separate from any budget decisions that the UK Government make to the Scottish Government. The two are not comparable in any way. In any event, the Committee has already voted down that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—

[Michael Shanks]

It’s the same thing.

[Paul Holmes]

It is not the same thing. I asked him, in his role as a UK Government Minister, to seek an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers that the retrospective collection of funds under the new power would be used to increase capacity and improve the processing of this proposal. He was not rude to me, but he said, “That’s not my job as a UK Government Minister. It’s up to them as Scottish Government Ministers.” His own explanatory notes say:

“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”

When I asked the Minister whether he had sought an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers, I was not asking him to instruct them. I asked him whether he had any information on the total amount of money that would be brought in, which I accept could vary. I perfectly understood and respected that answer, but in his second answer he said that he could not seek such an assurance because he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers or take power away from them. Given the objective set out in the explanatory notes, how can we have confidence—

[Michael Shanks]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course.

[Michael Shanks]

There is no contradiction here at all. We are confusing two different things. My ability to say that the Scottish Government could raise x amount of money and must spend it on y is different from what we have clearly outlined—the hon. Gentleman has just repeated it—which is that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers do not have the power to raise fees for wayleaves, as is the case in England and Wales. Those are two very different things.

I have said clearly, I think six or seven times now, that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers have no power to charge for the processing of wayleave applications. The clause will give them the power to do so. Of course, I would hope that those funds will be spent on the planning system, or whatever it might be, but I am not going to bind their hands and evaluate the success or otherwise of that in this Committee. The two issues are quite separate.

[Paul Holmes]

We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I know that the Minister has no power to do that and does not want to have such a power, but how can he, as a UK Government Minister, commend a clause whose objective the explanatory notes explicitly say

“is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government”

while claiming that he does not have the power to ensure that it happens?

I am not trying to be difficult. The Minister is doing a very good job of outlining the clauses, but he has said several times in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—not just in relation to amendment 81, which was not accepted, but in relation to the clause—that he does not have the power to direct Scottish Government Ministers. All I am asking is why he set out the objective of the change in his approved explanatory notes if he cannot make it happen.

I am not asking the Minister to strengthen the legislation; I asked whether he has sought reassurances from Scottish Government Ministers that that is what they will do with the extra income from the measures. He answered that he did not want to force them. That was not the question. All I am asking—he is welcome to intervene on me—is whether he has had a conversation with Scottish Government Ministers about whether they will use this income for the purposes that his legislation has set out.

[Michael Shanks]

I have not had the conversation. I am happy to have it, but the tone will not be, “Here are my expectations of you as a democratically elected Member of the Scottish Parliament accountable to a Parliament I do not sit in.”

I do not know how familiar the shadow Minister is with the devolution legislation in the United Kingdom, but I gently say that this Parliament gives the devolved Administrations power to raise a whole series of taxes, charges, levies, fines and various other things. We give that power to those devolved assemblies; we do not then tell them exactly how to spend every single penny of that money. This is another example of that. It is a perfectly common thing in the devolution settlement.

[Paul Holmes]

I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.

I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 19 stand part.

Schedule 1.

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 18 is technical, amending section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 to make provision for procedural requirements that apply to the new powers conferred by the provision in clauses 14, 15 and 17. All new regulation-making powers, except for the power to amend primary legislation in clause 14(4), are subject to the negative procedure. Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State must consult each other before making regulations relating to clauses 14 and 15. The power in clause 17 is to be exercised by Scottish Ministers, and it does not require the Secretary of State to be consulted.

Clause 19 introduces schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 consequential to the amendments made by clauses 14 to 18. It also makes some minor amendments relating to consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland. These amendments are made to sections 36, 36B, 36C and 37 of and schedule 8 to the 1989 Act. Schedule 1 is needed to ensure the Bill’s consistency and clarity in relation to the 1989 Act. Some changes are needed to ensure that the new Scottish consenting reforms can function as intended. Some of the clarifications are needed because the 1989 Act was originally drafted prior to the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. Given the number of changes made to the 1989 Act in relation to Scotland, it is necessary to update outdated references in legislation to ensure that such references are clear and consistent.

The consequential amendments cover three main aspects. First, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about time limits for various parts of the consenting process, the amendments clarify how this relates to Scottish Ministers obtaining advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new section 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.

