Solar Panels on Agricultural Land
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, as always, Ms Jardine. I thank all hon. Members for coming to this debate. Obviously, many colleagues from across the House have raised concerns about projects in their constituencies. I understand entirely why, but given that those projects are subject to planning processes, I will say at the outset that I cannot comment on the positives or negatives, or the decisions through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process, in relation to any of those particular applications. Those are rightly matters for the Secretary of State to make decisions on in due course.
I will touch on the general points that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made. First, we should recognise an area where I think we have common agreement: building infrastructure across our country is necessary but it should be done in sensible locations and take account of local impacts. I have said throughout that I find much of the nimby debate coming up in this a bit redundant, when we are actually trying to bring communities with us. But I have also said clearly that we need to build infrastructure as a country, and it is not possible to just build all of it “somewhere else”. Inevitably, in these debates, we often get back to the argument that people are in favour of the technology, but “just not anywhere near my constituency.” There has to be some common ground in the middle that recognises that we need to build infrastructure somewhere.
Solar is particularly important because it tackles our energy security issues, and is also by far the cheapest electricity generation to deploy in the country at the moment. With affordability at the forefront of all our constituents’ minds, it is right and proper that we try to deploy as much solar as we possibly can.
Graham Stuart
Of course, I had the Minister’s role just two and a half years ago. I think I agree with pretty much everything he has said so far, but there is a backlash because we are seeing so much high-quality land lost. We are seeing a cumulative impact, which, again, notionally, the Government say should be looked at, but they never seem to stop a project. There is also the issue of slave-labour supply chains.
I therefore invite the Minister to tighten up the rules on best and most versatile land, given that 60% of the land is not the best and most versatile. I also invite him to tighten up the rules so that there is real protection around cumulative impact, and to tighten up the rules on slave-labour supply chains. I think that he can still fulfil his ambition to see the infrastructure built and make sure that we have a system that is sufficiently rigorous so that communities are quieted. It will not stop every nimby everywhere, but at least it will give reassurance and show that there are real rules providing real protection, because right now that absence is causing scepticism right across this House and across the country.
Michael Shanks
I will come to several of those points. The right hon. Gentleman has always been more pragmatic than his party on many of these issues—I hope that does not do him a disservice—and I have always appreciated that. He is right that we want to try to find a place where we can build the infrastructure that we need but bring communities with us and not turn them away from the energy transition. That is really important.
I want to share some statistics, because individual applications often paint a picture of a much greater use of land across the country than is actually the case. At the end of September 2024—the latest set of figures I have—the land devoted to solar farms covered an estimated 21,000 hectares, which is around 0.1% of the UK’s total land. Even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios in the clean power action plan, we expect to get to 0.4% of deployment and 0.6% of agricultural land in the country. I recognise that there are local impacts from all these projects—I speak as a Member of Parliament from an area very close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms built under the previous Government—and that land use is a challenge across communities, but this is nevertheless a very small proportion of land across the country overall.
The right hon. Member’s second point was about supply chains, on which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly challenged us, and I will say two things. First, it was right that we accepted the amendment but also set up Great British Energy to not only be a leader in how we build supply chains, but to try to get a supply chain on solar panels here in the UK again and do due diligence on supply chains coming in from China. There is much more work to do and I do not pretend that the work is complete yet. Some initiatives, such as the solar stewardship initiative, need to go further to ensure that we get into the detail of supply chains.
Secondly, when we left Government in 2010, three companies were building in solar supply chains in the UK and, when we came back, there were none. That comes back to a really important point about re-industrialisation: if we want supply chain security, a line of sight on things such as human rights, and to create good jobs across the country, we need to invest in manufacturing capability. We need to nurture it and not let it go to the wall, which is where we get to particular risks.
Michael Shanks
I give way first to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why so many UK firms disappear is that they cannot compete against firms, especially from China, who have cheap labour or labour at no cost at all? That is why it is so important that the Government tighten down on where the supplies of this equipment come from.
Michael Shanks
I give way to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The main point I want to make to the Minister is that China thwarts all the rules around commerce. It subsidises all its industries, including the solar industry. It uses slave labour, which we have mentioned. The thing about slave labour is that America does this in a much cleaner way: it assumes that the companies are using slave-made solar panels and leaves it to the company to prove, using serious checks including forensic science, that it is not. The Government should look at and adopt that process; it would kill the supply of slave-made solar panels tomorrow.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Gentleman; he made similar points during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill. We continue to look at and review that across Government in relation to procurement and Government investment in these projects. We want to incentivise, as much as possible, supply chains to be here in the UK.
I do not accept the point from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that cost alone is the reason why we do not have supply chains here in the UK. We must use the mechanisms we have to encourage manufacturing in the UK. That is why such things as the clean industry bonus are about saying that, alongside contracts for difference to build renewable energy in the UK, companies can also get investment to make sure that manufacturing is here in the UK, too, and the jobs that go with it. We also need security at a time when supply chains are critical. No doubt this is a challenge and I accept that point, but there is more we can do.
I want to come back to what the right hon. Member for Tatton said about net zero zealotry. I think there is quite a lot of anti-net zero zealotry in this debate. At the end of her speech, she said something that I completely agree with. I hope there is recognition that solar is part of an energy mix, not the entirety of it. We need a mix of technologies, but the quicker we can get off fossil fuels, the better it is for our energy security in a very uncertain world, as we are all experiencing, and in terms of bringing down bills. Solar is a crucial part of that, and although we absolutely want to see solar panels on as many rooftops as possible and to support innovative projects such as floating solar, we also recognise that ground-mounted solar plays a critical role in this.
The right hon. Lady also made a number of points about food security, and of course, I absolutely agree with her. Food security is national security. We need to back British farmers and agriculture is really important in this country. I understand that it is important that we work to preserve the beauty and character of rural areas, but that is precisely what the planning system exists to do. It weighs up different impacts with opportunities, looks through specific projects and takes account of local views, all of which are considered in these processes.
The planning system is also really clear that a number of projects in a particular area will have cumulative impacts on the nationally significant infrastructure project pipeline, and that is taken into account in these processes. Whether it is visual amenity, protected landscapes or the natural environment, all of these things are taken into account. As the right hon. Lady said, the planning system already steers developers to use brownfield sites wherever possible, and the development of agricultural land can take place only where it is absolutely necessary, and even then, lower-grade land should be used first.
Michael Shanks
I will give way briefly to the right hon. Lady, but I will then have to conclude.
Esther McVey
As the Minister has heard today, that is not the case. I was asking what specific steps he is taking to tighten up the planning process, or to have oversight so that what he thinks is happening is actually happening.
Michael Shanks
It is not for me to litigate individual planning applications; that is what the planning system exists for. We have given very clear guidance on this, and we keep these things under review. At the moment, we already have a planning system that takes these things into consideration, and I will not open up the debate on individual projects. Indeed, the National Farmers’ Union has said that solar poses no threat to food security.
I must also highlight the most glaring point in all this: clean energy is about us trying to get off fossil fuels, and although part of the reason for doing so is to reduce all our constituents’ exposure to the impacts on bills, the summer we have just lived through was a perfect example of climate change in action. It made the impact of not tackling the climate crisis on food security very clear and present for us. To exclude that from the debate misses the crucial point that climate change is far more likely to impact our food security in Britain than any infrastructure that we are building.
I have already told the right hon. Lady that I agree that we should be building much more rooftop solar, and that is why the future homes standards encourage new houses to be built with solar installed. That is also why I am working to see whether we can get even more solar on warehouses, supermarkets, car parks and everywhere else we possibly can, which I am entirely open to, but ground-mounted solar will nevertheless remain important.
I also want us to look much more at innovation in how we farm alongside solar farms. I have visited a number of solar farms where the two go alongside one another, such as where livestock grazing can go alongside solar deployment. There is also a lot of emerging science in agrivoltaics on developing new ways to make sure that we have arable farming alongside solar.
Sarah Bool
In the Green Hill solar farm application, one of the arguments made was that we could also have sheep farming, but the Secretary of State’s decision actually said that this was irrelevant and would not be considered, because they could not guarantee it. Actually, the promise of them sitting side by side is not a guarantee.
Michael Shanks
I am not making any guarantees here, and I have not pretended to do so. I am saying that there is much more opportunity to do these things side by side, and I have visited and seen some places where it is working, including places where there is a net gain in biodiversity from the deployment of solar panels.
In this focus group on solar, we will clearly not have support from everyone who has spoken in the debate today, and I entirely understand that. As I have said in a number of debates—I hope fairly—we want to ensure that we bring communities with us on this as much as possible, and the planning system is important. The right hon. Member for Tatton also talked about community benefits, and it is really important that those are meaningful to communities. We will say more soon about our expectations on developers for community benefits. We want those to genuinely invest in the future of communities, rather than be tokenistic. It is important to say that they are not compensation regimes; they are about saying, “You’re hosting infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we thank you for that. Here is a community benefit.”
Contrary to how it seems from my speech, I think there is much that we agree on. We want to preserve the character of the countryside across the country, but I also genuinely believe that we have to rapidly increase the amount of electricity that we can generate from clean sources. We have to ensure that we have renewables alongside nuclear and other technologies, and the planning system exists to balance that with continued food production and protecting communities. I am very open to looking at any further reforms that are necessary, but I think that the balance is understood at the moment. I hope we can continue this conversation in the manner in which we have had the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Office for Nuclear Regulation: Executive Powers Annual Report
Michael Shanks Excerpts(3 days, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has today published the annual report setting out the use of the Secretary of State’s powers exercised in respect of the Office for Nuclear Regulation during the year 2025-26. This is in accordance with section 108 of the Energy Act 2013.
[HCWS437]
North Sea Oil and Gas
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Today the North Sea Transition Authority has granted consent for production at the Jackdaw field. This follows agreement from the Secretary of State to the grant of consent. The project will start to supply gas to British homes and businesses from this winter.
It is expected to increase domestic gas production by around 6% at its peak, supporting the UK’s gas supply over its lifespan of up to 11 years, protecting hundreds of jobs and estimated to add billions to the UK economy. This decision follows the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Finch case in 2024, which means North Sea operators are now required to consider the impact of burning the extracted oil and gas in environmental impact assessments. Jackdaw gasfield is already licensed and this decision now allows the developer to start production.
[HCWS396]
Jackdaw Gasfield
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
First, Mr Speaker, I entirely respect your comments. I hope that in my time in this House I have always given you the impression that I take this House seriously. Your points have been noted, and I will absolutely take them back to the Department.
Mr Speaker
It would be different if we had not had this conversation once before—you promised me previously that these comments would be noted. I am sorry that you have been put up when the Secretary of State cannot be bothered to come, Minister. I am sorry that Aberdeen is more important than the MPs who have been elected.
Michael Shanks
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on the offshore Jackdaw gasfield and the Government’s approach more broadly to North sea oil and gas. This supplements the written ministerial statement that I made to the House on the topic earlier this morning.
The original grant of consent for the Jackdaw project, made in 2022 under the previous Government, was judged to be unlawful and was quashed by the courts. This was because emissions from the burning of extracted gas were not considered, and it therefore did not assess the full environmental impacts of the project. My right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and the regulator have now retaken the relevant decisions, fully taking into account environmental impacts.
Today, I can inform the House that the Energy Secretary has decided in favour of the project and that the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority, has now granted consent for gas to be produced at the licensed Jackdaw field. Given that the court permitted the developer to continue development at risk until a new consenting decision was made, the project will therefore start to supply gas to British homes and businesses by as soon as the end of this month.
In reaching her decision, the Energy Secretary considered all relevant information in the round. She looked at the project’s expected benefits to the UK, including its contribution to energy security, employment, impacts on other energy infrastructure and other economic benefits, and carefully weighed them against the potential environmental effects, including the effects relating to greenhouse gas emissions. The full reasons for our decisions are set out in detail in the decision document, which was published on gov.uk.
I want to assure the House that the Government remain committed to tackling the climate crisis and to moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable and nuclear energy. The recent heatwaves and weather events we have seen demonstrate why that is critical, and the Secretary of State will be leading the UK delegation to COP next month to drive global action and build a credible pathway back to 1.5° of warming.
I want to be clear that this project will not prevent the UK from being able to meet its legally binding limits on carbon emissions and achieve net zero by 2050. But even on the path to net zero, the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy needs for decades to come. This decision is consistent with the Government’s manifesto commitments to end new licences, explore new fields and support the management of existing fields for their lifespan.
The Chancellor and the Energy Secretary have also announced that the Government will establish a new North sea energy wealth fund, which will use tax revenues from North sea oil and gas to invest in net zero projects and support the green transition. This will start with an initial £2 billion capital injection of funding, with future revenues from the North sea flowing into the fund over time. It will support our plans to delink gas and electricity over the course of the Parliament, ensuring that home-grown renewables and low-carbon power set the price of electricity far more than gas, helping to protect households and businesses from volatile fossil fuel markets and bring down bills for good.
The North sea future plan set out our approach to securing a managed, orderly and prosperous transition and set out how we will deliver our manifesto commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates, and we will legislate for those reforms when parliamentary time allows.
However, a small number of tieback projects face urgent investment and operational decisions now, and I have therefore asked the North Sea Transition Authority to consider whether any such projects could benefit from similar measures now, before the legislation is in place. This is a limited interim arrangement for urgent cases where operators can demonstrate committed investment, credible delivery plans and near-term activity. Any decision will remain for the NSTA, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities.
Timely decommissioning is important for both the environment and the economy, and this Government are keen to unblock and progress decisions in a timely way. I can also announce today that the regulator has invited the decommissioning programme for the Brent installations, marking an important step in restarting another regulatory process that has been on hold for years.
My officials are also beginning discussions with industry leaders on a refresh of the North sea transition deal to ensure that future domestic oil and gas production continues to benefit the UK and to build the energy industries of the future. First agreed in 2021, the deal aims to provide a clear path for the industry to support the UK in reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while protecting jobs and supporting energy security.
Finally, as the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, we are looking at removing standing charges on gas bills at the earliest opportunity.
Today’s decision means that we will get more power flowing directly into British homes and businesses this winter as we continue our transition to renewables. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Finally, Mr Speaker—at last, after two and a half years, this Government have found it within themselves to do the right thing, after exhausting all the alternatives. We have arrived at this destination far later than we should have.
Jackdaw was first approved by us in 2022. When in government, we approved it in line with the law as we saw it at the time, and we were confident that we would win the appeal in the Court of Session and ensure that we could get British gas into British homes as soon as possible.
But then entered the former Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who, in one of his first acts as Secretary of State, pulled lawyers from the appeal, ensuring and guaranteeing that it would fail. There was absolutely no reason to do that. Approving Jackdaw is about security, jobs and our economy. At every moment up to today, this Government have chosen to prioritise their own self-interest—and winning a by-election in Holborn and St Pancras—over the interests of the British people.
Jackdaw alone will provide enough resources to heat 1.4 million British homes—homes that will no longer need to rely on expensive and high-carbon emitting liquefied natural gas imports. Today we have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister talking about the pragmatism of the national interest. More gallingly, we have heard them talking about supporting British workers.
If the Government are serious about a new, pragmatic approach and serious about British jobs and British businesses, that surely means the forthcoming energy independence Bill will not contain measures to ban any new licences in the North sea—a purely ideological but unfathomable decision. If they really believe that a new pragmatism is needed in the North sea, that presumably means that the Chancellor will be announcing next week that he will be removing the energy profits levy.
This decision is welcome, but it should not have taken this long. Labour’s dither and delay over the past few years—and, indeed, the past few months—has cost us dear, with jobs lost, more businesses relocating and deindustrialisation. There is a reason the leader of the GMB union described this Department as the Department for P45s.
We have had oil downturns before, when global prices fell and jobs were lost in the UK. When it happened under our watch, we stepped up: we maximised recovery, cut taxes and turned the North sea into the most investable basin in the world. Today, there is no global downturn—prices are soaring across the world, and the oil and gas industry is expanding. Only in Britain, we now have a made-by-Labour, made-by-Miliband downturn. We have the only Government in the world who say, “Jobs being lost? Let’s speed that up.” We are the only country not maximising recovery and the only country choosing, in the middle of an energy crisis, to ban licences and exploration. Yet today, the workers in our oil and gas industry are to be thankful that after two and a half years of uncertainty, this Government—kicking and screaming—have finally done the right thing. I have no doubt that there will be more kicking and screaming from some of their Back Benchers today. Perhaps the prospect of more tax revenue will appease them—specifically the over £4 billion of tax receipts. That is revenue that we know the Chancellor desperately needs.
