Cost of Energy
Michael Shanks Excerpts(1 week, 5 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Good morning; it is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Western. May I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and, actually, for all our engagements over the past seven months? She always helpfully challenges the Government from a place of real passion and commitment, and I appreciate her words of wisdom, even if I do not always entirely agree with them. In fact, we have had countless debates on energy policy with a number of people in this room—it is beginning to become a bit of a weekly club here in Westminster Hall—and I appreciate all the points that have been raised.
May I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I just cannot get enough of his contributions? Having not spent enough time in the Commons yesterday, we are back again today, but I am appreciative none the less. I will come to his points about Northern Ireland later.
I will start where the hon. Member for Bath started: on the public’s view about the cost of energy. She made an important point about how central energy costs are not just to the cost of living crisis that our constituents are still living through, but to their belief in the Government’s ability to change things, so it is important that we tackle these issues. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) rightly said, this Government were elected on a manifesto that contained pledges on energy. I am privileged to have the job of Energy Minister, because for the first time in a very long time we have a Government with a key mission to fix the energy system in this country. The truth is that it needs to be fixed because of what we inherited from the previous Government.
The energy crisis in 2022 was just the peak that highlighted how vulnerable we are to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. The cost of energy continues to have a devastating impact on our constituents and communities right across the country. Although consumers are protected to a certain degree by the energy price cap, our energy costs are determined by volatile markets outwith our control. As long as we remain exposed to that, the risk to our constituents is that we will face yet another price spike in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made the point well that after 14 years of Conservative Government, we have to not just turn around one bit of the energy system, but deal with the whole series of occasions on which the previous Government failed to make decisions that would grapple with the scale of the problem. That is why I announced yesterday in the main Chamber our transitional support for Drax and biomass. The truth is that we got a good deal for consumers and for sustainability, but we had to make that decision. We had no other options because the previous Government left us with no long-term plan for energy security.
That is why we believe so firmly in our clean power by 2030 mission, which, by creating home-grown renewable energy, will help us to reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets and will protect bill payers for good. Great British Energy will play a vital role in that mission by accelerating our deployment of clean energy so that Britain can become a clean energy superpower. Crucially, it will also invest in the supply chains that bring manufacturing jobs for renewable energy to our country.
Sir John Hayes
I understand the Minister’s desire to create more economic resilience by ensuring energy independence. By the way, I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of this contribution and the previous one. The key thing is transmission and distribution costs, which make up 15% of every energy bill. No Government have looked at that seriously. If we distribute energy production to small solar plants spread right across the kingdom, we will maximise the costs and damage the resilience that the Minister seeks. Will he focus on the concentration of energy production and bring it as close to consumption as possible?
Michael Shanks
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission costs later, because it is important, particularly when it comes to how we grapple with constraint costs. The truth is that we will have to build more network infrastructure. I hope he will support the construction of that, although I suspect he will not. We also want to review energy market reforms to look at how we deal with some of these issues. I will come back to the important point, which a number of hon. Members raised, of how we build an energy system for the future. The question of balance is key. We do not want a renewables-only system, although renewables will be incredibly important. We announced last week our commitment to rolling out much more nuclear to provide the baseload and the security of supply. We have the ability to place small modular reactors across the country near centres of demand, such as the data centres that we will see in the future.
Edward Morello
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), representing the former Government, tried to mischaracterise the need to upgrade the grid as a cost of renewables, but does the Minister agree that we need to upgrade the grid regardless of what technology we use? We lose 10% of the energy we generate through transmission. It is an old grid and, regardless of the technology we use, we need to upgrade it.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Upgrading the grid is important for transmitting the clean power that we want to generate in the future, but it is already 50 or 60 years old, and it is creaking under the pressures it has operated under for a very long time.
There is real need to upgrade the grid right across the country. The truth is that the previous Government recognised that that was important. They launched the idea of the great grid upgrade before we did, but they are now running away from a lot of that. That is hugely disappointing, but it will not get in the way of our moving forward to make sure that we build the grid of the future. Yes, we need to meet the demand for now, but we know that by 2050 electricity demand is likely to double in this country. If we do not build the infrastructure now, it will be the weakest part of our economic strategy in the future. It is essential we build it now, but we want to bring communities with us.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not also true that although we need to upgrade an old grid, the challenge of the future is a decentralised energy system, and that that is so often misunderstood? We had big power stations; now we have decentralised and smaller energy providers. That is a big challenge that we all have to recognise rather than criticising a particular Government—as tempting as it is to just criticise the Government of the day.
Michael Shanks
Never will it be said that I enjoy criticising the former Government.
I would flip what the hon. Member for Bath says on its head: that change also presents a real opportunity to look at the electricity system in a different way—I will come back to that point, particularly on community energy. It is right to say that the days of big cities with power stations right next to them are long gone, so we need to think of a different way to build our transmission system into the future.