Thirdly, there are clarifications to reflect the new processes for variations of consents and the new procedure following objection by the relevant planning authorities for consents under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the minor amendments include those to reflect previous transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers, and some references to the water environment regulations are updated to refer to the most recent version.

As I have said, this is a very technical clause. I look forward to having slightly less debate on it, unless there are any questions.

[Paul Holmes]

Clauses 18 and 19 are consequential to the previous clauses, and consist of simple process amendments. The Minister will be delighted that we welcome the fact that clause 19 amends the Electricity Act 1989 to reflect earlier transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers. That is exactly as it should be, and we will not be scrutinising the various words. These amendments should go ahead, and I have no further comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 20

Environmental impact assessments for electricity works

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

[Michael Shanks]

Clause 20 creates a power for the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make limited procedural amendments to the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which for ease of reference I will refer to as the EIA regulations.

As part of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, Scottish Ministers are required to assess the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed EIA development. Before the UK left the European Union, Scottish Ministers and UK Government Ministers had concurrent powers, under the European Communities Act 1972, to make regulations for electricity works EIAs. However, although the EIA regulations remained in force as assimilated law after the European Communities Act was repealed, the result is that neither Government have the power to amend them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.

Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?

[Michael Shanks]

I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.

This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Shanks Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Great British Energy on job creation in industrial communities.

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

Great British Energy will support the creation of thousands of high-quality, well-paid jobs right across the country and help rebuild the UK’s industrial heartlands. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced £300 million for Great British Energy to kick-start supply chains here in the UK. Once the Great British Energy Bill finishes its final stages in Parliament, we will come forward with more exciting plans for our domestic clean energy champion.

[Chris Vince]

I welcome the £300 million of investment for GB Energy announced last week. I think we all recognise the opportunities of the green energy transition, but what opportunities are there for my Harlow constituents to be part of that publicly owned energy company?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, with Great British Energy and our clean power mission, we are trying to create the jobs that will deliver that transition here in the UK, which is something that the Conservatives failed on for many years. We expect that funding, and much more that will come from Great British Energy, to mobilise more than £1 billion in private investment in domestic supply chains, driving forward manufacturing and industry here in the UK and the good jobs that go with it.

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

What assessment has the Minister made of the number of jobs that Great British Energy will create in the People’s Republic of China?

[Michael Shanks]

I think the right hon. Gentleman gives the game away there. Although the Conservative party did not particularly care where the supply chains were, we in the Labour party are committed to delivering good, well-paid jobs in this country. If he was so concerned about investing in British supply chains, he might have bothered to vote for Great British Energy in the first place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday,

“they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing”

the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.

[Michael Shanks]

I am not quite sure which one of the variety of parts in that speech the hon. Gentleman would like me to respond to. As usual, he steamrolls through his question faster than he ran the marathon— I congratulate him on that. He happens to be the only person in Aberdeenshire who is against investment in his community. When Labour Members voted to deliver investment through Great British Energy—not through jobs in the headquarters but through the investment it makes in supply chains and innovation in his city—he voted against it, and he will have to answer to his constituents for that.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps he is taking to support the nuclear power sector.

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

Nuclear power is a critical part of our clean power ambitions. We are making strong progress on Sizewell C and Great British Nuclear is driving forward its small modular reactor competition. We have also seen the nuclear regulatory taskforce set up by the Prime Minister, and we are ending the legacy of no new nuclear being completed in the 14 long years when the Conservatives were in power.

[Douglas McAllister]

The transition to net zero is a chance to create decent, high-skilled jobs for the future. That includes the next generation of small nuclear reactors, which could revolutionise our energy market and deliver cleaner affordable energy. The SNP has vetoed nuclear energy projects in Scotland for almost 20 years, determined to leave Scotland behind. Is Scotland missing out on the economic opportunities that nuclear offers?