Today is a good day—finally. In the spirit of the Secretary of State’s new-found pragmatism, let us see a serious and pragmatic change of direction. Will the Government now approve Rosebank, lift the ban on exploration and new licences, end the crippling energy profits levy, and get Britain drilling?
Michael Shanks
In the two and a half years that the hon. Gentleman says that he has had to think about this, he might have come up with something better than that performance. The Conservatives’ lack of contrition for a decision that was quashed by a court is absolutely shameful. I reiterate that the Court was very clear in its judgment that while the decision did not stand, the project could continue to be developed, so there has been no delay in its development; that is why extraction from the Jackdaw field can continue.
The hon. Gentleman talked about dither and delay. That brings me to the truth of this, which is that the Conservative party left Britain with an energy system that was less secure, more exposed to international shocks and slower to invest than it should have been. I watched the Conservative party conference in great detail, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman seems to be shifting his party’s position back to what it was before the previous shadow Secretary of State’s time, and is supporting more renewables. I really welcome that, and I look forward to working with him to make that a success, because we agree on that.
This decision is important for our energy security and jobs, but the long-term pathway for Britain is towards not fossil fuels, but building the clean power system that we need, electrifying the economy, and building the nuclear that the hon. Gentleman claims to care so much about, although he did not build any in his two years as Nuclear Minister, due to dither and delay. We fell behind as a country on the energy security that we needed. This decision is part of our response to energy crises. To have a secure long-term future, we must build up the industries that come next. That is important for Britain’s energy security, jobs, and opportunities in his constituency and right across the country. That is what this Government will get on and do.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and the commitment to going ahead with Jackdaw. The Select Committee has heard evidence time and again about the damage done by the chaotic deindustrialisation of the ’80s, and the failure in the 2010s and early 2020s to take action in the North sea. The phrase “North sea energy wealth fund” has striking echoes with what Norway did right to avoid disastrous consequences of deindustrialisation.
The Committee has heard just how important supply chain companies and North sea oil and gas workers are, and how important they will be, when working with renewables, in the future. The Minister announced the fund and the North sea transition deal. Does he agree that the fastest, most effective way of delivering the energy transition is to support existing operations, supply chains and workers in North sea and oil and gas, so that they are available as we gear up on renewables and nuclear?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend about the transition. The vast majority of jobs in the oil and gas industry are in the very supply chains that we need to build the renewables and networks of the future, so it is important that we hold on to those; that is a huge opportunity.
Pragmatism has to go both ways. We have to be pragmatic about oil and gas in the North sea, but it would be irresponsible not to make the investment needed in clean power and the long-term future of jobs. We are seeking to do both. We will make sure that the transition is managed, by investing the revenues from this gas project—that is £2 billion initially, but additional revenues will flow into it—and will invest in the clean power projects that will help us to get off fossil fuels in the long term, while retaining the critical workforce in the UK.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Today’s approval of Jackdaw, in the midst of a climate crisis, is proof that Britain has not moved forward nearly fast enough on reducing our reliance on gas and oil. The Supreme Court judgment requires analysis of scope 3 carbon emissions of gas and oil licences, so the Government must demonstrate that their decision to approve Jackdaw is compatible with our climate commitments, not just our net zero targets.
What is not compatible with our climate targets is our continued dependence on gas: 80% of UK households still heat their homes with gas. Heat pumps provide heating for just 2% of households in the UK. We hear that the Government plan to cut heat pump subsidies to homeowners who want to come off gas. The world has changed; we have had two global energy crises in five years. About a quarter of UK gas demand is supplied by imported liquefied natural gas. Our energy security is not strengthened by the fact that 70% of that comes from the US, given that Trump is prepared to turn that gas off.
Let me be clear: Jackdaw will not bring down bills. It will meet about 2% of UK gas demand. It will play a limited, short-term role, while displacing more polluting and insecure imports. This decision must be the tipping point for transformative investment in renewables and electrification. With respect to our climate obligations, what will the Government do to account for scope 3 emissions, beyond the territorial emissions in our net zero targets? Will the Minister commit to £15 billion of funding for the warm homes plan, and support the Liberal Democrats’ call for a national electrification strategy to drive down our dependence on gas for good?
Michael Shanks
I am genuinely confused about the Lib Dems’ position, because my understanding was that they were now in favour of the Jackdaw field. Maybe that will change again by the end of the day. I hear the point that she makes. We are not waiting for a tipping point. We have been getting on with electrification and building the clean power mission for the past two and a half years.
I would gently say to the Lib Dems that there were 10 sites for new nuclear projects in 2009. After Labour left office in 2010, the leader of the Liberal Democrats was Energy Minister for a period in which no new nuclear, which would have helped us, was built.
I agree with the hon. Lady’s point about climate. In making the decision, all those factors had to be weighed up. The full decision notice is available, and it goes into this in great detail, but the Secretary of State was very clear that her assessment is that the decision does not prevent the UK from meeting legally binding limits on carbon emissions, or from achieving our net zero target. A managed transition recognises that moving to a low-carbon economy will involve balancing climate objectives, the deployment of clean power and the electrification of heat and industry with ensuring energy security in the short term, in which we will be required to use oil and gas across our economy. This is about doing both, and getting us to the end point as quickly as possible.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Today’s decision is probably not a surprise to most people. It will make a relatively limited difference to energy security, and probably very little difference to pricing, but I very much welcome what the Minister said about it being part of a transition, and about us not ripping up the policy commitment to no wider exploration. I agree with him that this decision is consistent with our manifesto pledge.
We need to move to heat pumps and electric vehicles, and to make other changes for industry, but does the Minister agree that the absolute priority is bringing down electricity prices and getting us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster? What else will he do, in this Budget and Budgets to come, to make sure that we achieve that?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend about the absolute priority. He is absolutely right to say that this decision will not take a penny off bills. We have been consistent on that throughout. We are a price taker as a country, and no number of consenting decisions will change the fact that gas is traded on the international market and the decision is of marginal impact on the overall price; it does not have an impact on that. Nevertheless, the gas resulting from this decision will account for around 5% of domestic gas production, so the decision is important from a security point of view.
My hon. Friend’s wider point is about how we move many more people over to electricity and then bring down the cost of electricity. We are doing all we can to break the link with gas; that is absolutely critical. Electricity bills have gone up in the last two price caps because of our exposure to fossil fuels. That is affected by a war thousands of miles away that we had no part in.
We are already making progress. A few years ago, 90% of the electricity price was set by gas. The figure is now 60%, and is going down all the time, but we have much more to do on that. Evidence from the past few months has shown that the people who are being supported to take up heat pumps or solar panels are off-grid households, which face the impact of heating oil prices. They have taken up those opportunities. The public are behind us on this; we just need to make it as straightforward as possible. That is what the warm homes plan will deliver.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Like Mr Speaker, I was angry and frustrated to find that the Secretary of State was not making the statement. I first learned that the Secretary of State was in my constituency when I saw her on TV this morning; that is being completely disrespectful to another Member.
The decision on Jackdaw is a victory for common sense. It is also a victory for the voters of Aberdeen South, who sent a clear message to this Labour Government in what was the most important by-election this year. Will this decision streamline the process for other North sea developments? We need a pipeline of projects coming through to protect jobs and to keep the lights on.
Michael Shanks
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a fellow by-election MP, I can agree with the hon. Member that we need to dine out on our by-elections as much as we can; he was quite right to raise that.
The hon. Member is right about the process. I will not comment on timelines for upcoming decisions, but over the past two years, we have put in place a process to allow consideration of scope 3 emissions and consultation on that, and then to get the consenting decisions back into the process. That has all now been done, so now, the process will be just consideration of individual applications, rather than us having to go through all that again. Obviously, there is consideration to be given to upcoming consenting decisions. That consideration will be based on the evidence submitted, and not an artificial timeline.
The hon. Member talked about common sense. It is really important to make this point. The common-sense, pragmatic position for the future of the north-east of Scotland is to say, as I do, that oil and gas will continue to be important for a long time—I have been in Aberdeen often enough to know how important it is to the jobs there—but that must go hand in hand with us investing as much as we can in the long-term industries that will create jobs there. That is why I talked about decommissioning in my statement; there is a huge opportunity there for jobs and the supply chain in the north-east. I hope that we can get a bit more cross-party consensus, maybe not on everything to do with oil and gas, but on the need to invest in supply chains and industry, so that we can build the renewables of the future.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, and recognise how much time he takes to talk to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; he is barely ever out of the chair in front of us. He is very dedicated. Today’s decision is one that the Tories could not get over the line, but under this Prime Minister, a rapid decision has been made that will protect jobs and, critically, ensure that skills will be retained for a changing supply chain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with investment and equally rapid decision making for clean power projects?
Michael Shanks
I love my appearances before the Select Committee; I gently point out that other Ministers in the Department would love to come and give evidence as well. Nevertheless, I am happy to do so, and I always appreciate the conversations.
My hon. Friend is right. We moved as quickly as we could to put in place the process that responded to the Supreme Court judgment on Finch and the Court of Session judgment on these applications. We have done that, and we considered all the evidence to make this decision today. Whatever people’s views, the critical thing is that the decision can stand on its merits, and it was is right and proper that we took the time to get this right.
My hon. Friend’s broader point was right. The real prize of the energy transition, if we get it right, is tackling the climate crisis while creating jobs in every single part of the country. We have to do both. She is a fantastic champion of her community and of this industry. If we get this right, we will create the next generation of good, sustainable jobs for young people growing up today. They will not have a long-term career in oil and gas, but could have a good, long-term career in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other areas. I hope that we can work together to make that a reality.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister said in reply to the shadow Secretary of State that the delay in the decision on Jackdaw was fiscally neutral because, in essence, the investment was made at risk.
Steve Barclay
The Minister shakes his head, but he said that there was no cost from the delay. Does he accept that the delay in a decision on Rosebank comes at a cost, both in terms of investment and in terms of taxpayer revenue? If so, will he set out what that cost is, in revenue, ahead of the Budget?
Michael Shanks
Just to be clear, I said that there was no time delay because the projects were not ready to extract in any event. It is for the developer to speak to the details, but my understanding is that the Rosebank project is not ready to extract now, either. My point was that, although we had to retake the decisions made by the previous Government that were quashed by a court, the developer was allowed to continue the development of the project at its risk. That means that, now it has the consent, it is ready to extract by the end of this month. The Rosebank project is obviously subject to a separate regulatory process, which I will not comment on just now.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and remind others that this is not just a question for the north-east or for Aberdeen South. There are only two postal code areas in the UK that do not have a jobs connection to the North sea, so despite the scant appearance of the Opposition Benches, this affects every constituency.
I welcome the £2 billion investment in the transition, because we need those skills, that workforce and that supply chain as stepping stones to the transition to new industries. I caution my hon. Friends to ensure that we are not remembered as the Government who let down the North sea workforce in the way in which the Conservatives let down the coalfield workers. May I ask the Minister to detail, and encourage him to rush through, the tiebacks and the decommissioning that will keep us in the North sea for years to come?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend’s point about postcodes is really important for us. I hope that through the transition we can collectively get to a similar place, where there is not a single postcode in the country that does not have jobs associated with clean energy. That is our aim in driving forward the supply chain investment and everything else.
My hon. Friend is right to centre the whole conversation on the workers. For 60 years, workers have done incredibly difficult and dangerous work in the North sea to bring energy ashore. I pay tribute to all of them, some of whom lost their lives in that process. It is our duty to ensure that there is a long-term legacy for that workforce in oil and gas, in decommissioning and in other technologies that we need to invest in now. That is the prize if we get it right—but, frankly, it is also our responsibility to that workforce now and the workforce of the future.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Today is not a good day for any campaigner pressing for urgent action on climate change. I know that many of my Bath constituents—particularly young people—will be deeply concerned and disappointed. The Government have justified their position by saying that Jackdaw will create new jobs and boost growth. Will they clarify which jobs will boost growth? I do not mean jobs that rely on a Jackdaw worker buying a sandwich—anybody working in any sector can buy a sandwich—but jobs that will be directly created by Jackdaw and otherwise would not exist.
Michael Shanks
I am sorry; I am hurriedly trying to work out what the Lib Dems’ position is. I am sure that I will have clarity at some point. On the point about jobs—these are the developer’s figures—there are 27 direct jobs from the project, but it is also about safeguarding 273 existing jobs. It is actually about something much broader than that: it is about an industry that is in transition, and we have to do what we can to protect that industry while we build what comes next. I have been clear on that throughout my time as Energy Minister.
I gently say that we should accept that the wider economic impact of jobs does go down to the person buying a sandwich in the shop. When we see big industry leave towns—I am a Lanarkshire MP, and I know the impact of coalmine closures and steel closures in my constituency—we do see those small businesses leave and, with them, the important jobs that a community relies on. I do not think we should talk down the importance of the wider economic impact of this decision.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I have looked in detail at both Jackdaw and Rosebank. It is important that we in this House do not confuse the two. My main concern has always been the impact on carbon emissions of any gas taken from Jackdaw. Will the Minister tell me what impact Jackdaw gas will have on emissions? Will he reassure me that this decision will not have an impact on the speed or scale of the low-carbon energy transition?
Michael Shanks
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. The amount of gas that will come onshore into our UK supply is about 5% of our production—6% at the peak. We have a diverse range of suppliers from the UK continental shelf, from Norway and from LNG imports. This decision will not change the fact that the country became a net importer of fossil fuels 20 years ago, but it does play a part in the security of supply. That was part of the balancing act against the environmental considerations that my hon. Friend rightly notes. As I have said before, the determination made by the Secretary of State is that we are able to do that while meeting the climate objectives. I absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that the decision does not move us away at all from those commitments; in fact, the £2 billion committed from the revenues will help us turbocharge the investment in clean energy.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want the people who sell sandwiches in my constituency to have jobs, just the same as I want the people who work in the energy industry in my constituency to have jobs. Both types of job are important.
It is good to see the UK Government creating a future generations fund from North sea revenue. We have been calling for that for 50 years, so I am glad that they have finally got with the programme. Will the Minister provide reassurance, because we have not had any details of where that money will be spent? Will the money generated from North sea revenues in fields such as Jackdaw in Scotland go into renewables projects in Scotland? Will it support jobs in Scotland? Will it ensure that people in Aberdeen have their futures protected, or will it, like GB Energy, focus on delivering solar panels in England?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady speaks about 50 years; I am not quite sure what the SNP’s energy policy is right now. It changes from minute to minute, and it changes depending on whether the First Minister is in Aberdeen or somewhere else in the country. I cannot quite fathom it. The Scottish Government put out a statement today, which I read three or four times, and I still was not clear whether they support Jackdaw or not. The hon. Lady is a good supporter of the industry and I recognise that, but as for the rest of her party, I am not quite so sure.
The point about investment in renewables is important. We have been clear that the revenue from this project will be invested in renewables projects across the UK. For the vast majority of those, we are already seeing the investment going into Scotland, in supply chains as well as in the infrastructure itself. It is easy for the hon. Lady to talk down Great British Energy, but its headquarters in Aberdeen is already helping to deliver investment in supply chains in Scotland. That is £1 billion of investment so that we are not towing in renewables infrastructure to the “Saudi Arabia of renewables”, as the former leader of her party called it, that is all built somewhere else, but building it in Britain. That is where the jobs come from.
That is really important, and I hope we can all get behind this idea. I thought the hon. Lady’s party agreed that public ownership of energy is important, that public investment in energy is important and that the transition needs investment at every stage, so I hope that there are clearer areas for us to work together. However, as I say, we are still waiting on the SNP’s energy policy three years on, so I am not quite sure what it is at the moment.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that actions have consequences, but so does inaction. Ultimately, the consistent failure of the Conservatives over many years to address the challenges in the North sea has seen 70,000 jobs lost. I welcome the statement, which was clearly focused on energy security and jobs. As my constituency neighbour, the Minister knows the importance of supply chain jobs in Lanarkshire, not just in oil and gas but in clean energy projects such as RES, which we both visited recently. Does he agree that the new £2 billion energy wealth fund represents a serious step towards supporting our transition effort and delivering high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire?