On Clean Power 2030, advice from the National Energy System Operator said that the clean power system can be cheaper than today’s system for consumers. Contrary to what some Members have said, we know that renewables are by far the cheapest to run. There is a cost to building them, but there is also a huge cost to building new gas or nuclear power stations that is often not factored into the debate. Renewables come at a cost but are then incredibly cheap to operate on our system.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke very passionately about climate change. That is really important. The mission we are on is about building an energy system for the future that gives us energy security, but it is also about tackling the climate crisis, which we can no longer think of as a future threat. As we look around the world, we can see from just this year alone that it is a present reality. It is increasingly difficult to read the statistics and not think that we should be taking more decisive action.
I gently say to the hon. Lady, as she prods this Government for not going fast enough, that in seven months we have launched the Clean Power 2030 mission, lifted the onshore wind ban in England—which was an absurd policy—and approved more solar than the previous Government did. We have had the biggest renewables auction in history, with 131 projects, we have created the pathway to clean power by 2030 and have already delivered record investment in the supply chains that will deliver some of the infrastructure upgrades we need, including £1 billion by ScottishPower. We launched the solar taskforce and the onshore wind industry taskforce. We are also looking at the Offshore Wind Industry Council and how it can deliver more. I am not sure we could move much faster, but if the hon. Lady has some suggestions, I am happy to take them on board.
Finally, on the point about the rooftop solar revolution, we agree that it needs to be not an either/or, but both. We will need ground-mounted solar, which plays a really important part, but we have rooftops right across the country—in car parks, warehouses and industrial units—that we should be covering in solar panels wherever we possibly can. We will do much more on that. We reconvened the solar taskforce, which the previous Government ran, to try and increase the ambition, and it will report in due course.
Jamie Stone
To return to my earlier intervention about the switch-off of the radio signal, on infrastructure, does the Minister agree that the data communication company must be exhorted and encouraged in every possible way to get on with the roll-out? Otherwise, people who are very vulnerable will pay more for their electricity.
Michael Shanks
I had a segue planned in my speech that was going to get me to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he pre-empted me, and he is quite right to do so. He is right. This is a real challenge. The switch-off is the right thing for us to do in the long term—I think that everyone agrees that as a system that is outdated—but we do need to be absolutely certain that no one is left behind.
The Minister responsible for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has already had a number of meetings with Ofgem and with industry to make sure we speed up the roll-out. The service ends in June, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, and the taskforce that has been put in place to roll it out is now moving at pace. I think it is fair to say that it should have been moving faster up to this point, but they are very aware of the issues and we will keep that under review; it is of course essential that people are not left behind when the signal is switched off.
Moving on to short-term support, we recognise that by 2030 the clean power system will be crucial to bringing down bills in the long term, and to protecting consumers from the price spikes that we have faced in recent years. However, short-term support is important for households that are struggling with their bills while we are in that transition. That is why the Government continue to deliver the warm home discount, which gives a £150 rebate off energy bills for all eligible low-income households, and it is expected to support 3 million households across the country this winter.
The Minster for energy consumers has worked with energy suppliers to agree a £500 million industry support commitment to help specific customers who are struggling this winter. We also extended the household support fund until March 2026 with an extra £742 million, with additional funding for the devolved Governments as fuel poverty is devolved through the Barnett formula.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of a social tariff. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made a passionate case for it, and we are looking at what bill support could look like in the future, including the possibility of a social tariff. I acknowledge that there is a broad consensus on the idea of a social tariff. The challenge is that it means different things to different people. One of the challenges that we are grappling with is how we define a social tariff, and how we can reach, in a very targeted way, the people who need it the most.
Part of that is the issue of data sharing, which a number of hon. Members have raised—that is, how we bring together the information that the Government have about the individual people who could most benefit from such a scheme. The Minster for energy consumers is leading that work, alongside industry bodies such as Energy UK and stakeholders. They are looking at how we can improve affordability and accessibility, and they are working with the Department for Work and Pensions on how we might be able to share some of the data that it has.
The question about levies has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and I think the Conservative party is now pledging to abolish levies entirely. It is an incredibly complex subject, but it is something that we want to grapple with, and we need to be very mindful.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath at the beginning of the debate. While the wholesale price will come down as we put more renewables on to the system, and as we squeeze off gas as the marginal price, if bills do not come down because levies remain high, people will not see the benefit. It is really important to bring communities with us. The truth is, it is a complex issue. I am not going to stand here and say that we can just abolish levies, or that we can just transfer them entirely on to taxation. Neither option is possible in completion, but we are considering how we look at the future of levies, and we are open to suggestions from all parties on how we do that.
On the point about rebalancing—how we move electricity costs, in particular, on to gas—that is also a challenge. We want the number of people who use gas to decline in the coming years, as we decarbonise. The challenge will be making sure that we do not put charges on to a dwindling number of customers. Potentially and inadvertently, some of the poorest people in the country might be those who are the last to convert from gas to alternatives. I do not, for a second, dismiss the points that have been raised; they are incredibly important. However, I want to be very clear that we are working relentlessly in this Parliament on how we reduce the wholesale costs, and we want to make sure that it follows through on to consumers’ bills.