[Michael Shanks]

Planning matters, including the siting of new nuclear, are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so it is rightly for it to decide. However, I agree that Scotland is missing out on the huge potential of new nuclear. If the ideological block introduced by the SNP were lifted, billions of pounds could be invested in Scotland, with the countless skilled jobs that go with that. That could well be delivered next year if a Scottish Government are elected that take the industry and opportunity of Scotland seriously and deliver those well-paid skilled jobs—that would come by electing a Scottish Labour Government.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

Data from the last year showed that Ynys Môn saw a drop of 57% in jobs linked to the nuclear industry; the worst figure for a UK constituency. Despite Wylfa being recognised as the best site for new nuclear in Europe, we saw no development from the last Government. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister give us the recognition and acknowledgment that Wylfa needs new nuclear and that that will be seen in the near future?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady has raised with me that point and the wider question of energy jobs in her constituency a number of times, and I thank her for that and for the way she has done so. Wylfa is an important site and continues to be one that the Government are considering. We will take forward those decisions in due course. As I have said to her on a number of previous occasions, we are committed to delivering the jobs that go with that and Wylfa remains an important site.

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

10. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

--- Later in debate ---

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

12. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the resilience of the national grid against the potential disruption of offshore energy infrastructure.

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

Before I answer the hon. Lady’s substantive question, I want to offer her my huge congratulations on smashing to smithereens on Sunday the previous record held by a female MP in the London marathon.

Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network with diverse sources of supply. The national energy system operator can balance the system in a wide range of scenarios, including potential disruptions to offshore infrastructure.

[Harriet Cross]

The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?

[Michael Shanks]

I will not comment on individual investment cases, but in every single case the Government make an assessment and we look at the national security implications seriously, just as the Conservatives did when they were in government. I would just gently say that the reason the supply chains in this country are as weak as they are is that they were underfunded and under-invested for years by the Conservatives. There could have been a decision, at the point when they took ambitious steps to move towards clean power, to build the supply chains here, but they chose not to do so; they chose to tow things into our waters instead. We are reversing that, but it cannot happen overnight.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Following the publication of the Severn estuary commission report on tidal power, will the Government produce a national policy statement to support tidal range energy, and will they publish a review of the available opportunities?

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

I have had a number of meetings on this issue since coming into post. Clearly, tidal could play an important part in an energy mix. We have been clear that we are supportive of it in principle, but questions about its cost benefit and value for money must be answered. We are happy to continue looking at it in future, as projects develop and more detail comes forward.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

T4. I welcome the Government’s view that nuclear power is essential to our clean power goals. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that new nuclear can be built wherever that is possible across the country, including in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have a lot of Members I need to get in. These are topical questions—they are meant to be short and punchy.

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that public charging points are critical. That is why the regulator, Ofgem, allocated £22 billion over the next five years to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. I have had a number of meetings with network operators about this question, and I work closely with my colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure we are rolling out more points.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

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

As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?

[Michael Shanks]

A consultation has just closed on the future of North sea energy. We have been very clear that our manifesto commitment was to not issue new licences for exploring new fields, but we will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the role that local community energy can play; I think that is what he is alluding to. We are committed to ensuring that. Great British Energy local has already made some announcements in this space, including on local energy funding in England. We will have much more to say in due course, but we want to ensure a partnership, so if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will make sure that what he says gets to GB Energy.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The Scottish National party celebrated the closure and demolition of Longannet coal power station in my constituency without having a plan for its future. The former First Minister pressed the button on the charges herself. What conversations do Ministers plan to have with the site owner, Scottish Power, about the future of the site, and what role might there be for the UK Government in bringing investment and jobs to my constituency?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is right to make the point about Longannet. We have conversations with Scottish Power on a number of issues, including this. He again emphasises the important role that nuclear could play in Scotland in the future. It could obviously be an important site for a range of uses, but if the ideological ban on nuclear by the SNP were lifted, we could look at other opportunities for such sites.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware of the switch-on of Moray West offshore wind farm at Buckie, in my constituency, last week, creating jobs, delivering clean energy and helping our nation to achieve net zero. Does the Minister accept that the current transmission charging regime poses significant and immediate threats to investment in offshore wind in Scotland? Will he meet me and industry representatives to explore that matter further?

[Michael Shanks]

We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject.

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

The United Kingdom was particularly susceptible to changes in international gas prices during the energy crisis, and bills and prices soared as a result. Under this Government, GB Energy is installing solar panels in hospitals in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, but will the Minister remind us which party presided over the worst cost of living crisis in memory—

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.