Michael Shanks
I will always agree about high-quality jobs in Lanarkshire. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the opening of the RES facility in Bellshill. It is an important example of a part of his constituency that will not have renewables projects directly deployed, but which can still get the jobs from the operations and maintenance of wind farms across Scotland, along with the jobs and apprenticeships being created as a result.
The jobs that go along with the energy transition are at the heart of the Government’s agenda to deliver reindustrialisation and growth in every postcode. For too long, Governments have been agnostic about where we build things and we have seen manufacturing capacity depleted in communities such as my hon. Friend’s and others right across the country. We are seeking to reverse that with the investments we are making and to get good jobs in every single part of the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister quite rightly said that if we do not use our own resources, we will only have to import oil and gas. The Minister, in his statement, rightly said that we will be reliant on oil and gas for many decades to come. Though today’s decision on Jackdaw, albeit late, is welcome, with the answers that the Prime Minister and the Minister gave earlier, the Minister surely has to agree that any delay on new oil and gas licences is damaging to the national interest.
Michael Shanks
I said in my statement that in the transition to clean energy, we will continue to need oil and gas. The UK continental shelf continues to be an important source of that, but we have been a net importer for more than two decades and no amount of consenting decisions will change that fact. It is important, however, and I have said that that 6% of production matters. That is why we have made the decision we have made today.
The important thing about pragmatism—I have said this a number of times—is that it has to work both ways. We previously had a consensus that oil and gas and renewables went hand in hand, in the transition to what comes next. The Conservatives built lots of renewables and now dismiss the fact that they are important to the system. I welcome the investment the previous Government made in renewables; it is just a shame that they have lost their way so much that they do not support it now.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The previous Tory Government blundered through an unlawful consent process, which required this decision to be reconsidered, unless we adopted the licence revocation policies of the Greens, which would have accelerated significant job losses and irrecoverably deindustrialised the north-east. Although I have previously opposed this project, the energy security situation has changed radically this year due to the significant consequences of the US and Israel’s illegal war in Iran. Will the Minister explain how that direct impact on our short-term energy security in the UK influenced the decision, and will he clarify exactly how many direct and supply chain jobs the decision supports?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a great champion for making sure that the transition has workers at its heart, both in his constituency and across Scotland. The developer estimates that there will be 27 direct jobs on the project, which is all that we are able to take into account with regard to the decision that I can talk about today. Of course, a significant number of jobs in oil and gas come from the wider impacts on the supply chain—things such as travel to and from offshore rigs and wider jobs in the north-east of Scotland—and jobs that might otherwise have been lost are also safeguarded. It is important to look at both sides.
On the question of jobs, I have always been really clear that we cannot just look at one side of a balance sheet and the jobs being lost. Energy transition means people moving from one part of an industry to another. We should not just look at jobs being lost in one area without following through to where those jobs end up, whether it is in other parts of the energy industry, in nuclear, in defence or in advanced manufacturing. One of the things we will launch soon is the future jobs service, which will support workers all the way through that process, giving them the necessary retraining so they can take up the opportunities in the future. That is how we will keep the workforce delivering in energy in Scotland.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Drilling at Jackdaw is an act of climate vandalism. As we have heard, it will not bring down bills and it will create only 27 jobs. Today’s announcement also reiterated the Government’s support for so-called tiebacks, which are a dodge to allow yet more drilling without new licences. Does the Minister not recognise the UN’s countless warnings that we must leave all new fossil fuels in the ground? Will he admit that allowing both Jackdaw and new tiebacks is utterly at odds with the climate science?
Michael Shanks
No, that is where we fundamentally disagree. We agree on the need to tackle the climate crisis, but our response has to be based in reality. The reality is that however much I want us to be able to get off fossil fuels tomorrow, that is not going to happen. We have to build the infrastructure that helps us get to that place. I am afraid that the Greens oppose the very infrastructure—they oppose wind farms, they oppose pylons, they oppose solar farms, they oppose nuclear—that gets us off fossil fuels, then they come here and complain that we are reliant on fossil fuels for longer than we have to be. They are the problem in building the transition that we need.
I am glad to see the hon. Lady, because the Greens very rarely turn up to energy debates in this House. Across the country, so-called Green politicians have stopped renewable energy projects getting off the ground. It is always, “Not here, somewhere else,” or, “Not today, some other time.” The time to build is now and they have to get behind it if they want us to get off fossil fuels.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
With everything going on in the world right now, having strong home-grown energy matters more than ever. Like many in this House, I have had a number of constituents across Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock reach out about energy security. Will the Minister elaborate on how today’s announcement helps the country move towards energy independence, and how that makes us stronger as a country?
Michael Shanks
I had a great visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency recently to see the importance of solar panels in a project there. We need to see much more of that investment, because our energy sovereignty in the long term comes from us being able to produce the energy we need here in the UK. That means electrifying the economy and generating that electricity through a decarbonised power system, but the transition to get there, not least on heat and in industry, will still require gas for a long time to come—we, as a Government, have been clear on that from the beginning. We are not about turning off the taps in the North sea, so our energy security has to take both those directions at the same time: building the industry we need for the future now while ensuring that we have the supply we need for the here and now. The Government are focused on both.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We all want to secure the future employment prospects of those working in our world-leading oil and gas sector, and one of the richest possible opportunities for that is transitioning them into working in deep geothermal in constituencies such as mine across the country. However, despite repeated cross-party meetings with Ministers, going back years now, I am afraid that we are still billions and billions behind the money being invested in this technology in other parts of the world. Does the Minister agree that it would be crazy not to create a set-aside fund, from the money that has been announced today, that is purely dedicated to developing deep geothermal in our country?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of the industry, and I know that he does a huge amount on this. I agree with him entirely: geothermal is a huge opportunity and I know that there are projects starting to come much closer to delivery. We want to see much more of that, and I recognise there is more we need to do. I do not want to get into discussions on ringfences within the fund, because the danger is that that could hold back the money from projects that are ready to deploy, but I am certainly happy to speak to him about other projects and what more we can do.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome this decision. People in Ayrshire are proud of the role that Scotland has played in powering our nation. Can he say a bit more about what the decision means for supply chain jobs in the North sea sector in Scotland and right across the country?
Michael Shanks
It is good to hear from the MP for my old home—he is my mother’s MP and a great champion for Ayrshire. Ayrshire has a critical role, and it could have an even more important role if we were to build new nuclear at Hunterston, which, if it were not for the objections of the SNP, we could be looking at much more seriously. He is right to point to the fact that there are huge opportunities around supply chain jobs. We have had a meeting at a port in his constituency to talk about the opportunities there. The real drive behind this is the clean energy transition for our energy security, but reindustrialisation off the back of that will create good jobs in every single part of the country. We need to dispel the idea that we cannot manufacture things in Britain and actually get back to building things in every single part of the country.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I want to be kind to the Minister, because I am sure he is still smarting from the verbal caning that he received from Mr Speaker earlier. I want to clarify that I welcome this decision, my constituents welcome this decision and the Scottish Government’s statement welcomes this decision. We also welcome the creation of the energy wealth fund—albeit 50 years too late, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said earlier—but he will be aware that electricity bills are going to go up twice later this year. Can he give me a reassurance from the Dispatch Box today that he will accelerate the Government’s commitment to the Acorn project at St Fergus? Will he give me a commitment that he will accelerate the approvals for ScotWind projects, which are beside my constituency? Finally, will he give me a better answer than the one he gave my colleagues earlier: how much of this £2 billion will be spent for the benefit of the people of Scotland?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman talks about needing to have set up wealth funds a long time ago. I probably would not disagree with him on much of that, but I would just point out that the Scottish Government have the ScotWind fund, which they are currently drawing down to meet the deficit in their own spending. That is not building a legacy for the future; it is using it to paper over the cracks in the fiscal competence of the SNP Government. The hon. Gentleman might welcome this decision, but I am genuinely still not sure what the SNP’s position is more generally. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for it.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the Acorn project. He and I have had useful conversations about it, and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who is next to me on the Front Bench, is the Minister responsible for carbon capture, usage and storage now. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a sales process is now going through, and we continue to be very supportive of that process. We have set aside funding to support the project.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to flag the question of approvals for projects. Some of that sits with us, but most of it at the moment is involved in a bottleneck on consenting decisions, which are the responsibility of the Scottish Government. I know I have done a bit of point scoring here, but in line with the problem solving driver for this Government, I would just say that I have a really good relationship with Stephen Gethins, the Scottish Government Energy Minister. We are working together on a lot of these things, but we need to get the consenting decisions made much more quickly so that projects can get out and get built.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on approving Jackdaw. Particularly during the current global instability, it is going to help strengthen our energy security, and protect skills and jobs. More importantly, it will start supplying British households and businesses by the end of the month. Does he agree that if we are serious about energy security, decarbonisation and the faster roll-out of electrification, the SNP must rethink its ideological opposition to nuclear energy? It is a vital part of the energy mix to deliver reliable, low-carbon power for Scotland.
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited Torness and met the incredibly skilled workforce there. What I find difficult about the Scottish Government’s position on jobs in Scotland is that they are willing to completely turn their back on the skilled workers in nuclear power, who are going searching for jobs in nuclear projects in England or elsewhere, rather than supporting and nurturing those jobs in Scotland today. Never mind the fact that every single day of the week, Scotland’s energy security relies on the firm nuclear power coming out of Torness nuclear power station. We have to remove that ideological block, which is just an anti-science approach to technology. That will help us to get off fossil fuels and deliver clean power and incredibly good, well-paid jobs in Scotland, and I really hope the SNP will change its position.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Do the Government now accept that the former Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero got this important policy seriously wrong, and if so, why was he promoted to become Foreign Secretary?
Michael Shanks
I am tempted to say that it is certainly not a question for me, but I will answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. To be really clear, we came into Government with a judgment by the Court of Session that quashed the decisions, which required us then to put in place a process that considered the scope 3 emissions as part of a consenting regime. We had to design that process, consult on it with industry, get to a place where it was a practical process and then consider the applications. We have done that, and we have done it as quickly as we possibly could.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I welcome this decision. Can the Minister elaborate on why this pragmatic decision does not impact on the Government’s target to meet net zero by 2050?
Michael Shanks
The pathway to net zero by 2050 has to accommodate the fact that we will require oil and gas, one way or another, while we are in that transition. The choices open to the Government are to continue extraction from the North sea, which we will do with existing fuels and existing consented fields, or to import from other places. We are obviously importing from Norway, which has generally cleaner imports than anywhere else, but we also rely on LNG imports, which have a higher carbon intensity. The decision therefore involves a balancing act on how we deal with the requirement for oil and gas from different places, and the Secretary of State’s decision has been made after weighing up all the evidence on the fact that we are able to make this consenting decision within the boundaries of our legally set carbon budgets.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I do not know how many people in this place know this, but I used to work in the oil and gas industry—not for a holiday job, but for years on end. I worked at Kishorn, at Nigg, at Sullom Voe and in Aberdeen. I married, my wife and I brought up our three children in my hometown and my children went to my old school in Tain, so I suggest to the Minister that I am a living example of the good that oil and gas have brought to the highlands. My plea to the Minister and to His Majesty’s Government is that they do as much as they can to spread the benefits from today’s decision as far as they can into the highlands and all those communities that have gained so much from North sea oil.
Michael Shanks
It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back and looking so well. He is genuinely an hon. Gentleman and it is always a pleasure to speak with him.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that there are lots of things that he could bring to this House from his long and experienced life. He is also a great champion of nuclear and the difference that made in his constituency, and I agree with him on this. It is helpful, of course, that he has taken the line much more closely of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)—I have done some research—who said:
“Jackdaw, I personally have always felt made sense because we’re going to need a lot of gas in the transition.”
So I think the Lib Dem position is actually to support today’s decision.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The facts are that approving Jackdaw will neither lower energy bills, nor bring thousands of jobs, and it certainly will not improve the UK’s energy security, but a Government-owned company shaping the new renewables industry and exercising market control over it certainly would. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to reindustrialise the country, and when he comes to Grangemouth to meet me and the local community, we very much look forward to hearing exactly how he plans to do that for the benefit of our town. People in Grangemouth are sick, tired and exhausted of empty promises. They do not want to hear any more about energy transition funds or sovereign wealth funds, because £200 million from the National Wealth Fund has still not been spent. My people and communities across Scotland need action now. Does the Minister realise that the Labour party is in danger of losing working-class communities through inaction?
Michael Shanks
Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to him repeatedly, we regret the process that was underway when we came into government and the lack of planning for the workforce in his constituency. Contrary to what he says, we have in fact invested a significant amount of money in supporting that workforce to find alternative employment, and we are continuing to spend money on developing the projects that will take advantage of the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Unfortunately, I cannot magic those projects up out of thin air, so we are doing everything we possibly can to support them. We have set up Great British Energy as a publicly owned energy company. It is already investing in supply chains, in supporting the North sea transition, and in investing and taking a stake in the projects that we are supporting across the energy space and that will bring jobs to his constituency and across the country. I hope he will get behind some of the initiatives that the Government are driving forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members to think of each other and speed up their questions, so that we can get in as many people as possible.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Time after time, the previous Energy Secretary stood in this House and told us that drilling in the North sea would not bring down domestic prices. Just today, the Prime Minister has stood at that Dispatch Box and said that prices will come down as a result of drilling in the North sea. Who is right: the former Energy Secretary or the Prime Minister? [Hon. Members: “No, he didn’t.] Yes, he did.
Michael Shanks
I am certain that the Prime Minister did not say that, because the truth is that although this decision is important for energy security reasons, it will do nothing to bring down prices. Prices are set on an international market, and no amount of extraction from the UK shelf will change the price—those are just the facts of the matter. It is important we do this. I say to the hon. Member and his party that we have never been a “turn off the taps” party in the North sea, but his party is for drilling for every last drop and ignoring the tens of thousands of jobs, in constituencies that it represents, that are currently relying on offshore wind and other technologies. He would turn his back on all those jobs, and it is absolutely shameful that his party would leave this country not more energy secure, but vulnerable at the very moment we should be building up our energy sovereignty.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
This decision will be welcomed by skilled energy workers across Scotland and the UK, who will have a key role in making our transition towards renewables successful. For that reason, a positive decision on Rosebank in the future would also be welcome. This project, though, will create and sustain some 300 skilled energy jobs. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will work with the Scottish Government to ensure we have the right training in place for our energy workers for the future? Could some of the resources within the North sea wealth fund contribute to that aim?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right on his point about jobs, although I reiterate that direct jobs are often not the whole story with such projects, as there is a whole ecosystem around jobs. Skills is one of the most important things, and it is an area devolved to the Scottish Government. We have had a good partnership working on a lot of the transition support for workers. We have joint funded projects for North sea workers and will continue to do that because it is important that we match together the UK Government’s responsibilities with the Scottish Government’s responsibilities. Clearly, there is, however, a real issue in Scotland with the hollowing out of further education, which is the route for many of the skilled jobs we need in our economy, not least building the transmission system of the future, which needs highly skilled welders more than anything else. We need apprenticeships and further education, and I hope that the Scottish Government will invest even more in colleges across the country.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister says officials are starting talks with industry leaders on refreshing the North sea transition deal. Will the Minister commit to putting money for retraining offshore workers, such as those in my constituency, at the core of that deal, funded by money from the new wealth fund?
Michael Shanks
I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but she does not need to wait on the new wealth fund; we have already committed funding to doing that. We published the North sea future plan, which charts a course for the future of the North sea, focused on not only oil and gas but the industries that come next and with the workers right at the centre of it. It is focused on how we provide the training support so that we can recognise the huge read-across from oil and gas skills into a lot of the other energy jobs and into defence and advanced manufacturing. We need to deploy those skills so that we can support workers the whole way through that process. We are already getting on with delivering it, and the North sea future jobs service should launch early next year.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the statement, especially the word the Minister has used several times—pragmatism—and how that stands apart from the ideology we see, especially from the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot decarbonise our economy, make steps towards a fully renewable energy generation mix, or achieve energy security by relying on importing oil and gas from overseas, which is often more carbon intensive and which in some cases enriches authoritarian regimes such as Iran? Also, as the representative for North Northumberland where 14,000 households are off the gas grid, what more can his Department do to help heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas households to access less carbon-intensive products, such as hydrotreated vegetable oil?