Related to that, of course, is the point about standing charges on bills, which, as many hon. Members hear from constituents, seem to be such an unfairness because they are not based on consumption or on particular customers’ circumstances. We are committed to looking at the future of standing charges. In December, Ofgem provided an update on reform. It included quite a radical proposal for introducing a new zero standing charge option under the energy price cap, which would give consumers greater choice in how they pay for their energy bills. It is for Ofgem now to consult on that proposal, which it will do this year. The driving force behind that will be making sure that any reforms are fair to all customers.
To underline that this is not straightforward and we cannot just simply abolish levies, I note that there would be unintended consequences if we were to transfer some of the costs on to other people. We could inadvertently find ourselves raising bills for some people without that being the policy intent. We are committed to reforming standing charges, but we want to do it in a way that is fair.
Mr MacDonald
Would the Minister spare a minute to talk about community benefits?
Michael Shanks
I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to stop at that point. I saw him in his place earlier and knew that I would talk about community benefits. I will turn now to the points about community energy and community benefits; both are important.
On community benefits, in all of this, we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is important. We have made a very clear case that this Government intend to build the energy infrastructure we need, the transmission infrastructure we need, the homes that people need and the industry that people need to grow our economy, which is important. For far too long, this country has not built the infrastructure it needs. In doing so, we want to streamline the planning process so that applications are dealt with far more efficiently and far faster, but we want to bring communities with us. That is absolutely vital.
We will be saying much more very soon about community benefits on several fronts. The first will be how we expand some of the community benefits for particular technologies. That process is already well established in Scotland, for example with onshore wind. The absurd policy of the onshore wind ban in England means that it has not developed as much, but we can look to Wales and to Scotland for advice on that. We also want to expand that to other technologies, particularly solar, which does not have the same community benefits at the moment, and to network infrastructure. I have always said that, if we build network infrastructure and a community is hosting that infrastructure that is essential for the country, it is doing a favour for the rest of the country and should feel some benefit from it. We will announce a package of community benefits shortly.
On the wider point about community infrastructure, we do not only want communities to benefit—we want them to actually own the infrastructure that gives social and economic benefits as well.
Michael Shanks
I will not, because I am going to come to the point made by the hon. Member. He has made the point about a highland pricing formula in the past—he is very reasonable about the issue—and it is something we will look at. The reform to the energy market will be part of that work as well. I am afraid I do not have time to come to much detail on mitigations on radar, apart from saying that we recognise the problem and we are working on it.
As always, this has been an incredibly useful debate. The passion from hon. Members is important, because this is one of the most important challenges facing our communities. We are committed to ensuring that energy is affordable for households across the country. Our clean power mission will help us deliver on that, but we have much more to do and we recognise that fact. We will work with Members from all parties, with industry and consumer groups, with charities and with individual constituents who raise these issues to make sure that we support everyone with this transition, to bring down bills in the long term and to support families with their energy costs.
Drax Power Station: Biomass
Michael Shanks Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
In January 2024, the previous Government launched a consultation on supporting large-scale biomass generators when existing support ends in 2027. Since this Government came to office, we have carefully considered responses to the consultation and assessed the case for a new support mechanism.
Biomass currently plays an important role in our energy system, but we are conscious of concerns about sustainability and the level of subsidy biomass plants have received in the past.
The Department will very shortly publish our response to the consultation. Alongside it, I want to report on our conclusions about the role of Drax power station in Yorkshire in the years 2027 to 2031.
In coming to this view, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator on security of supply, analysed the effect on consumers of support for biomass versus alternatives, looked at issues around subsidy and sustainability in existing arrangements, and considered longer-term issues around decarbonisation.
First, on security of supply, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where there was no long-term planning for our energy system and its resilience. In the system we have inherited, large-scale biomass provides around 5% of our annual electricity generation, serving a specific role as a source of firm power.
To meet our needs between 2027 and 2031, we could seek to replace Drax with new gas-fired power stations, but in the timescale we have, there would be significant risks to relying on this approach. In that context, NESO has advised us that Drax plays an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031.
Secondly, on price, we have undertaken comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and in a much more limited role than today, biomass generation at Drax is the lowest-cost option, including when compared to gas-fired power stations, for bill payers during this period.
Thirdly, we have looked at previous arrangements for subsidy and sustainability. We believe that they simply did not deliver a good enough deal for bill payers and enabled Drax to make unacceptably large profits. At the same time, they demanded levels of sustainability that are not now in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice, including supply chain emissions well above the European standards. We have concluded that if Drax is to continue to play a role in our power system, these arrangements must urgently be improved going forward.
Fourthly, we have looked at issues around decarbonisation. Our finding is that there is a potential role for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or power BECCS, but realistically this will take time to implement and therefore cannot form the primary basis of this decision.