Michael Shanks
Both are important questions. First, I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes around energy independence. We do require gas in the system at the moment, so this decision is partly around how we increase domestic production. But the long-term energy security and our energy independence do not come from oil and gas, which we will always be a net importer of at this point on, and so we have to build a way to get us off that fossil fuel rollercoaster in the future.
Secondly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that off-gas-grid households have felt the significant impact of the war in the middle east as heating oil prices have skyrocketed. We very quickly put in place a fund to provide support for those households—much quicker than the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine. I encourage all his constituents to ensure they have accessed that fund as people will be starting to refill tanks at this time of year, but we are also doing as much as we can to support, through the warm homes plan, the decarbonisation of those households who, of course, have access to the electricity grid and so can take advantage of solar panels, batteries and heat pumps, and we will say more about that in due course.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Gas can help balance the grid, but if we are serious about energy security and decarbonisation, we need a clean and reliable source of baseload power—something the Jackdaw field cannot provide. Does the Minister agree that the Gwyndod nuclear project on Ynys Môn can help meet that need, and will he work with me to ensure its smooth delivery so that the energy security benefits can be realised as soon as possible?
Michael Shanks
It is a well-timed question because I am joining the hon. Lady in her constituency tomorrow to speak to some of the supply chain businesses that will help build the Gwyndod power station and to visit the site where Gwyndod will be built. It is an important example of where the last generation of nuclear power can turn into the next generation of apprentices in this new power station, with the grandchildren of people who worked at the Wylfa power station before. It is a huge opportunity, and I want to work with her and the Welsh Government on ensuring that we get as much economic opportunity from the Gwyndod project as possible with the supply chain jobs in her constituency and across Wales.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I know this is a difficult area to work in, not least because the Scottish Government do not yet know their policy on oil and gas drilling. Yesterday, The Scotsman reported that the Scottish Energy Minister has said it will take a year for them to reach a conclusion on that. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me. They were open to listening to my constituents’ many concerns about this decision. I hope my constituents are reassured that so much of the money from Jackdaw will be invested in renewables. However, to some extent, Jackdaw is just a sideshow because it is really Rosebank that many people are concerned about. Will the Minister confirm that despite media speculation, the decision today will not set a precedent for Rosebank and that it will be judged on its own merits or otherwise?
Michael Shanks
I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of investing in renewables. On his broader question about consenting decisions, every single individual application is considered on its own merits, with its own evidence base and its own consultation process. The Rosebank decision is separate from the Jackdaw decision. We have concluded the evidence stage and the Secretary of State will make a decision in due course.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Last week the Government declared severe drought across parts of Somerset. Experts suggest we need at least seven months of above average rainfall to recover from droughts across the country. There can be no question that we are in a climate emergency and the approval of Jackdaw shows that as a country we have not moved fast enough to switch to renewable energy. Do the Government agree that the only way we can stop depending on gas is to generate more of our own clean power? Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrats and implement our 10-year emergency home upgrade programme so that Britain is less dependent on projects like Jackdaw in future?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely that we are in a climate emergency. We all lived through a summer that demonstrated that more than anything we have seen. I have heard many people say it was the warmest summer on record, but in the future it will probably be seen to have been one of the coldest summers. We have to do something about that. I am fed up with hearing people say that we should just work on adaptation. We do have to work on adaptation, but we also have to do everything that we possibly can to stop the situation from becoming worse. That is why we are doing all that we can on an international level and why we are building renewables as quickly as possible. I agree with her that the cheapest energy for homeowners is the energy that they do not use, and that the more we can do to upgrade our homes in this country the better. That is what the warm homes plan is all about. By devolving it to local areas, they can make their own local choices about what works for them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Government’s policy on developing alternative energy sources, successfully undertaken by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), and now incredibly skilfully developed by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh). We always knew that there were three key decisions that would have environmental implications, politically and physically: today’s decision on Jackdaw; the decision on Rosebank; and the decision on the third runway at Heathrow. Will the Minister take into discussions with colleagues my concern that approvals in the decision-making process for Rosebank and/or a third runway at Heathrow, could permanently damage our environmental credentials?
Michael Shanks
I will not comment on future decisions, but the decision I am outlining today is clearly taking into consideration environmental impact, and all other decisions will do likewise. The Labour party has a proud record of passing the Climate Change Act 2008 and setting world-leading targets. For those who say that Britain should shrink from the world stage, those decisions have been hugely important for driving the transition to clean power in countries across the world. We are not alone in doing this and we have to do that even more. With consensus across the political divide, we cut emissions enormously. I was there at the closure of our last coal power station. We have made great progress, but there is a huge amount more to do to ensure we break the link with gas, to bring down people’s bills and to tackle the climate emergency, which is no longer some future threat but an ever-present reality.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that today’s decision on the Jackdaw gasfield will do nothing to reduce people’s bills. Many of the people I represent have done everything they can to reduce their heating use, but are still paying more than they can afford. Will he say more about the Government’s intention to look at removing standing charges from people’s gas bills?
Michael Shanks
We have heard loud and clear that the standing charge is the most frustrating part of the bill for people, because it is not driven by the individual choices they make about energy use but by a fixed price on the bill. The challenge with gas in particular is that we want people to use less, but there is little incentive to do that if the standing charge remains the same. I do not pretend it will be easy: the standing charge still has costs that have to be paid for and the gas network still has to be funded, but the Prime Minister has committed to working through how we can make the standing charge fairer and encourage people to make decarbonisation choices for affordability reasons. That is important for all of us and, crucially, it will bring down people’s bills.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that the climate science is clear that opening any new North sea oil and gasfields is incompatible with achieving our Paris climate agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. He will know that Jackdaw alone is worth 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, and Rosebank a further 250 million tonnes. What can he say to my constituents in Walthamstow who are still clearing up after the wildfires that burned down their homes and damaged their houses, and are now terrified about flooding from El Niño, about how this decision, our work on reducing emissions and the fund that he has mentioned will help to protect their future?
Michael Shanks
I hear what my hon. Friend says. On her last point, we are absolutely seized of the fact that the wildfires and the impact that heatwaves have had on people’s lives is evidence enough, if anyone ever needed it—I know she certainly does not because she has been a champion on this issue for a long time—that we have to take firm action on tackling climate change. That requires us to design a pathway to get to net zero that recognises the fact that we will need oil and gas as part of that transition, and that there are lower emissions coming out of the North sea than otherwise, but balancing that against significant investment, which must be made as quickly as possible, in renewables, nuclear and other technologies that help us get off the fossil fuels on which we are currently dependent. That is the only long-term pathway to energy security and to tackling the climate crisis, and we are doing everything we can to get there as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
There is consensus in the House that Jackdaw will benefit the good people of Aberdeen, but do absolutely nothing about the rising energy bills of millions of households up and down the country and provide absolutely no benefit for those facing winter fuel poverty. My concern is that the gas will be sold on the international market and the profits will flow to the energy tycoons, whose tax returns will be, let us say, very interesting. Will the Minister admit that the lobbyists have won over the Labour Government on this one? When will my constituents in Leicester South see any benefit to their energy bills?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be very surprised when they reach to turn on their heating or their gas cooker that they do not rely on gas—a significant number of his constituents will rely on gas. We want to get off that gas supply as quickly as possible, but we will continue to require it for a number of years, so I hope that he can recognise why the decision is important for energy security. I agree with him about the fundamental point: contrary to any other noise around this, no new oil and gas drilling will ever take a penny off bills. It does not impact bills. It brings in tax revenue to the Government that we will invest in the clean energy that gets us off fossil fuels. Breaking the link with gas will bring down his constituents’ bills, but I agree that it will not directly reduce bills.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
My main concern is for working people—working families and working communities. As a former coalminer, I witnessed the promises from Government with regard to a just transition, which failed, in every measure, to materialise. The devastation to communities that had their hearts ripped out is a testament to that failed transition, and we still bear the scars. I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest revenues in a just transition, but communities and workers in the oil and gas industry need cast-iron guarantees of secure jobs in renewables, with comparable wages, terms and conditions. Will the Minister meet me and others who share experiences of failed transition so that we can help to develop a road map that delivers a genuinely fair future for workers and working communities?
Michael Shanks
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members from across the House who have experience that they want to raise or ideas about how we can do this. I chair the North sea future board, which has trade unions at its heart to bring the story of workers to the heart of the decisions we are making, not just because we owe that to those workers, who are powering the country right now and have done for decades, but because they are the critical workforce that will help us build what we need in the future. He is right to point to failed transitions—we will all have experience of that in our communities, but some more than others. There is a lesson from history that if Government do not actively engage in building the next part of the transition, we will not support those workers. We are doing everything that we can on that, but there is a lot more that we can do and I am happy to work with him on it.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
My colleagues and I have consistently called for electricity prices to be decoupled from the wholesale gas price. The Minister has accepted that approving more domestic gas production will not in itself protect households from international price shocks, but doing that might. Will he accelerate the decoupling? Can he offer a timetable in which he will do that?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right to point to that fact. We have renewables in the system, but we are not getting the benefit of the pricing, because the last margin unit that we need in order to meet our supply is often gas. That used to be 90% of the time, but it is now less than 60% of the time. We are making huge progress; since the closure of the strait of Hormuz, we have been saving £50 million or more a day on displaced gas costs, because of the renewables that we have built. We are going as fast as we can, but I cannot just pull a lever and make decoupling happen, because the marginal price setting is important to ensure that we can meet our supply every single day. We are doing everything that we can on that issue. It is a No. 1 priority to ensure that people feel the benefit of clean power coming through on to their bills.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
In an earlier answer, the Minister talked about the fact that the summer we have just experienced has been the hottest on record, but we fear that it may look cold in comparison with what is to come in the future. As a response, a lot of my constituents are becoming very engaged with issues of the environment. I have held several MP eco-forums, and attendance at them is going up week by week. My next forum is in the next two weeks, and I can predict a question that will be put to me, so I hope that the Minister can help me by giving me the answer on the Floor of the House. What does today’s decision mean for the UK’s leadership on the global stage when it comes to tackling climate change?
Michael Shanks
I will say two things. First, we are absolutely clear that tackling the climate crisis is an absolute priority for the Government. It is vital for our national security, our energy security and our children’s futures, and we need to do even more. This decision is about the transition period, in which we will need oil and gas to build into where we go next, but that is not the whole story. The absolute clear direction from this Government is that in order to tackle the climate crisis, we have to break the link with fossil fuels so that we are not importing from other countries and driving up climate problems for future generations to deal with, but have home-grown, clean energy here in the UK. We are already making enormous progress on that. People should rightly feel that the Government have to do more, but one of the really important things to recognise is that we are making progress in climate action. We always need to do more, but people should not feel that there is absolutely no route out for us. If we can work together and build some more consensus, we can tackle climate change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the decision to approve the consent for Jackdaw gas production, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when global conflict is putting pressure on energy prices. In a reply to another hon. Member, the Minister referred to the renewables sector benefits that will be used for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will the Minister specifically outline the benefits that will come to Northern Ireland and help it to reduce its energy costs?
Michael Shanks
I often have to start with the refrain that energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but there are points to make on two fronts. First, our interconnector with Ireland, which takes gas from Great Britain into Ireland, will benefit from the security of supply that we are delivering through this decision, which is important. Secondly, although I do not have responsibility for decisions on energy policy in Northern Ireland, we have said from the beginning that the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will operate and invest in projects in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that the £2 billion we have set up today will be part of that picture and ensure that we can invest in projects in Northern Ireland.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The decision on Jackdaw has been taken in the context of communities across the country meeting to watch screenings of the “National Emergency Briefing” on climate change. The briefing has been prepared by scientists, and I have not heard any credible dissent on the science in the film. It would be very difficult to watch the film and conclude, for example, that drilling in the Rosebank oilfield should be allowed to go ahead. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is a comprehensive and effective approach to public education on climate change so that everyone across our country has an accurate, science-based understanding of the peril that it brings?
Michael Shanks
That is a really important question. As a former teacher, I used to teach pupils who would come to school worried about this issue, because they had seen things in the news and felt a sense of threat. That is why it is important that people understand that the Government are taking the issue seriously and are determined not to only tackle climate change at home, but to play our international role abroad, rebuilding some of the international consensus to make climate action a reality.
Factual information is always really important in these debates—at times, I think that it might help in this House as well. People should seek out information about what we are trying to do and about the progress that we are making as a country towards decarbonising our energy system.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am incredibly disappointed in today’s decision on Jackdaw; I believe that it flies in the face of all the evidence and will do nothing to lower people’s energy bills, create jobs or improve our energy security. The Minister has a strong record in making the case for Britain to be a renewable energy superpower, so can he confirm that today’s decision in no way implies or means that the approval of Rosebank will automatically follow?
Michael Shanks
Let me be clear that that is a separate consenting decision. I am not making any comment at all today on the Rosebank decision, which will be made in due course. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. There is no change at all in my commitment or the Government’s commitment to delivering the clean power mission and improving homes so that we can get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the reality is that Britain will need oil and gas for decades to come as part of that transition. Today’s decision is about a particular project that helps us to get those things out of our own continental shelf. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will not bring down bills, but it will provide energy security benefits, jobs and investment coming in through tax receipts, which we are deploying to deliver more clean power.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome this statement from my hon. Friend and the focus on investment, jobs and resilience not just in the North sea, but in all parts of the United Kingdom. He will know the critical role that Peterborough plays in our national gas networks, having visited the gas transmission and compression site last November to welcome the £870 million investment that National Gas made in the network and in my city. Alongside me, on that visit he also met GMB representatives and apprentices—people I often listen to when it comes to energy policy. Will he join me in thanking GMB members across the country for their commitment and their contribution to the energy debate? Will he confirm that workers will be critical to any future discussions about our energy balance and how we get the mix right for the future?
Michael Shanks
I declare an interest: I am a member of the GMB, and I am very happy to celebrate the role that it plays in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of National Gas and the transmission system, because we often talk about oil and gas workers offshore, but I have met a number of those workers who help to get the gas to homes and businesses across the country. It is an incredibly skilled job, and I pay tribute to the work that those workers do. He is absolutely right; during the transition between what is here now and what comes after in the oil and gas industry, workers have to be right at the centre.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I know that many people across Portsmouth will welcome today’s measured and responsible announcement; at a time of global instability, energy security is crucial to our national resilience. Home-grown energy is better for Britain, because we can attach strong environmental conditions to it and use tax receipts from it to fund renewables. Can the Minister say a little more about how he plans to make energy independence a key part of our national resilience plan? Will he also say that today’s announcement will not affect our warm homes plan or slow the pace on our path to clean power for all?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of national resilience. That is front and centre in my mind as the Minister responsible for energy security and resilience, particularly as we go into the winter months. This decision is part of how we ensure that we can absolutely meet the standard that is expected for our gas supplies as we go into the winter—we will say more about that in the coming days.