Following this assessment, and given the circumstances we have inherited, the clear evidence is that Drax is important to delivering a secure, value-for-money power system in the period 2027 to 2031. But we have also concluded that we cannot allow Drax to operate in the way it has done before, or with the level of subsidy it received in the past. On this basis, we have secured heads of terms that will form the basis of a very different agreement with Drax for support during the period 2027 to 2031. A summary of this agreement is included at the end of this statement. First, it will ensure that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is really needed.
Drax currently operates as a baseload plant, running around two thirds of the time. This means that it provides power even when other renewable sources are abundant. This must not continue in the same way. Under the new arrangement, Drax will be supported to operate at a maximum load factor of just 27%—operating less than half as often as it currently does. This will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that we have agreed. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
Secondly, the contract will deliver much better value for consumers. It will significantly reduce the amount paid in subsidies compared to the existing support mechanism. This new deal halves the subsidies for Drax —equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, our analysis shows this will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement, compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market.
The deal limits the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem. But while this is our central estimate, we are not prepared to take the risk of prices soaring in response to volatile fossil fuel markets. As a result, the agreement includes a built-in windfall mechanism with rates of 30% and 60% that would claw back excess profits made by Drax. This will guarantee a much fairer deal for consumers than in the past.
Thirdly, we will introduce tough new measures on sustainability. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will also significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the much stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, and we will exclude material sourced from primary forests and old-growth forests from receiving support payments. There will be substantial penalties on Drax if these criteria are not met.
We will go further to ensure greater confidence that these standards will be met. The Government will appoint an independent sustainability adviser to work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to ensure our monitoring and enforcement measures are robust and keep pace with the science.
These measures represent a profound shift from the past on sustainability and on value for money. In this context, this is the right deal for security of supply and price in the period 2027 to 2031, given the circumstances we have inherited from the previous Government.
But nevertheless, we recognise the strength of concerns about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that the next time these decisions are made, Government are not left in the circumstances we have been left in. We will do the work that was not done by the previous Administration on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that we have proper options in 4 years’ time.
To help that process, we are setting up an independent review to consider how respective greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage, can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets and ensuring security of supply, out to 2050. Further details of the review will be shared in due course.
These steps are about fulfilling our duty to ensure security of supply and the best deal for bill payers. We have faced up to the circumstances left by the previous Government and delivered a step change in value for money and sustainability. This Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security and protect billpayers now and into the future.
Overview of heads of terms for a low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference with Drax Power Ltd—related to electricity generation at its Selby plant.
Overview
Government have agreed heads of terms with Drax Power Ltd for a low-carbon dispatchable contract for difference at its 2.6 GW Selby power station. The heads of terms define the commercial terms that will underpin a new contract to be finalised over the coming months.
Following advice from the National Energy System Operator as to the utility of this plant for security of supply purposes, the heads of terms for a four-year CFD was agreed that ensures Drax will provide low-carbon dispatchable electricity when the system, and in turn consumers, most require it.
Heads of terms summary
The key terms are as follows:
Duration—1 April 2027 to 31 March 2031. This arrangement will commence on 1 April, the day after existing support arrangements conclude, and be limited to four years in duration.
Strike price—£113 per MWh (2012 prices).
Generation collar that caps the annual load factor eligible for subsidy at 27%. Together the strike price and the capped load factor are projected to halve the subsidy that Drax will receive during this contract period, compared against Drax’s current arrangements (under the renewables obligation and CFD). This is equivalent to savings of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, Drax is obliged to generate to a minimum annual contract floor of 22%, ensuring the system, and consumers, can rely on its presence.
Excess returns mechanism on profit. This contract has been calibrated to provide Drax with a limited return over the contract period. However, should Drax make higher than anticipated profits in an extreme price scenario, a profit clawback mechanism is in place to protect the consumer.
Enhanced sustainability criteria. The CFD substantially tightens sustainability criteria. It increases the proportion of biomass that must be sustainably sourced from 70% to 100%, reduces the supply chain emission threshold from 55.6 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule to 36.6 grams of CO2 equivalent per megajoule (aligned with international best practice—for example, the EU’s RED III), and, will include provisions to exclude material sourced from primary and old-growth forests from receiving support payments.
Robust contract compliance arrangements. Should Drax not comply with the sustainability criteria, then subsidy payments for electricity generated from whole consignments of biomass generation can be revoked, and there is a termination right for repeated breaches of those requirements.
[HCWS424]
Biomass Generation
Michael Shanks Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about support for biomass electricity generation. My apologies to the House for it having to put up with even more of me.
In January 2024 the previous Government launched a consultation on supporting large-scale biomass generators when existing support ends in 2027. That consultation outlined their proposals to continue to support biomass as a
“valuable...form of dispatchable power”.
Since this Government came to office, we have carefully considered responses to that consultation and assessed the case for a new support mechanism. Biomass currently plays an important role in our energy system, but we are conscious of concerns about sustainability and the level of subsidy that biomass plants have received in the past. With that in mind, I want to report to the House on our conclusions about the role of Drax power station in Yorkshire in the years 2027 to 2031.
In coming to the view I will express today, we have taken advice from the National Energy System Operator on questions of security of supply, analysed the effect on consumers of support for biomass versus the alternatives, looked at issues around subsidy and sustainability in the existing arrangements, and considered longer term issues around decarbonisation.
First, on security of supply, we inherited a situation from the previous Government where there was no long-term planning for our energy system and its resilience. In the system we have inherited, large-scale biomass provides around 5% of our annual electricity generation, serving a specific role as a source of firm power. To meet our needs between 2027 and 2031, we could seek to replace Drax with new gas-fired power stations, but in the timescale we have there would be significant risks to relying on that approach. In that context, NESO has advised us that Drax plays an important role in delivering security of supply between 2027 and 2031.
Secondly, on price, we have undertaken comprehensive analysis of the costs of biomass against alternatives. Our central projections show that, on the right terms and in a much more limited role than today, biomass generation at Drax is the lowest cost option, including when compared with gas-fired power stations, for bill payers during this period.
Thirdly, we have looked at previous arrangements for subsidy and sustainability. This Government’s view is that they simply did not deliver a good enough deal for bill payers and enabled Drax to make unacceptably large profits. At the same time, they demanded levels of sustainability that are not now in line with the latest scientific evidence or global best practice, including supply chain emissions well above the European standard. We have concluded that if Drax is to continue to play a role in our power system, these arrangements must urgently be improved going forward.
Fourthly, we have looked at issues with decarbonisation. Our finding is that there is a potential role for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—or power BECCS—but realistically this will take time to implement and therefore cannot form the primary basis of this decision. On the basis of that assessment, and given the circumstances that we inherited, the clear evidence is that Drax is important for delivering a secure, value-for-money power system in the period 2027-31. But we have also concluded that we cannot allow Drax to operate in the way in which it has before, or with the level of subsidy that it received in the past. On that basis, we have secured heads of terms that will form the basis of a very different agreement with Drax for support during the period 2027 to 2031.
Let me set out the terms of the agreement. First, it will ensure that Drax plays a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is really needed. Drax currently operates as a baseload plant, running around two thirds of the time. That means that it provides power even when other renewable sources are abundant. That must not continue. Under the new arrangement, Drax will be supported to operate only at a maximum load factor of just 27%. In other words, it will operate less than half as often as it does currently. That will be guaranteed by the design of the dispatchable contract for difference that we have agreed. When renewable power is abundant, Drax will not generate, and consumers will benefit from cheaper wind and solar instead.
Secondly, reflecting that change, the contract will deliver much better value for consumers. It will significantly reduce the amount paid in subsidies compared with the previous support mechanism. The new deal halves the subsidies for Drax—equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the deal will save consumers £170 million in subsidy in each year of the agreement compared with the alternative of procuring gas in the capacity market. I can also inform the House that the deal limits the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem, but while that is our central estimate, unlike the last Government we are not prepared to take the risk of prices soaring in response to volatile fossil fuel markets, so the agreement includes a built-in windfall mechanism, with rates of 30% and 60% that would claw back excess profits made by Drax, guaranteeing a much fairer deal for consumers than in the past.
Thirdly, we will introduce tough new measures on sustainability. We will increase the proportion of woody biomass that must come from sustainable sources from 70% to 100%. We will significantly cut the allowable supply chain emissions to a level in line with the much stricter regulations currently operating in the rest of Europe, and we will exclude material sourced from primary forests and old-growth forests from receiving support payments. There will be substantial penalties on Drax if those criteria are not met, and we will go further to ensure greater confidence that the standards will be met. I can inform the House that we will also appoint an independent sustainability adviser to work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to ensure that our monitoring and enforcement measures are robust and keep pace with the science.
To be clear to the House, taken together the measures represent a profound shift from the past on both sustainability and value for money. In that context, this is the right deal for security of supply and price in the period 2027 to 2031, given the circumstances that we inherited from the previous Government. Nevertheless, we recognise the strength of concerns in this House and across the country about the use of unabated biomass. It is not a long-term solution. We are determined that the next time such decisions are made, the Government are not left in the circumstances we have been.
We will do the work that was not done by the previous Administration on strong and credible low-carbon alternatives, so that in four years’ time we will have proper options. To help that process, we are setting up an independent review to consider how options for greenhouse gas removal, including large-scale power BECCS and direct air carbon capture and storage, can assist the UK in meeting our net zero targets and ensure security of supply out to 2050. The review will take representations widely on the issues and report back in due course.
The steps that I have set out are about fulfilling our duty to ensure security of supply and the best deal for bill payers. We have come into office, faced up to the circumstances left by the previous Government, and delivered a step change in value for money and sustainability. The Government will do whatever it takes to deliver energy security, to protect bill payers now and into the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I also apologise, as I am sure that the House is a little fed up hearing the Minister and me this afternoon.