This decision is also part of the wider picture of the transition, because our long-term energy security and resilience cannot come from our being dependent on a fossil fuel that we will always be a net importer of. We have seen the price spikes that have been caused by a war in which we have no part, and they are affecting people’s bills right now. The long-term answer is the clean power that my hon. Friend talked about. She is right to raise the point about warmer homes and how we get more homes to use less energy. That is absolutely critical for our consumers to live in warmer conditions and to spend less on their energy bills.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Government claim that approving Jackdaw will help fund clean energy—making them, if you like, both the arsonist and the firefighter. The North sea is a declining basin, though, meaning that it is a rapidly shrinking tax base. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects the North sea to provide just £100 million in tax per year by 2030. At that rate, the oil and gas sector would take 20 years to match the Government’s injection into the energy wealth fund today, so does the Minister see that approving Jackdaw is a false economy?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that the North sea is a declining basin—I have said that on a number of occasions. That is not going to be turned around by decisions that we make, but none the less, we were elected on a manifesto that very clearly said that we would
“not issue new licences to explore new fields”,
but would manage existing fields for their lifetime. This decision is on an already licensed field, so it is compliant with our manifesto, and the investment resulting from it will allow us to build the clean power that will get us off fossil fuels. It is about recognising that we have to do both—the long-term future comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and phasing them out completely, but we will need oil and gas in the interim.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Minister about the price spikes and the rollercoaster of oil and gas, but I am concerned by his talk about coming off oil and gas. As he knows, some sectors in this country, whether they be glass, metal, cement or, of course, ceramics, are always going to have to use gas because there are no alternatives. With the Minister talking about how this decision will not bring down industrial gas prices, and with the Government having decided to exclude gas-intensive industries from the British industrial competitiveness scheme and supercharger schemes, what are this Government going to do to make sure that those industries that are dependent on gas and are crucial to our reindustrialisation get the help and support they need?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary hears it. We are doing everything we can on industrial prices as well as domestic prices, but I know we need to do more. Breaking the link between gas and electricity prices is crucial for the electricity bills that those industries face, but I know that my hon. Friend is particularly focused on the gas they use. I have talked about phasing out gas; we have always been clear that a strategic reserve will be necessary for particular industries and parts of the power system, but we should be using it much less. We need to support industries by finding new ways to decarbonise, be it with hydrogen or other fuels, but some will continue to require gas. I recognise that fact, and will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others to make sure we are doing everything we can to support those industries.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s pragmatic decision on Jackdaw; it makes sense to use gas from the North sea, rather than import it from abroad. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that the funds it raises in tax revenue will be used to support the green transition, hopefully with a view to bringing down energy bills in the future. However, my constituents know that their energy bills will go up in January, and they want help with that now. Given that the Minister has ruled out using those funds to support them through direct help with their energy bills, can I encourage him to use any mechanism available to him to get people the support they need with their energy bills in January, and possibly to have conversations with the Treasury too? As he knows, the cost of living crisis is biting now.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right—the affordability crisis is the No. 1 thing facing all our constituents. I am not going to cut across what the Chancellor may or may not say next week in his Budget, but I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have already taken action by removing VAT from electricity bills, as well as the £150 of costs that we took off bills previously, but the first point he made is critical, because the situation in the middle east is what is driving up everyone’s bills. We can continue to take action to reduce those bills, as the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine, but if we do not fix the fundamental problem, we will have to bail people out every time there is another fossil fuel price spike. While deploying clean power will not immediately affect everyone, every wind turbine we switch on and solar panel we plug in helps reduce our dependence on gas and brings down people’s bills.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on backing British industry in the North sea, but as he knows, industrial communities such as mine in Pembrokeshire face existential threats from high energy costs and high carbon costs. What measures are the Government taking to support good, unionised, well-paid jobs and industry right across the country?
Michael Shanks
I welcome my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the decision we have made today. The longer-term impact of climate change will be felt by his constituents as much as everyone else’s, so it is in all of our interests—as I know he appreciates—for us to take action to tackle it. While this is an important decision, the action we have taken to deploy clean power and break the link with fossil fuels is also really important.
My hon. Friend is right to centre this discussion on jobs. We have worked not just to create new jobs in the clean power of the future, but to make sure those are good jobs. With offshore wind, for example, we are making sure there is fair work for offshore workers, in conjunction with trade unions and the workforce. We want to grow the number of jobs in clean power, but we also want them to be good, well-paid and sustainable jobs.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I am concerned about the message this decision sends about how serious we are about tackling the climate emergency and protecting our hard-won international reputation as a world leader on climate change. However, I am even more concerned—as are my constituents—that this is a prelude to the bigger decision on Rosebank that is to come. Can the Minister confirm that when that decision is taken, the climate emergency and our international climate commitments will be at the forefront of his mind, and that we will have a chance to debate that decision in this House?
Michael Shanks
On the international point and the message this decision sends about the climate emergency, I cannot be clearer about how central tackling climate change still is to the wider agenda of our energy policy. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will require oil and gas for decades to come, and this decision is about where we get that from, not about the end goal, which is to remove our exposure to fossil fuels in the long term. We continue to take action on the climate crisis in a whole range of other ways. For instance, the Secretary of State will lead our delegation to COP to make sure we continue to press for international collaboration.
On the wider point, consenting decisions are regulatory decisions for the Secretary of State to make, and then it is for the North Sea Transition Authority to make the final decision and issue the consent. Those decisions are not subject to debates in this House—they are quasi-judicial decisions. However, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that decision, like this one, will be based on a whole range of factors, and the environmental impacts will be absolutely central.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I hear what the Minister says, but a generation of young people are growing up in the shadow of a growing climate crisis. Countless constituents have written to me setting out their concern—a concern that I share—about this decision and a potential decision on Rosebank. Can the Minister say more about how the energy wealth fund will support this Labour Government’s mission to tackle the climate crisis and drive net zero? What can he say to reassure my constituents, many of whom are coming to my climate and nature town hall at the end of this month?
Michael Shanks
I am glad that people across the country are engaging in those kinds of discussions. It is really important that people get together, discuss this issue and recognise the absolute centrality of climate change to our lives right now, as well as its future impact. I would say two things: first, this Government take the climate emergency very seriously and are taking action right now to tackle it, whether that is building the clean power that gets us off fossil fuels or improving homes so that people use less fossil fuel energy to heat them.
Secondly, young people right now should believe that their Government are taking this issue seriously. Despite the noise of the political debate, this Government take climate action seriously, and we are delivering good, long-term jobs in every single community for those young people in the industries of the future—jobs in clean energy that we as a country can be equally proud of. I hope the young people who attend my hon. Friend’s meeting will see some of those opportunities as a real chance, not only for a career in this country, but to help us tackle the climate emergency.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Today’s decision feels like a backwards step in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels, but one of our biggest challenges is the £88 billion-worth of UK pensions that are invested in this dying market—some 10 times what those funds invest in clean energy sources. What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear to wean our pension funds off those damaging fossil fuel investments?
Michael Shanks
As a Government, we are making it as attractive as possible to invest in clean energy sectors. That is why we have seen more than £100 billion-worth of private investment in the clean energy transition since we came into Government—£110 billion of investment in two and a half years. It is clear that people see the clean energy transition as a route for investment and helping to build our energy security. I would say to all those, pension funds or others, who do not take the economic opportunity seriously that there is a huge opportunity here to build the country we want to see and to get good economic returns as a result. We have set up things such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to help crowd in that investment.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is not quite the response to catastrophic climate change, wildfires and drought that I had in mind, but I accept that that appears to be a minority view in this place. Nevertheless, despite all the sophistry, the inconvenient truth remains that this choice means that more fossil fuels that are currently buried will be extracted and burned to pollute our planet. Does the Minister understand why so many people find it hard to believe that the hope of a liveable planet will win out against short-termism and deluded self-interest?
Michael Shanks
I do not agree with that, actually. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Green party. We absolutely believe in tackling the climate crisis and in building our way out of a dependence on fossil fuels, but I cannot just click my fingers and make that happen overnight. We have to build this infrastructure over time, and there is a transition period in which gas will remain the main source of energy for people heating their homes. We have to move even faster to change that by electrifying heating to bring down people’s bills and get us off fossil fuels. I am open to any ideas my hon. Friend might have on how we can go faster on that.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this decision. New drilling in the North sea is good for energy security, national security and jobs, including jobs in my constituency of Hartlepool and in the supply chain. Jobs in Hartlepool have been created in new nuclear and renewables, too. Does it frustrate the Minister, as it frustrates me, when certain populist politicians put their ideology ahead of fact and would destroy jobs in renewables, nuclear and North sea oil and gas in my constituency and across the country?
Michael Shanks
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his putting on record the fact that there are jobs in oil and gas in Hartlepool and in towns like it across the UK. Although there is a concentration of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, it would be wrong to say that this is a problem for the north-east of Scotland to solve. There are such jobs all across the country. We must get this transition right.
As for the oil and gas workers, the new nuclear that we want to see in his constituency, and renewables, I make the point that the workforce is the same, and we are going to support them to retrain and bring their immense experience into what we have to build in the future. It is in our self-interest to centre this transition on the workers who currently power the country through oil and gas and who will take us through into the future. He is right to call out those politicians who talk about pragmatism, but who want it all to be one way. Pragmatism means being clear that oil and gas will be important for decades to come and that we have to invest now in the jobs of the future, in his constituency and across the country.
Long Duration Electricity Storage Systems
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing the debate. He and I have talked about this issue many times, but I never tire of it. As he rightly said in his speech, it is an incredibly exciting opportunity for the highlands and an important opportunity for the country.
I always know that winter is coming when the hon. Gentleman’s jumpers make a reappearance. I am a big fan of them, and it is great to see him here today. He is a great champion of his constituency, which covers an enormous part of Scotland. However, having run the Arisaig to Mallaig half-marathon, I would say that he has a significant amount of very beautiful sand in his constituency.
This has been an interesting debate. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s points about long duration energy storage, but we have also heard about its cousins, such as pumped hydro and sand batteries, which is about storing energy through heat rather than in more conventional ways. It is important to be agnostic about the new technologies that are coming forward all the time and becoming ever more developed. We need a significant amount of flexibility in our system to be able to store and utilise the clean power that we are generating when we need it most. We should be open to a whole range of technologies, so I am very happy to have more conversations about all of them.
The hon. Gentleman made a strong case for the importance of long duration electricity storage. Over decades we have built a significant amount of renewable energy generation across the UK, both offshore and onshore, but we have not kept pace with being able to store that electricity for when we need it most, which has meant that our electricity system cannot get the full benefit of the clean, cheap, secure power that is being generated every single day. In fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have to spend considerable amounts of money on constraining that renewable capacity, because we did not build the grid. We have not built the necessary storage, so our transition to being able to deploy clean power when we need it requires much more flexibility, which comes from long duration energy storage.
I recently visited the pumped hydro project in Cruachan, which follows a well-trodden path of technology that we have deployed for a very long time. Pumped hydro lasts for a long time, is an important part of how we deliver long duration energy storage and will play a critical role in balancing supply and demand. In June, Ofgem published its minded-to list for window 1 of the cap and floor scheme. That was a significant milestone for the sector. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter)—there is a double act of Members with long constituency names——about the ambition on long duration energy storage, but I would also say that this is the first long duration energy storage we have built in Britain in 40 years, and it is a significant amount: 7.5 gigawatts of capacity is not nothing. We remain really ambitious. He is right to say that future scenarios require even more long duration energy storage, but this is a remarkable turnaround from a 40-year gap in building any of these projects anywhere in the country.
Ofgem has provisionally selected 16 projects. It has made minded-to decisions, but a consultation process is running. Three projects are pumped storage hydropower in Scotland, representing over half the LDES capacity. Ofgem will announce its final decision on those projects by the end of the year. When they are delivered, they will reduce costs for consumers by maximising our renewable energy generation to make it available when we need it at peak times and reducing our reliance on natural gas, which is the part of the constraints that is often misunderstood in the press. The cost does not come from turning off wind; it comes from turning up gas somewhere else in the country. If we deploy LDES in the way we intend to, we will be able to reduce that dependency on costly gas generation.
I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire agrees with me on the need for long duration energy storage—we have had this conversation many times—but he also rightly wants to make sure that his community benefits from these projects. Their construction in itself creates a significant number of jobs over several years. That is expected to begin by next year and continue into the early 2030s. One project that he mentioned, Loch Earba, will create approximately 600 jobs over its five-year construction period, including at least 30 new apprenticeships. It is estimated that another project, Loch Kemp, will create 370 jobs in the highlands at peak construction. It has committed £7.5 million to a community fund, and to investing in projects such as the Caledonian canal and local roads.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly made the point about local supply chains and making sure we are delivering as much of the economic benefit of those projects in local communities. The single most important thing my Department has been driving in two and a half years in relation to the construction of these projects is no longer to be agnostic about where we build things as a country, because we actually care about industrial strategy. I have been very clear with all developers that expect to receive public money that they should look at every single part of their procurement to ensure, even down to the smallest contracts, that they procure locally as much as possible. I recognise that that is a shift from where we have been for a long time as a country, but it is critical because that is where we get supply chain jobs right across the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Mr MacDonald
The Minister mentioned one of the pump storage sites and the £7.5 million investment, which is a one-off payment. For example, Glen Earrach is offering £20 million a year for 125 years, inflation-linked. That is what we have to move to: an amount of money being invested year after year that is agreed and controlled by the Government. What does the Minister think of that?
Michael Shanks
Let me come to that point, because we have discussed that before. My starting point is that communities who host infrastructure should feel the benefits of it, and they should be meaningful benefits. We consulted on how we will deliver both community benefits and shared-ownership opportunities for communities. We have put £1 billion pounds into Great British Energy to make sure that there is the financial capacity for communities to take up that shared-ownership offer. We will continue to push that.
I have spoken before about the need for us to balance that though; ultimately, all the costs of building these projects is borne by consumers across the country. The hon. Gentleman and I share the objective of bringing down bills as much as possible. There is a balance to be struck and I do not pretend that is easy because his community—he is right to champion them—will rightly want more and more community benefits. My job is to balance that against the cost of these projects. I need first to ensure that they are economical and will be built, because that is important for the national interest, and secondly that they are built as affordably as possible so that we can bring down bills for everyone. There is a balance to be struck, as I have said to the hon. Gentleman before.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will always want us to go further, but I would just say that the cap and floor scheme is designed to provide not huge public subsidy to make these projects happen, but just the right amount to make them viable. That is the key thing; the cap and floor scheme is designed to be a viability mechanism, so there is a risk that we end up using consumer bills to subsidise projects if we go too far. That does not mean that I do not share his ambition, and I have been very clear with developers that we should see genuine community benefits coming forward and that those should be meaningful for communities.
Graham Leadbitter
Very briefly, I am raising these issues with colleagues in the Scottish Government as well, but while DESNZ and Ofgem have a role in this, I think it is helpful for every organisation to be pushing the developers and saying, “What are you doing about the roads infrastructure? What are you doing about how you get people to and from the sites?” Projects represent big influxes of people into areas, while the local infrastructure can be just lane-and-a-half roads, with passing places and all that. Will the Minister commit to putting some pressure on those companies to invest in that?
Michael Shanks
I thought the hon. Member was going to conclude by asking whether I would commit to putting some pressure on the Scottish Government, which would be unlike him. But I agree with him, actually. I have had a number of really productive conversations with Stephen Gethins, Scotland’s Energy Minister, on exactly that topic of how we can make these projects work for local communities. If we can bring that local investment into roads and other infrastructure, it leaves that legacy that I think we all want to see in communities. It is also of benefit to the projects, which will need some investment in road infrastructure anyway.
In summing up, I want to pick out two issues. First, I really welcome the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire’s recognition of the importance of long duration energy storage for our system. The truth of the past few years has been a recognition that, for decades, we had a consensus on building renewables across Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, but we did not make the investment that we should have in building the grid to connect them. We are now paying the price for that.
Equally, storage is absolutely central to how renewables can work in the system, giving us the flexibility to deploy that energy when we need it most and making sure that we are genuinely bringing cleaner, cheaper power to homes and businesses when we need it, which is how we bring down bills. It also has to be the foundation of delivering economic growth. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognised the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode. Energy policy does not exist in a vacuum; it is part of our industrial strategy.
We are building these extraordinarily important projects that will last for more than a century. There has to be some legacy for communities from those projects, and we have to bring people with us on this journey. I frequently say in this place in particular, but in the main Chamber as well, that we do need to build infrastructure as a country—that is important—but we should try to bring communities with us wherever we possibly can. Community benefits and real investment are a critical part of that.
The Scottish Government are clearly a key partner in this, given that planning decisions in Scotland are not for me but for the Scottish Government. I know that they share my ambition about the importance of both deploying long duration energy storage and community benefits. They have guidance on this matter, and we are working together on it.
Whether it is through community benefit funds, the bill discounts that we have announced in terms of electricity infrastructure, or our ongoing work to make sure that there is an industrial benefit from these projects, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, while we might not get everything quite to the extent that he would like, these projects are an opportunity for communities to benefit from construction, from community benefits and from—I hope—a genuine lasting legacy.
Importantly for us as a country, this is how we deliver the secure, home-grown clean power that we need in the system, bring down bills for people and continue the transition to net zero, which is so important. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire again, and I look forward to what I am certain will be further conversations on this in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Shanks Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
National Grid Electricity Transmission has concluded its first consultation on the English section of the cross-border connection, with further consultation expected next year. The Scottish section is being developed by SP Energy Networks; consenting decisions on that portion are the responsibility of Scottish Ministers. It is for the developers to progress their proposals and to seek the necessary consents.