I thank the Minister for advance sight of this statement. In the past few weeks it has been difficult not to feel at least a little sorry for Ministers in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. First, their Secretary of State was forced out of hiding to defend a third runway at Heathrow—something that he once said that we could not do because it would make us look “completely ridiculous”. Cornwall Insight has stated that Ministers will miss their clean power target by a country mile, and I think it was clear during the urgent question that they are getting ready to be overruled by the Prime Minister on approval of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields—something that we on the Opposition Benches would welcome.
Now the Secretary of State has sent the hon. Gentleman to the House this afternoon to defend the farce of chopping down trees in forests in Canada, converting them into pellets, shipping them across the Atlantic on diesel-chugging ships and burning them in a power station in North Yorkshire, all in the name of net zero. The Conservative party is under new management, and that means confronting hard truths, so let us get one thing straight from the outset: Drax’s biomass plant is neither clean, nor cheap.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has said, burning wood from the other side of the Atlantic—releasing more carbon dioxide in the process—and labelling it renewable is a product of a carbon budget system that forces politicians to make perverse decisions. Those decisions result in an extortionate level of subsidy, deliver a bad deal for British taxpayers and bill payers, and make the climate worse. We have started a reset on net zero, and we will not shy away from arguing for a more pragmatic approach that prioritises cheap, stable and reliable energy.
Turning to the details of the statement, naturally we welcome a more limited role for Drax biomass in our power system, but more biomass subsidies are needed only in the short term, because this Government are embarking on a reckless experiment to have a grid based entirely on intermittent renewables at the expense of flexible and reliable baseload power. Drax’s role could be filled with more gas power plants, which are cheaper and cleaner than burning trees shipped in from Canada. Ministers know that burning wood at Drax produces four times the emissions of our last coal power plant, which in turn produces around twice the carbon emissions of gas. We could get that gas from the non-subsidised fields in the North sea, if this Government were not in such an ideological rush to shut down our domestic energy industry.
On cost, the new agreement that the Minister has signed us up to comes with a genuinely eyewatering strike price of £160 per MWh in today’s money. That is higher than Drax’s existing agreement of £138 per MWh. In fact, Baringa’s analysis that Drax put out this morning shows that bill payers will still be paying over £450 million a year in subsidies to burn trees. If the analysis behind the Minister’s promise to cut bills by £300 is anything to go by, we should not rely on him too much. Has his Department carried out its own independent analysis, separate from that published by Drax this morning, to determine what the increased strike price will cost the British people and how that compares to supporting extra gas power in the capacity market?
We welcome the strengthened sustainability criteria, as investigations by Ofgem and the BBC’s “Panorama” have revealed serious questions to be answered by Drax about the import of wood from untouched primary forests in British Columbia. But as the BBC journalist Joe Crowley, who reported on these issues for “Panorama”, stated this morning, more clarity is needed on whether wood from primary forests will be classed as unsustainable under this new regime. Will the Minister confirm that Drax will not be allowed to burn wood from primary forests during any of its generation—not just that which is subsidised? What work is being done to ensure that the new sustainability criteria are actually enforceable?
On sustainability reporting, will the Minister confirm that the Department has received the KPMG report that the Prime Minister said he would look at? Will a copy be placed in the Library? The Minister’s statement has left the door wide open for the introduction of power BECCS after the transition arrangements end in 2031. That proposal to fit first-of-a-kind technology solely for the purpose of meeting our carbon budgets would cost the bill payer up to £40 billion—£1.7 billion a year. That is unacceptable. Will the Minister confirm whether his Department has produced any analysis of what a system without BECCS would cost? Will he rule out keeping this racket going indefinitely, with people’s energy bills rising to pay for BECCS?
Will the Government set a date for the burning of the last tree in a British biomass power station? This Government have been promising us clean, cheap, home-grown energy, but burning trees at Drax is not clean or cheap, and the trees are certainly not home-grown. If the widespread burning of forests is part of the solution to climate change, we have to ask ourselves if that is the problem we are trying to solve.
Michael Shanks
“Under new management,” indeed! The tough thing about being the acting shadow Secretary of State is that it is not, of course, his script that the hon. Gentleman is reading out.
This Government are fixing the mistakes left by the previous Government. I gently point out that eight previous Conservative Energy Ministers stood at this Dispatch Box and—deal after deal after deal—announced a worse deal than this for bill payers, energy security and sustainability. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that today. In fact, only a year ago—such is my love of his contributions in this House that I have read up on Hansard—he was saying that he had “absolute confidence” in the deal the previous Government made with Drax.