John Lamont
The mega-pylons comprising the cross-border connection will have a major impact on residents in the Scottish Borders. Data centres, wind farms, solar farms, substations and battery storage plants will follow in the wake of the pylons, but local councillors and residents feel powerless to influence these developments. Will the Minister meet me and local Scottish Borders councillors to discuss their concerns? Will the Government support my Energy and Digital Infrastructure (Planning) Bill, which will provide certainty to local communities and the council on how such developments should be considered?
Michael Shanks
I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past, and I am very happy to meet again to discuss these issues, but I reiterate that it is not for me to make decisions on those applications; they are made by the Scottish Government, as are decisions on all planning matters in Scotland. He can shake his head, but it is true. It is important that we bring communities with us on this; that is critical in the planning process. It is why we announced that the communities across the UK who host such infrastructure UK should benefit from bill discounts directly, but there should also be community benefits in communities like his.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The proposed route of the cross-border connection cuts a swathe across the north Cumbria section of my constituency and passes through, or close to, four sites of special scientific interest. I recognise the importance of the project, but will the Minister please urge National Grid to maximise undergrounding on this section of the project?
Michael Shanks
As I said, individual projects have to go through the planning process and develop their proposals, but the Government have a preference for pylons, rather than undergrounding—the previous Government had exactly the same position—not least because undergrounding is four or five times more expensive, and it is consumers across the country who pay that additional cost. We are very clear that building the grid is absolutely critical to getting clean, cheaper power to people’s homes and businesses. It is a job that the previous Government never did, and that upgrade is now absolutely critical.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Given that a regulatory process is under way, I cannot comment on particular projects. However, we have been very clear that any consenting decisions for new oil and gas must be compatible with our climate obligations. We have set that out at every stage of the process, since we inherited the court judgments on the previous Government’s handling of those consent decisions.
Fleur Anderson
Many of my constituents in Putney have written to me about this. They are very concerned about Rosebank’s lifetime emissions, which are equivalent to 254 million tonnes of CO2. As many colleagues have mentioned, this summer, we had extreme weather. The London ambulance service said that it had more call-outs this summer, because of the heatwave, than it did during covid. With that background, can the Minister tell me whether approving Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s climate targets and obligations under the Paris agreement?
Michael Shanks
Let me reiterate that I cannot comment on particular projects that are being considered for decisions. On the more general point that my hon. Friend rightly raises, it is imperative that we look at the impact that climate change is having. We all lived through this summer, and have seen the evidence of climate change up close. It is important that any decisions we make are compatible with our climate obligations. As even the Conservatives have now accepted, it is worth remembering that any new projects in the North sea will not take a penny off bills.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Producing our own oil and gas means that we will import less dirtier hydrocarbons, so it is common sense to use our own resources, but while Labour dithers on approving Rosebank and Jackdaw, thousands of my constituents in Aberdeen South are losing their jobs. Will the Minister set out a timetable for deciding whether Rosebank and Jackdaw can proceed?
Michael Shanks
As I have said on a number of occasions, we are considering the evidence that has been submitted on these projects. We have had to pick up a process that was left behind by the previous Government, and we have done that as quickly as possible. We will make decisions in due course. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman speaks about common sense, but thousands of his constituents are reliant on jobs in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, yet he stands here, time after time, opposing investment in those things. If he is in favour of jobs in his constituency, he should be in favour of all of them.
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) is a new Member, but his behaviour counts, just as everybody else’s does. I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In Canada, Prime Minister Carney has taken a more pragmatic approach to the energy transition than his predecessor, notably by designating the west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. In this country, the Prime Minister says that drilling in the North sea is something that he is pragmatic about. Does the Minister agree with continued drilling in the North sea, and does he see us taking a similar approach to Canada, and securing agreement to emission reductions in return for that drilling?
Michael Shanks
It is always useful to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee; I will look into the example he gave. On pragmatism, we have been clear that we want a pragmatic future for the North sea. That means continued oil and gas for many decades, but also investing in what comes next in the North sea, so that there is a fair and prosperous transition. The North sea remains a vital asset for the country, supporting jobs, growth and our energy security. We are determined to make sure that there is a strong pathway for the communities involved, and for jobs. Oil and gas will be important, but it is critical that we build up the industries that come next.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Secretary of State has previously said that if we are to have any shot at meeting our climate change targets,
“we can’t have any new oil and gas”.
She also said that new fossil fuel development was “irresponsible and short-sighted”. There is nothing pragmatic about pouring more fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Does the Secretary of State still agree with herself? If so, why will the Government not rule out Rosebank and Jackdaw?
Michael Shanks
It is pragmatic to say that oil and gas will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix for decades to come, and the North sea remains an important part of that. We are not about switching off the taps in the North sea—we said that in our manifesto, and we will deliver on it—but we are about building clean energy in the future. The Green party comes here and pontificates on a lot of these issues, but it opposes the very infrastructure that would get us off fossil fuels. It cannot have it both ways.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We are in a global energy supply crisis, as oil shipments remain stuck; a fifth of global liquefied natural gas supplies have been disrupted by the war in Iran; and across Europe, gas reserves are at record lows as we head into winter. But there is good news: Jackdaw and Rosebank could be producing oil and gas this winter. The bad news is that we have a Government who are either too scared of their green lobby, or too naive about the supply risks that we face, to act. Now that the Holborn and St Pancras by-election is over, and before we get too close to COP, when will the Government finally take our energy security seriously and permit Jackdaw and Rosebank?
Michael Shanks
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as on staying in the energy brief. She eloquently outlines the exact problem at the heart of the Conservative party’s policy. She said clearly that the issues in the middle east leave us exposed to an energy crisis, but her party’s plan is to increase that exposure by having even more gas in our energy mix—it is simply not credible. The Conservatives’ plan has already been ridiculed because the figures were wrong when they published it; it had a gas price not based in reality, given everything going on in the middle east. We will make pragmatic decisions on the future of the North sea, but we are also all about our energy security long into the future. They remain stuck on the very exposure that is driving up everyone’s bills.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Our electricity grid is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure in the country, but it was allowed to get into a complete mess through under-investment and a failure to tackle the grid connection queue, which got to over 700 GW under the previous Government. We have grappled with that legacy head-on, reducing the queue by 300 GW and ensuring that accurate connection offers are issued. We have made progress on that, but there is much more to do to make sure that the grid works for the people of this country. That is why we are injecting public control back into the system by launching Great British Grid.
Darren Paffey
Southampton’s port electrification and decarbonisation projects are ready to go, but we still cannot get the national grid upgrades that we need for at least another decade. The Prime Minister himself has said that this drives costs up, drags growth down and holds Britain back, so I really welcome the announcements about Great British Grid. Will the Minister say when GB Grid will be able to start filling those gaps that exist at the moment, and will he meet me and Southampton’s businesses so that we can find a way forward and get good green growth in Southampton’s postcodes?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the point that the Prime Minister made about how critical it is to fix the fundamental problems with connecting to the grid. That is why we have announced that we have set up Great British Grid as part of Great British Energy. We have made substantial progress on reforming the queue, but we do have to build the grid after decades of under-investment. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue, and I am fairly confident that we can make sure that National Grid is part of that conversation as well.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Bute Energy is planning to build a big wind farm in mid-Wales, and it is going to connect that wind farm over 47 km of pylons into a substation in North Shropshire that does not yet exist. I found out on the National Energy System Operator’s website that that substation is likely to be a 24 bay, 400 kV substation in a place with no substantial roads and a good amount of useful farmland. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the appropriateness of the site? I think it could go elsewhere, which would require a shorter run of pylons for Bute Energy. There are more appropriate places to build it than Lower Frankton.
Michael Shanks
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue, as I am always happy to meet Members from across the House. It is not for me as a Minister to decide the exact locations of substations, but I am happy to engage with her and to raise the issue with the relevant transmission owner.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate St Ann’s, Grove House and North primary school on getting solar panels on their rooftops. I have visited schools that have had solar installed; it is fantastic to see the young people learning about renewable energy at the same time as bills go down in the school and more money is invested in frontline teaching. That is exactly what we want Great British Energy to deliver.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Michael Shanks
When we came into government, we set this incredibly ambitious target to decarbonise the power system, which meant 95% of our electricity coming from clean sources. We have done everything possible to move towards that, and we are closer than we have ever been. It is worth saying that every single solar farm and wind farm that we switch on helps us to get off gas. In just the past few months since what has been happening in the middle east has taken course, we have been saving £5 million a day in displacing gas from the system because of the clean power mission. We are making huge progress and will continue pushing towards it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Ministers have repeatedly stated their intention to establish local trading to unleash the full potential of community energy, but details are still not forthcoming. Will the Minister set out a timeline to give community energy projects the clarity that they have so long been waiting for?
Michael Shanks
I recognise, as I always do, the hon. Lady’s championing of the sector. We on the Government Benches agree with her about the importance of community energy. She will not have to wait very long.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
There is a great deal of concern in Staffordshire Moorlands about the Peak Cluster proposal, which would take carbon from four cement plants in the Peak district and pipe it into Morecambe bay. While I am not opposed to carbon capture, many residents are extraordinarily concerned about the impact this will have on them. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at this project and see whether there are alternatives, to ensure that we can keep our cement industry in the United Kingdom without perhaps destroying our environment in the Peak district?
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about carbon capture more generally. We are absolutely looking at alternatives for decarbonising hard-to-abate sectors. The Peak Cluster is not a Government-backed project; it is for the scheme to do all the community engagement. I have heard from many Members across the House that engagement has not been as good as it should be. I would encourage those at the cluster to ensure that it is as strong as it can be, and the project will obviously be subject to a planning application when it comes forward.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I want to return to Jackdaw and Rosebank. Last week, Jess from my office organised a showing of the “National Emergency Briefing”, which was very well attended. Afterwards, I do not think anybody I spoke to thought that Jackdaw or Rosebank should go ahead. I know the Secretary of State will not be drawn on this for legal reasons, but it would be good to hear her acknowledge the deep concerns that many people have about this issue. One person asked that if it does go ahead, could every single penny of the money raised by the Government be invested in the transition?
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I am proud to stand behind a Government who are taking climate action seriously. However, we are already overshooting critical limits, and climate change will only get worse if we do not stop burning fossil fuels. Will the full direct climate impact of Rosebank and the implications of the international community’s efforts to transition away from fossil fuels be considered in making this decision?
Michael Shanks
As I have said in a number of answers, I cannot comment on the particular projects. On the general point, the very reason we are in this situation with these consents is that, because of the court judgment, we have to take into account the scope 3 emissions of these projects, which means there will be a full environmental assessment, and we have been very clear that that environmental assessment is critical in the consenting decisions that we will make in due course.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
As the Secretary of State says, the Falkland Islands are independent, but she seems to gloss over the fact that the Foreign Secretary still has to give approval to oil drilling. Will she therefore give her full-throated support to the decision today and support the Falkland Islands in this important venture? Will she also tell us when she was consulted on the decision?
Michael Shanks
This is quite a change to the Conservatives’ foreign policy if their position is now that we should interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the Falkland Islands Government. That was not their position when they were in government, and it is not the position of this Government.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Ahead of the Budget, I have been talking to many small businesses in my constituency. The Minister might be particularly interested to know that that includes 12 independent breweries, which are really struggling with their energy bills. What representations have been made to the Chancellor about the need to support them?
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
When Torness closes in 2030, Scotland will be left without a nuclear power station for the first time since the 1950s. That steady, low-carbon power will still have to come from somewhere, but the SNP Government still refuse to back nuclear. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about keeping Scotland’s lights on once Torness closes?
Michael Shanks
I know the hon. Lady will be leading a debate on this subject. I completely agree with her: Torness nuclear power station has been keeping the lights on in Scotland every single day of the week, and it is a disgrace that the Scottish Government are refusing to accept the critical role that that firm power plays in Scotland’s system. There is absolute potential for new nuclear and for good jobs in every part of Scotland. It is missing out on thousands of jobs because of the anti-science, ideological position of the Scottish Government. I take every opportunity that I can to persuade SNP Members of the error of their ways, but since they do not even bother to turn up in this House, I am afraid I will have to continue that debate with Scottish Ministers.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Last year, some of us warned that distributing heating oil support through local authorities carried risks, with some councils imposing strict means tests that help too few and others setting limited criteria, meaning nearly all applicants were successful but got very little and then blamed the Government for insufficient support. In Cumbria, that is exactly what happened. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the right people receive the right level of support?
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this year, Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency ceased production, creating job losses and meaning that a greater proportion of our diesel products have to be imported at greater cost. Do Ministers now regret not giving additional support to the continuation of production there?
Michael Shanks
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s engagement as we went through that process. As the House will remember, the insolvency was driven by decisions that the directors of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery had made at the time. The investigation into their actions continues. We tried everything we could to find a buyer. I am glad that Phillips 66, next door, has taken over the assets so that we can continue to make use of the site and to do everything we can to support the workers, who do an incredibly important job.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. £15,000 in 1991 is certainly not £15,000 now, so will the Secretary of State meet with me to discuss amending the outdated schedule 4 to the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 to raise the £15,000 statutory cap on the home loss payment so that my Coalsnaughton constituents can receive fair compensation as they face the demolition of their homes?
Michael Shanks
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work with the community in Coalsnaughton. I visited recently and met with householders, and they are going through a hellish situation that is not of their own making. The Mining Remediation Authority is working on a case-by-case basis with individual households to ensure a process is in place that works for individual households. We are limited by the legislation, but the UK Government have been clear that we will meet all the costs for those householders. I am happy to meet with him to discuss the issue further.
Alicia Kearns
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister did not mean to, but one might say he seemed keen to misrepresent the relationship between the Falkland Islands and the UK Government. The Falkland Islands are independent, but the Foreign Secretary has a responsibility to sign off any such decision on oil drilling, which is not what the Minister said. It was also a surprise that when I directly asked the Secretary of State my question, she chose not to give her support and directly answer the question. How might I get Ministers to ensure that they accurately represent the relationship between the overseas territories and ourselves?
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Shanks Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Great Britain’s energy system is robust and reliable, and delivers 24/7 for households and businesses across the county. However, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, we need to do all that we can to strengthen our energy security here at home. The answer is for us to move away from fossil fuels, which we cannot control, to deliver renewables and nuclear here at home, which we do control.
Catherine Fookes
I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister. I recently visited the first UK deep geothermal site at the Eden Project in Cornwall, thanks to the excellent energy and environment parliamentary knowledge scheme—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I learned that geothermal direct heat has several advantages, including zero emissions and particulates, and it is half the price and one third of the deployment time of a small modular reactor, but it is currently excluded from permitted development legislation, which leads to long delays, when it should be a much bigger part of our energy security. Will the Minister please update me on the steps being taken to ensure we can make the most of cheap geothermal energy for Monmouthshire and beyond?
Michael Shanks
A shout-out to the energy and environment parliamentary knowledge scheme—there are some Members of this House who would really benefit from gaining some of that knowledge, I think. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue—I heard a lot of cheers from the Labour Benches. Geothermal has an important part to play and we have to accelerate the potential of all low-carbon energy sources, including geothermal. We will continue to look into the issues around planning, but we are also trying to build out heat network infrastructure that can be used to supply affordable low-carbon heat with a range of technologies, including geothermal, so that we can utilise that to deliver heat to consumers across the country. We will continue to look at what more we can do.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
My constituents know that best way to improve energy security and job security is to drill more. The Government may not want to hear this, but my constituents know it, the trades unions know it, and even the Labour MPs on the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee know it. Will the Government approve Jackdaw and Rosebank as a matter of urgency to improve our energy security, to improve our job security and to improve our economy by billions of pounds?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot comment on two specific projects that are under a process at the moment, but on his general point, let me say that oil and gas continues to come out of the North sea—24/7, right now. It is playing a part in our energy security, but we have also been a net importer for decades, so it can never be the only answer. This is about how we deliver oil and gas from the North sea for many decades to come, and build up what comes next. There is huge potential for his constituents in offshore wind in particular, which his Front Benchers refuse to back. He should tell his constituents why he supports a party that is against the new jobs of the future, which would help his constituents and those right across the north-east of Scotland.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
Last month, I asked the Secretary of State about the risk of blackouts from the increasing instability of our electricity grid, and he accused me of scaremongering. Since then, I can inform the House that I have been contacted by a whistleblower at the heart of our grid operator, the National Energy System Operator. They allege that senior managers have ordered control room operators to hide information that shows that the grid is not being run securely. They also allege that corporate affairs have interfered with the operational decisions needed to stabilise the grid in order to protect the NESO’s reputation. If true, this is nothing short of a scandal. Will the Secretary of State take back his accusation of scaremongering and launch an immediate investigation into the security of our grid operations?