Let me outline why this deal is so different from those his party made in the past. The hon. Gentleman first asked about subsidy and mentioned a figure, which is what it will cost to deliver the necessary dispatchable power. He missed the fact that it is, of course, half of what was paid under the previous Government—nearly £1 billion a year—to Drax. We have halved that amount to lower bills for consumers.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about sustainability. We agree on the importance of tightening up the sustainability, which is why we have moved from 70% to 100%. I would gently say, again, that he was quite happy to support public money going into unsustainable biomass year after year when he was in the Energy Department. We have said that we will not pay a penny of subsidy to Drax if there is unsustainable biomass in the mix.
Thirdly, what the previous Government did not do, of course, was any sort of deal to control the runaway excess profits—record profits—that Drax was able to obtain as part of its deal. We have put in place a mechanism to claw back that excess profit so that the people of this country do not pay over the odds for their energy.
Fourthly, I will address the important point about energy security. Year after year, the Conservatives exposed us to the lack of a plan for what the energy system would look like in the late 2020s and into the 2030s. This Government have had to take tough decisions quickly to secure that supply for the future, and that is what we have done. We have decided that running Drax when it was not necessary—when there were clean, cheaper alternatives in the system—will no longer happen. To the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on Drax running less, I say that limited generation times mean that it will run only when we need it for capacity to meet demand in the system. The alternative—he asked for the figure, which I set out in the statement—would be £170 million more every single year.
Finally, on the future of BECCS, we are open-minded at this point on the role it will play. However, I agree that it is important that we come to a decision on that soon. The review we have outlined is about bringing together all the various bits of science that we know are there in different reports and trying to work out a credible pathway for whether power BECCS will play a role in the system. We will make that decision as soon as possible.
I will finish by saying that this is an extremely different deal. It will deliver benefit for the hard-working people of this country, ensure that sustainability is at its heart and protect our energy security in the years ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his marathon stint and on the pragmatic and well-crafted analysis of how the Government’s energy policies will address the security of supply and provide the best deal for bill payers. This is in stark contrast to what the Conservatives did, and in particular to what my hon. Friend described as the terrible deal with Drax that they presided over while in office.
Today’s statement is a timely reminder of the challenges with Drax, not least given the news over the weekend of further misreporting of the burning of primary forest. NESO, in its future energy pathway, predicted a reduction in the use of biomass as part of the UK becoming more energy independent. Does the Minister, with his announcement, foresee that the cuts in subsidies and in the reliance on Drax will contribute to the Government’s clean power plan, to energy security and to reducing bills for all our constituents?
Michael Shanks
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right about where Drax, and biomass generally, fits in our wider energy system. What we want to build at pace is a clean power system that takes us off the volatile fossil fuel markets. That is important, but there are short-term issues around ensuring we have the dispatchable power we need when we need it.
The Government have taken long-term decisions, for example in the first funding scheme for long-duration energy storage in 40 years. We hope to see modern new technologies of long-duration energy storage but also some classics from the history books, with pumped storage hydro playing a critical role in the system and delivering the dispatchable clean power we need. But there is a short-term question we need to answer that the previous Government did not have an answer for: how we get to 2031. We can build new gas units. Our analysis and the advice from NESO was that that was more likely to deliver energy security and in the end be cheaper for bill payers, who ultimately pay the bill. Our long-term ambition is to build towards that clean power system. This is an important step to get us the energy security that we need in the system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Her tone means that I will resist the urge to say that, although I made fun of the shadow Minister for the eight announcements, it was of course the current Liberal Democrat leader who agreed the first support deal for Drax. But we will move past that on to her important questions about security of supply.
The place we want to get to by the end of this period is one where we are not forced into making a decision like this again. It is really important to say that. We have a strong deal that protects bill payers, improves sustainability and delivers energy security, but we want to have options. The truth, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, is that we came into government without those options because of the decisions made by the Conservative party. That is a really important point.
As for the point about excess profits, there was previously no mechanism to claw them back. We made that a key part of the negotiation and we managed to get it into the deal. Even if our estimates are wrong—and the estimates, of course, mean that the profit will be below the level expected of the regulated companies by Ofgem—we can claw back the additional profit from Drax. That is important to the system.
Both the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister raised the question of KPMG’s reports. I know that my Department has seen them and engaged with them, and I know that Ofgem is still engaged in the audit process. I will take those questions away and see what can be done about sharing those reports.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We have a new line from the official Opposition. We are told that they are a firm under new management, but this sounds to me like the same circus, just with different clowns.
The Minister is right to say that the new deal that the Government are putting in place is a far better deal for taxpayers, because the previous deal was an absolute disgrace for taxpayers, but can he tell us a little more about the projections that he has seen? Do they confirm that this deal is the best for taxpayers, even in comparison with gas? How can he be certain of that? We heard a different suggestion from the shadow Minister.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think we should consider two aspects of the analysis of the importance of Drax to the system. First, in comparison with the counterfactual of building new gas-fired power stations, our analysis is that the deal we have agreed, which involves the use of gas on the system for 27% of the time, costs £170 million less. Secondly, on energy security, the assessment is that even if we wanted to go down that route, there would be risks about whether we could build that capacity in the time that we have.