Michael Shanks
The shadow Secretary of State has made some very serious claims. If she has that information, she should share it with the Department. [Interruption.] Well, she has shared it in the House of Commons. She should also share the detail with us.
No, I do not take back—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not take back—the idea that the shadow Secretary of State has been scaremongering, because she has continued to do so; even though the National Energy System Operator has continued to meet the demand that is necessary for all consumers in the country, she continues to peddle nonsense on social media. I think she should look at some of the facts before she does that. The heatwave saw no impacts on consumers, and demand was met at all times. We have a robust and resilient energy system; if she looks at the data, she will see that that is being delivered day after day.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Ministers commissioned Great British Energy Nuclear’s study of Scotland’s potential for new nuclear last autumn. That study indicates that Scotland has land areas with high potential for future development. We remain open to discussions with the Scottish Government on opportunities for new nuclear in Scotland, and I welcome the conversations I have with the new Scottish Energy Minister on a range of topics.
Graham Leadbitter
Two years ago, Labour promised to cut bills for every household by £300. Not only are households now paying hundreds of pounds more instead of less, but Labour’s nuclear tax on household energy bills will cost Scots a further £300 million over the next decade. The Minister knows that Scottish energy consumers pay among the highest electricity prices in the UK; he knows that there are serious alternatives that are quicker to implement and could actually reduce bills, such as geothermal energy; and he knows that the Government’s own figures for a nuclear waste disposal facility are up to £53 billion. With serious and far more cost-effective alternatives available, will the Minister listen to the Scottish people, stop the obsession with costly nuclear power that Scotland neither needs nor wants, and transfer energy power to—
Michael Shanks
First, the hon. Gentleman knows that in every single opinion poll a majority of Scots show that they support nuclear energy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that every single day nuclear baseload is powering Scotland, and that the last nuclear power station, Torness, is about to close with no replacement in place. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman knows that hundreds of people—skilled workers—power those nuclear power stations, and, indeed, thousands of Scots are working in nuclear power stations in England because of his party’s opposition to nuclear. This is not a choice between nuclear and renewables; it is about both energy security and good jobs for everyone in Scotland.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
As the Minister has just said, new nuclear is essential for energy security. It is also essential as an alternative career for workers in oil and gas. Does the Minister agree that by blocking new nuclear in Scotland—in contrast to what is happening in England and Wales—the Scottish Government are undermining not just the energy transition and our energy security, but alternative jobs for the very people whom they claim to represent?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right. The industry estimates that more than 5,000 Scots are currently working in the nuclear industry, but not in Scotland. There is a huge potential for the expertise and experience of oil and gas workers to build the new nuclear power stations of the future, and to work in them as well. We need to capture those skills and keep them in Scotland, but because of the out-of-touch ideological approach of the SNP we will not have the opportunity to build those power stations in Scotland and those workers will have to go elsewhere, which is a great shame.
Michael Shanks
I echo the shadow Minister’s words about those who lost their lives on Piper Alpha 38 years ago. That event was a wake-up call in respect of safety in the industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is also a reminder that there are men and women working in extremely dangerous circumstances right now in order to keep the country going.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government, which is actually not a first. Until he ended up on the Opposition Benches, he regularly agreed with what the Government are now doing. [Hon. Members: “He still does.”] He still does—I am convinced of it—and he is welcome any time.
We will do everything we can to move forward with possible sites for new nuclear in Scotland, but the fact is that we cannot make as much progress with those sites as we would like because of the Scottish Government’s opposition through their planning regulations. I will continue to do what I can to persuade them to change their mind. There are hundreds of possible jobs, along with continued energy security in Scotland, and this is an opportunity that we should not miss.
Andrew Bowie
So for once we agree—and, by the way, my colleagues and I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Fingleton review. However, it is sad that Labour’s ambition pales in comparison to ours when we were in government and committed ourselves to building a new gigawatt-scale reactor at Wylfa and generating 25% of British electricity from nuclear. From Labour, we have a third large-scale plant cancelled and no ambition for a quarter of our electricity to come from nuclear power. Will the Minister update us on the progress of delivering on Fingleton, and will he now revive our commitment to an ambitious British nuclear future?
Michael Shanks
What I love about the shadow Minister is how every single time his face gives away the fact that he does not believe a word he is saying. However, I welcome the former Minister for consultation and his view of his nuclear ambition, which, of course, never came to fruition in the 14 years for which the Conservatives were in government. Meanwhile, the delivery to which he referred is exactly what we are getting on with in this Government. We are delivering on the Hinkley and Sizewell C nuclear reactors, delivering on a small modular reactor programme that already has an international reputation—countries around the world are interested in that technology—and building the nuclear that he only talked about.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The Government closely follow developments in the agrivoltaics sector and support innovative technologies, for instance through initiatives funded by UK Research and Innovation. In the solar road map that we have published, the Government and industry have committed themselves to exploring future research and demonstration opportunities for agrivoltaic systems.
Daniel Zeichner
I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England. Given the opportunities for agrivoltaics, including on reservoirs to tackle evaporation and in fields to tackle the stress that livestock and crops can face, is it not time to use this innovative and imaginative approach to greater effect?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are in favour of innovation wherever we can deploy solar. He talks about solar on reservoirs, which is absolutely an opportunity that we want to explore, but we also want to look at how agrivoltaic technologies can be deployed, and we are supporting the University of Lancaster to work out what that model would look like. I have visited a number of solar farms where farming and solar generation go hand in hand, and we want to see much more of that. Planning policy supports that, but we want to go further.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to the use of solar panels on all sorts of buildings to provide shade, and we could include car parks in that. But what we should not be including is grade 1 agricultural land. Whether the Minister likes it or not, we have lost far too much agricultural land in east Kent already. It is not possible to farm under solar panels, and it is disingenuous to say that the land will be returned to agriculture in 30 years’ time, because the panels are mounted on concrete and we all know that that will never be ripped up. When is the Minister going to face reality?
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think the Minister is disingenuous—that is a little bit of a step too far.
Michael Shanks
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I have always enjoyed my conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, even if we disagree on many things. First of all, it is possible for farming practices to go hand in hand with solar generation. Secondly, even if we hit our most ambitious targets, less than 0.6% of farmland will be taken up with solar. Thirdly, he is right to say that we want to see solar on as many rooftops as possible—car parks, offices and schools—and on reservoirs, but the challenge that we face as a country is such that we need both ground-mounted solar and rooftop generation. I know that we can work together on the rooftop point, and I hope I will convince him of the other.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
We love community energy and we are determined to see much more of it all across the country. Through the local power plan, which we published recently, we are rolling out the biggest expansion of community energy in British history. By 2030, Great British Energy, which is delivering for the people of this country, will support over 1,000 local and community energy projects, with £1 billion of investment. Ownership matters to this Government, and we are determined to deliver it for communities across Britain.
Joe Morris
There are amazing developments in community energy, particularly across my constituency with the Northumberland solar-powered community buildings project, which is purchasing and installing both solar panels and battery storage for community buildings, including village halls, in our most remote communities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the community energy specific need for a smart export guarantee, and greater support for community energy power-purchasing agreements?
Michael Shanks
That sounds like a great project, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as I would anyone across the House who has exciting community energy projects in their area. The local power plan partly deals with investment, but it also deals with those questions of how we get regulation right so that communities can sell power locally and make a return that they can keep in their community.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report on community energy, which I am sure the Minister has read, has raised concerns that community energy projects are at risk of being left behind unless there is clear guidance from the Government on how and when the necessary reforms will be implemented. Will the energy independence Bill establish a workable model so that community energy will be delivered as soon as possible?
Michael Shanks
I love all the work that the hon. Member has been doing on community energy; I am tempted to say that we were going to do it anyway, but it was great to have the report on my bedside cabinet to read as well. Giving guidance and making reforms are exactly what we need to do; it is about making it much easier for communities to sell power to the market and hold on to the profits that they make from that. We will legislate to take that forward in the energy independence Bill. There are a number of other things that we are taking forward, but investment in those community energy projects is critical. I would encourage her to speak to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and make clear that £1 billion through GB Energy to make it happen does matter.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I love Bellshill, and it was a pleasure to visit the other day to see this fantastic facility opening just across my constituency boundary. More than 300 wind turbines are being maintained and operated from the facility. That is a good example showing that the clean energy mission is about not just the renewables being deployed, but the jobs that go with it in communities like my hon. Friend’s.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady could go on all day reading out the things that this Government are already going to do. We want to see much more community ownership, because it matters to us that communities own their future energy, and that people keep the wealth in their communities to invest it in the things that they think are important, because they know their community best. There is a whole series of actions that previous Governments have not taken that would have made that possible. We are going to clear that away and make it possible for communities to own their energy, and we have put £1 billion into that. I always welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are doing.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Michael Shanks
First, just to be clear, we are not abandoning at all the idea that we should put solar on as many car parks as possible and encourage the creation of car ports, so that there can be solar panels on the roof. That is brilliant, and we should see much more of that. We consulted on whether there should be one mandatory solution for the whole country, and the consultation responses, which we take heed of, suggested that was not the right way to go. That does not mean at all that we are not hugely ambitious about solar on car parks.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
My local community energy company, which is run by volunteers, is incredibly keen to get solar panels on the roofs of local public buildings, but we are really struggling to get the permissions we need from the local authority to proceed with two schools. They missed the easter installation window, and have now missed the window for this summer. Does the Minister agree that we need this to hurry up?
Michael Shanks
Yes, I completely agree. I am sure that if my hon. Friend’s local authority is listening, it will hurry up and make those decisions. We also want the process to be more standardised across the country, so that community projects like hers can learn from others who have done the same, and so that we can speed up the whole process.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Just this year, Norway has opened up a licensing round for 70 new oil and gas blocks. It is reopening three old gas fields and has permitted development plans for three new fields. Meanwhile, this Government are still banning licences, taxing the industry out of business and not permitting Rosebank and Jackdaw. Why does the Secretary of State think he is right and our Norwegian friends are wrong?
Michael Shanks
I suspect that in the coming days England fans will learn a lot from Norway in something else. On the serious point that the hon. Member raises, we should first recognise that Norway took a different approach to extraction from the North sea 60 years ago, and it has continued to do that over its 60 years of extraction from the North sea. Secondly, we are not turning off the taps in the North sea. We have said that we will introduce transitional energy certificates to allow new production tied back to existing fields.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Business energy costs are a significant barrier, holding British business back from being competitive on the world stage. Has the Secretary of State done any analysis of the potential GDP growth from reducing business energy costs and getting British businesses moving?
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister acknowledge that the highlands and islands produce a disproportionately large amount of our renewable energy? Will he also acknowledge that last week’s Ofgem go-ahead for three pumped storage schemes will produce almost no jobs, no legacy housing and no community benefits, along with minimal, if any, advantage to the highlands of Scotland?
Michael Shanks
First, we are delighted to be building the first long-duration energy storage in Britain in 40 years, including pumped hydro storage projects that will help us store renewable energy for when we need it. Secondly, there will be local benefits from that and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about jobs. These are big construction projects and there will be jobs relating to running them afterwards. However, I will look further at his point on community benefits, because the community should benefit from such projects being built.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Government have worked with Ofgem to bring forward low or no standing charge schemes, which are supposedly open for trial. I cannot find them and neither can my residents. The access to those schemes is so small, so what are the Government doing to make them available to more people now?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Government have stressed the importance of energy independence, sovereignty and security. How concerned are they that it is difficult to pin down, as we have tried to do, exactly how many, and what percentage, of the wind turbines in this country are produced in China, considering that a thousand of them were recently discovered to have been manufactured using asbestos?
Michael Shanks
We take those issues seriously across the energy resilience and security piece. It is for individual developers to look at their individual sites and ensure that they comply with the regulations that are in place. We are also looking at what more needs to be done, because the security and resilience of all our energy infrastructure has never been more important.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is so much innovation going on in my constituency for floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, including by companies such as Reflex Marine, but we need the test and demo models up in the Celtic sea to test the technology. The contracts for difference in the next auction will be crucial for offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Will the Minister commit to recognising that in future auction rounds?
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Shanks Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
With that new-found consensus on the clean power mission, I am happy to report to the House that we are making good progress towards our targets. We delivered the most successful renewables auction in history through allocation round 7, securing enough home-grown power for 11 million homes, as well as delivering a record-breaking 269,000 solar installations last year, the majority of which were on rooftop sites. By moving further and faster towards electrification, we are reducing our dependency on global fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security here at home.
Vikki Slade
Last month, alongside other Dorset MPs, I met with the Crown Estate to discuss the Dorset Clean Energy Super Cluster. While I welcome its recognition of the area as a medium-term opportunity, it is concerning that development is likely at least a decade away, despite Dorset’s significant potential for a range of green energy initiatives. Given that net zero industries are already delivering higher wages than average and 50% greater productivity than the UK average, does the Minister agree that it is both an environmental and economic missed opportunity to delay Dorset’s potential for so long, and will he commit to reviewing this personally and consider appointing a ministerial advocate for the south-west on energy security?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right to champion her local community. I have met with those involved in the Dorset super cluster before, and I am happy to do so again, because we do see huge potential for the clean energy transition right across the country. As she rightly says, it is also about how we create good, well-paid jobs in every community, so I am very happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Progress? Not when it comes to Scotland’s jet fuel supply, because yesterday there were fuel shortages at Scottish airports, meaning lengthy delays. Those on the Front Bench will say it was because of a tanker driver shortage—a logistics issue—and they would be absolutely right to do so. However, the fact is that 2,822 supply chain jobs were lost because of the Grangemouth oil refinery closure, leading to transport problems like the one we saw yesterday. Jet fuel shortages will happen again; what are the Government going to do to stop that happening?
Michael Shanks
Well, it is a basic fact that the very short-term disruption at both Glasgow and Edinburgh airport was caused by driver disruption. That has now been resolved, and flights are carrying on as normal. There is not an issue with jet fuel in the UK at all; that is just a fact, and I am happy to put that on the record.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the failure of both the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government to plan for what was well known—the closure of Grangemouth—has meant that we lost the opportunity to build on the industries that were there. However, we have committed £200 million, so that there is an industrial future at Grangemouth. We have announced the first projects from that, and there are many more to come.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I have a very simple question. Everybody in this House knows we will need gas for decades to come, so for once, can the Minister give a straight answer? Which is better for the environment: going to a country 1,000 miles away, fracking the gas, freezing the gas, shipping it and reheating it, or just piping it in straight from the North sea?
Michael Shanks
The very simple answer is that we are continuing to use the North sea—no one is switching off what we are producing in the North sea—but the amount that we are able to extract from the North sea has been in long-term decline. The right hon. Lady knows that because she was the Secretary of State who talked a lot about the need for a transition in the North sea—she recognised then that the North sea has been in decline. We have been a net importer for more than 20 years, so this is not a short-term position. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), gave the game away a few minutes ago: the answer to this is how we build the industries that come in the future, alongside retaining oil and gas for many decades to come.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The UK is home to fantastic and innovative clean technology start-ups in the energy space. However, these businesses tell me that funding for start-up and, importantly, scale-up phases in this space is falling off a cliff. The net zero innovation portfolio, which awarded more than £1.3 billion in grants and crowded in £3 for every £1 in public spend, was abolished at the last spending review, and the clean tech innovation challenge has yet to get off the ground. Will the Minister explain what his Department is doing to support clean tech start-ups in this space?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right to highlight the enormous potential. For a very long time, the UK has not been good at growing the good innovation and spin-outs coming out of our university and innovation space. We need to nurture them, but also build on them and invest in them in the future. That is why we are investing in that early stage development, and it is also why Great British Energy is interested in what the next set of innovations are, how we can back them and, crucially, how we can keep the intellectual property here in the UK and also build the supply chains and the industry that goes along with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, and today’s report from the CBI outlines just how crucial it is to the overall British economy that we continue to grow and nurture the exact industries that he talks about.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Co-operation with our EU counterparts is vitally important when it comes to energy security. I recently travelled to the WindEurope conference in Madrid, where I joined other European Ministers to discuss how recent global events have shown that we have to work together to deliver on our energy security. We have held constructive discussions with the EU on the internal electricity market and those continue.
Dr Pinkerton
At a time of intense geopolitical instability, British households remain particularly exposed to volatile global energy prices. Indeed, Ofcom has announced a 13% rise in the energy price cap from July. Given that there are interconnectors with six European countries already, does the Minister agree with a coterie of esteemed energy economists that the single greatest thing that this Government could do to strengthen our energy security, drive long-term investment in renewable energy and bring down bills would be to recouple our electricity market with that of the European Union? [Interruption.]
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Member. We have this bizarre situation where we have chuntering from the Opposition Front Benchers about the fact that we have interconnections with Europe. We have had them for decades, and they are important to our energy security. That was the case under both Governments, and theirs is an absurd position. He is absolutely right to say that in a moment of geopolitical uncertainty, closer links with Europe are important. Our interconnectors import and export every single day to the benefit of consumers in Britain. We want to see much more efficient energy trading, and that is why we are working on those formal negotiations about the EU internal electricity market, which is important for Britain.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
The provisions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 drive industry action via due diligence and transparency to tackle forced labour in supply chains for solar panels. All procurement conducted under Government and GBE contracts is required to meet those standards.
Bradley Thomas
The Xinjiang Uyghur region of China is estimated to provide 45% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon. An estimated 68% of UK panels come from China, and two thirds of NHS trusts are dependent on Chinese solar. The Government have said that GB Energy is committed to having a supply chain free from slave labour by spring 2025, but a Politico investigation has revealed that five out of seven of the contracts that GB Energy has provided for schools cannot guarantee that they are free from forced labour. The GB solar stewardship initiative pledges to ensure that there is no slave labour, but there is no guarantee of 100% elimination of slave labour from the supply chain. What will the Government do to reduce slave labour in supply chains and wean the UK off Chinese-made infrastructure?
Michael Shanks
As I said during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of tackling modern slavery as a country across supply chains and across the economy. It is right that we take action. We are tackling forced labour where we find it in global supply chains, and we want to go further. GBE will be a leader in how we tackle modern slavery, and it has set up a function to look at sustainable supply chains and to ensure that they are free from modern slavery.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the workers from Grangemouth. I wrote to him earlier this week on the case of his two constituents. The training fund was set up to provide that support. We will continue to look at it, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The UK should be the world leader in greenhouse gas removals, but the sector is struggling to attract funding and off-takers because of uncertainty about Government support for GGRs. Will the Government please confirm when they plan to publish their response to the independent GGRs review, and whether the Department is considering the launch of a UK buyers’ club, running along similar lines to the EU system?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Member is right about the ambition, and that is why we commissioned the independent review by my noble Friend Lord Whitehead. We will respond to that review in due course, and we are ambitious about the role that GGRs can play.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a crucial aspect of the local power plan. We need to support communities in developing the project, and then creating a market in which they can sell electricity locally. We are working with Ofgem and partners to ensure that can happen, and we will say more in due course.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Had the 8.3 GW of offshore wind secured at the start of this year through allocation round 7 been in place last year, we would have seen gas generation cut by a third, and wholesale prices down by 13%. It is clear that we have to double down on the clean energy revolution. We cannot be distracted by yet more fossil fuel work. Will the Secretary of State outline how we will push forward the clean energy transition, and offshore wind in particular?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Northern Ireland is home to some innovative carbon capture businesses with real export potential, but many UK clean technologies face a gap between successful pilot innovation and that first commercial deployment. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that high-value opportunities can be scaled, thereby supporting jobs, investment and growth? Will the Secretary of State accept an invitation to visit Nuada?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue. We have provided funding to support the development of carbon capture projects in Northern Ireland, such as Catagen’s biohydrogen reactor in Belfast. We welcome engagement on further carbon capture, usage and storage projects. It is a really important part of decarbonisation, and I am happy to engage on it further.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
By now, the Secretary of State will be well aware of my opposition to the 1,900 acre East Park Energy solar farm in my constituency. We are now at the business end of the planning process; the application is before the Planning Inspectorate, ahead of a decision by the Secretary of State later this year. Will he outline roughly when he expects to have to take a decision on the application? Ahead of that, will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) to discuss our concern that it is not the right solution for our area and our constituents?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but because it is a live planning application under independent examination, it is not possible for me to comment further. I obviously encourage him and his constituents to register with the Planning Inspectorate, if they have not done so already, so that they can share their views.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the contracts for difference for geothermal and the fact that the Secretary of State has been down to see deep geothermal in Cornwall. A policy indication from the Government that deep geothermal could form part of our energy mix would be useful to grow confidence in the industry.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for not approving the Morgan and Morecambe wind farm cable corridor and for deferring the decision for six months for further consultation. I know how much he wants to achieve his target, so I know how difficult that decision will have been. Together with cross-party local councils, I have written to him to articulate the available alternative routes. Will he use these six months to consider those alternatives?
Michael Shanks
As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on live applications for obvious reasons. We look at every single application on its merits; even though we have ambitions for where we want to get to, individual planning applications are considered on the individual merits on which they are presented.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Peak Cluster in the Hope valley is a cement decarbonisation project looking to prevent 3 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere every year. Will the Minister commit to establishing a clear route to market for industrial carbon capture projects beyond track 1 and track 2 clusters, which would offer projects like Peak Cluster greater certainty?
Michael Shanks
We see carbon capture as a hugely important part of how we decarbonise, and we have supported clusters already. We are looking at what a future model could look like; equally, we need to see other projects coming forward on commercial terms to ensure that they are viable. I continue to meet with all the clusters, and I chair the CCUS taskforce to ensure that we are doing as much as we can.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Saturday, I met representatives from a number of well-established hospitality businesses in my constituency, one of whom is facing an energy cost increase of £70,000 this year. That is clearly unsustainable. What are Ministers doing to prevent unchecked energy increases from happening year on year?
Energy Security
Michael Shanks Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
It is a privilege to close this debate on the Gracious Speech. It has been a pleasure to sit here all afternoon and listen to all the contributions in what turned out to be a far more wide-ranging debate than one just on energy policy, and I thank all Members for that.
I will respond to a few specific points raised in the debate in due course, although I will single out a few contributions from Members on the Labour Benches at the outset. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) was absolutely right in a number of areas of his speech, particularly in saying that we should be very cautious about taking any advice from the shadow Secretary of State lest she change her mind, as she has done so often in this policy area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) spoke quite rightly about her pride in Blyth and the workers there. I was really pleased to be there a few months ago to celebrate the 25th birthday of offshore wind, which of course was started in Blyth. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) all made important contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), who I had the great pleasure of joining in Stornoway recently, rightly congratulated Donald MacKinnon MSP. I also put on record my congratulations to Donald on his fantastic election as the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Western Isles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West gave a fantastic sales pitch for her community and the role it is playing in the clean power transition. She also mentioned the Dorset clean energy super cluster, which I would be delighted to visit.
Contributions from hon. Members on all sides of the House were interesting. I particularly welcome the consensus on nuclear, which is hugely important. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) gave a wide-ranging lecture—an important contribution—on the economy. I completely agree with his points on skills. We need some balance in how we approach the future of skills development in the country, so that we have the skilled workforce we need to do all that we want to do.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who I think is no longer in his place, made a bizarre argument in which he said the last Government did a fantastic job and did everything right, but that we should now do none of the things that they did into the future. That was slightly odd.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), stole my thunder with his remarks on the speech by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). I particularly enjoyed the intervention from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), who essentially said that nobody really likes any of us and it is all the fault of first past the post. That was a great contribution!
I want to single out the contribution of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who gave an excellent speech. He emphasised absolutely rightly that Britain is not broken but that we must be better. That was a really important charge for us all. This debate has shown that the whole House agrees on the need to strengthen our energy security as we respond to the second fossil fuel shock in less than five years.
Michael Shanks
I will make a bit of progress.
Where the House diverges is on how we respond to that shock. For Members on the Labour Benches, the overriding lesson from both Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the present crisis in the middle east is that every day we spend exposed to fossil fuels, which we can never control, is another day of insecurity. It is another day of being buffeted by conflicts that we had no part in starting, and of working people opening their energy bills and finding the cost of someone else’s war. It is another day of Britain’s future being held back by a global market in which we are and will always be price takers.
The Opposition say that they too have learned a lesson from the second fossil fuel price shock. They have studied the evidence and weighed up the options, and their conclusion—their amendment to the Humble Address—is that the answer to a fossil fuel crisis lies in more fossil fuels. I like to give credit where I can, so I will give them this: it takes a particular kind of courage to stand up in this House at this time and make that argument with a straight face.
Dave Doogan
The Minister will know that Scotland has almost all the oil in the United Kingdom. We have the vast majority of the gas. We have the most onshore renewables and the most hydro. And yet, under his watch, his constituents and mine in Scotland pay the highest electricity bills anywhere on these islands. What does he say to our constituents?
Michael Shanks
I say that the Scottish National party’s plan for independence for energy was the flimsiest of flimsy documents. It had no plan for how independence would bring down bills, because the truth of the matter is that independence would tear apart any argument on energy security and drive up bills for people right across Scotland. That is why people rejected it in the referendum 10 years ago.
The Tories and their former friends and colleagues now sitting on the Reform Benches want to solve a dependence problem by becoming even more dependent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier, we will not be taking that course. This is the moment to end our reliance on fossil fuels, to electrify the wider economy and to speed up our transition to clean, secure, home-grown energy, which does give us energy sovereignty. That is the road to national security. Along the way, we seize the economic opportunity of the 21st century, with 400,000 extra good energy jobs and billions of pounds in investment by 2030 alone.
Graham Stuart
I wonder whether the Minister will agree to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst). The Atwick gas storage site in my hon. Friend’s constituency is a critical part of our energy infrastructure, but at 47 years old, it is nearing end of life. Does he have plans to ensure that our gas storage is maintained, and will he meet me and my colleague to discuss the issue?
Michael Shanks
We are consulting on the future of gas storage. I have made it my policy to meet every MP who wants to meet me, and I have always had—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister says, “Even him?” I have always had very good conversations with the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). He is in the wrong party—they all hate him. [Laughter.]
Now is not the time to look away from the biggest long-term threat we face: climate change. It is a threat that we can no longer ignore, so we will build the energy system of the future. Since we came into power, we have had two record-breaking renewables auctions after the catastrophic failure of AR5 under the last Government. Despite the shadow Secretary of State’s advice to cancel AR7, we have secured clean, home-grown power for the equivalent of 23 million homes. That is power that, since the middle east crisis began, is saving the country millions of pounds every single day in gas that we no longer have to buy. But good is not enough; we are determined to go further and faster. That is why we are bringing forward the next auction round to July, and why the energy independence Bill will accelerate the build-out of grid infrastructure by reforming planning and getting clean power built at the speed that the moment demands.
We have the biggest nuclear building programme in half a century, not vague promises that never materialised for 14 years—or the endless rounds of consultation that the shadow Minister loves to tell us about so much—but actual nuclear being built. With a nuclear regulation Bill, which is genuinely pro-nuclear and pro-nature, we will cut costs and timeframes without cutting corners on safety. That is regulation reform that the Tories now claim they would have loved to have done, but just never found the time for during 14 years in government. Well, we are going to get it done. We have to be honest about what we inherited. The environmental impact assessment for Sizewell C ran to 44,000 pages and it still left nobody happy. That is not caution; it is paralysis dressed up as paperwork. This Government will end it, so that we can get Britain building again and deliver the energy independence that people have waited for.
As we build for the future, we also have to protect people right now. Six million families are receiving the expanded warm home discount. We also have the £15 billion warm homes plan—the largest upgrade programme in British history—and, as a result of actions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took in the Budget, the price cap fell by £117 in April.
Kirsty Blackman
On protecting people right now, my constituents are losing jobs. Thousands of jobs are being lost every few months in the north-east of Scotland because of the Government’s continuing to keep the energy profits levy: Labour’s tax on Scotland’s jobs. Will the Minister make a commitment to move from the EPL to the oil and gas price mechanism in order to protect jobs for my constituents?
Michael Shanks
I will come to jobs in the North sea in just a moment—a section of my speech is about that, given its importance. I have to say that I am absolutely incredulous: I can almost understand it from the Tories—thinking that a moment of windfall profits was the moment to cut taxes on oil and gas companies—but now we have a partnership of the SNP and the Tories who believe that now is the moment not to help people with their energy bills but to cut taxes for the biggest companies. That is an interesting lesson that we have learned.
The energy independence Bill is about how we go further. A number of hon. Members have raised fuel poverty. Fuel poverty in this country is not a misfortune; it is a scandal. More than a third of school pupils have told their teachers that they are cold at home. In one of the world’s largest economies, a third of children go to school to get warm. We must bring this to an end with new minimum energy efficiency standards for renters, a new warm homes agency to ensure that high home grades are not, as they have been for too long, the preserve of just the well off, and a strengthened Ofgem with the powers of a genuine consumer champion, not just a regulator in name. That is what fighting the corner of working people looks like.
Let me say something about the people who power this country. I speak at industry conferences regularly and I always talk about my pride in the North sea, not as a Minister reading from a brief, but as someone who has friends and family who work offshore and as a Scottish MP who knows more than many about what the sector means. It is about people right now doing skilled, dangerous and vital work—work that this country has depended on for decades, and which does not get taken for granted—[Interruption.] We are not taking it for granted, actually; that is just nonsense.
The question in front of us is how we secure those people’s long-term future. The answer is not, as some on the Opposition Benches have suggested, to pretend that the North sea is not a maturing basin in natural decline. It is not about nostalgia for some new age of discovery. We are neither a “turn off the taps” nor a “drill every last drop” party. Neither is a credible plan. We will introduce transitional energy certificates, as industry has called for, to enable tiebacks and manage existing fields for their lifespan; for the first time, we will give the North Sea Transition Authority a statutory responsibility to consider workers, communities and supply chains; and we will launch a new North sea jobs service to support people through every stage of the transition. This energy transition only works if we bring people with us on what we are building next, and that is already taking shape.
Michael Shanks
I do not have time; I am sorry.
That system is already taking shape, whether through nuclear engineers in Ynys Môn following in their parents’ footsteps, apprentices learning to weld in the Aberdeen energy transition zone or wind turbine blades being forged in Hull—tens of thousands of jobs, record investment, real communities, real wages and a real future. The North sea made Britain an energy nation; the Bill ensures that it will remain one.
Sometimes, in the noise of this place, we lose sight of what is actually at stake. Half of Britain’s recessions since the 1970s were caused by fossil fuel shocks—not bad luck, not acts of God, but the predictable, repeated consequence of building our future on an energy source that we can never have control over. What we have heard today is that Opposition parties have not only chosen to ignore what is going on all around us, but they actively want us to go even further, to risk even more and to gamble with the futures of every single one of our constituents. The warning signs were there in 1973, in 1979 and in 2022, and they were ignored. The warning signs are back now, and it is right that we learn the right lessons.
Just a few weeks ago, 98% of our electricity came from clean sources. It was for a small period of time—I recognise that—but 98% of our electricity came from low-carbon sources. This country, when it commits to something, is capable of achieving extraordinary things. This is not ideology; it is the most basic duty of Government to protect the people of this country from dangers that we can see coming. The energy Bills contained in the King’s Speech are the path to a stronger future for Britain: energy security that no blockade can threaten; warm homes for families who have gone cold for far too long; good jobs in communities that have faced deindustrialisation for decades because of Governments who just did not care about industrial strategy; and a climate that we can hand to our children without shame. I commend the King’s Speech to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oil and Gas
Michael Shanks Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades.
I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences.
My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face.
Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem.
The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this. The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that.
We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next.
The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.
Graham Stuart
The only doubling down being done is by the Minister, who insists that we import more from abroad. Where energy is produced makes no difference to how much we consume. It can either be produced abroad or it can be produced here, with jobs, tax and lower emissions. Why on earth would he choose for it to be done abroad?
Michael Shanks
I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker.
There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world. That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact.
Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future.
I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for.
The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills.
There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it. It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.