This is all about the decisions taken by the last Government, who did not look far enough ahead and did not have that capacity on the system. Even if we did want to proceed with new gas stations, there would be questions about whether we could build them in time. This deal is about protecting bill payers, halving the subsidy from £1 billion and ensuring that there is dispatchable power when we need it as we build the clean power system.
As we move towards the 2030s, what comes next is long-term planning for a clean power mix, but also about the long-duration and short-duration storage mixes that will help us to make decisions that are different from the one we were forced to make this time.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I suppose we shall be told that half a loaf is better than none, but this strikes me as a half-baked half-loaf, to say the least.
The Minister has spent an hour this afternoon lecturing the House about why it was better to import oil and gas from overseas than to extend the production of at least some home-grown material. The bottom line is that, clearly, the Minister has not read the KPMG report, the Prime Minister has not read the KPMG report, and we are still going to pay billions of pounds in subsidy to import pellets created in Canada and then shipped across the Atlantic at God knows what carbon cost. Where, please, is the sense in that?
Michael Shanks
First, let me say that I have spent the last hour answering questions from Members on both sides of the House. I have not lectured anyone. I have, however, stated the facts—for instance, that if oil and gas are extracted from the North sea, they are sold on the open market for whatever price the international markets have at any given moment. That delivers neither energy security nor confidence to bill payers. While Opposition Members may want us to go back to the fossil fuel casino and hope we can play a better hand this time round, I think we should be building a secure power system that delivers both energy security and confidence that we will not be exposed to the price spikes we have been exposed to in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take that as a lecture, he can take it as such.
On the role that Drax will play, of course we looked at all the assessments around Drax to date. Frankly, we have put in such a robust process on sustainability, and independent assessments of some of that, because of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raises: we know that there have been questions in the past, and we want to make sure that there are tough penalties if Drax does not comply. Raising sustainability from the level under the previous Government—70%—to 100% means that we will not pay a penny of subsidy if Drax fails the sustainability tests that we have set out for it. That protects consumers right across this country and delivers the dispatchable power that we need.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have met women from the southern United States and British Columbia who live next door to primary forests that have been cut down by Drax so that wood pellets can be burned in Yorkshire. As we know from the BBC’s “Panorama” and Ofgem, Drax has utilised primary and old-growth forests. Drax cannot be trusted to ensure that the sustainability requirements that the Minister has put forward will be met. What powers and audit trail will the new independent sustainability adviser utilise to ensure that Drax is burning 100% sustainable wood and not ruining the lives of people in North America by using primary forests?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The sustainability criteria are important, but he is right that making sure they are met is important too. This is a contract for difference agreement and we will work with Ofgem to work out exactly what its role is as the regulator, but to go above what has been in place before, we have announced that an independent adviser will work with my Department, the Low Carbon Contracts Company and Ofgem to make sure that the latest science and the latest awareness on different elements of biomass are key in our decision making, and that there is a real audit trail in place. The other really important thing is that there is now no room whatsoever for Drax not to comply with the sustainability criteria. Its compliance must be 100%, and there will not be a penny of subsidy for anything that is not sustainable. That is important, and the audit trail will be part of that work.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Will the Minister agree to publish the full, comprehensive analysis of the cost of providing support to Drax versus the alternatives?
Michael Shanks
Transparency is important, so I am very happy to publish what we can. Elements of that analysis, such as details of how Drax runs its power station, will be commercially sensitive, so I will have to look at exactly what can be published. I know that NESO has today published a summary of its advice, to give clarity on its view on the security of supply questions. I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s point away and write to him.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Drax has exploited UK taxpayers for far too long. It has lied about meeting sustainability rules, burned 1 million tonnes of wood from primary forests, gagged whistleblowers with non-disclosure agreements, and pretended that it could sequester carbon from replanted forests in time to meet our 2050 targets. Today, the Government have brought that a stop. They have debunked Drax’s lies, cut its subsidy, and set a clear and sensible exit strategy that will maintain security of supply. After 15 years of campaigning, I welcome this breakthrough for honesty and common sense.
Will the Minister now look at the role of Ofgem in all of this? Just this weekend, when it was informed of the other break in proper reporting of sustainability, it replied, “That is the same issue as we’ve dealt with before.” What would he say if a policeman said that about a serial murderer?
Michael Shanks
On the start of my hon. Friend’s question, I agree. This Government were deeply concerned about sustainability practices at Drax and, frankly, about the level of subsidy that was part of the deal negotiated by the previous Government. We inherited a dire situation in terms of long-term planning for our energy security. What we have sought to do with this deal is answer all those questions—on sustainability, on security of supply, on excess profits and on the role of Drax in the system for dispatchable power, which is important.
On the role of Ofgem, I know that the audit of some of Drax’s practices is still under way. I am rightly not privy to the details of that, because it is Ofgem’s review, but we have a wider review of the role and remit of Ofgem under way at the moment, and I think that would be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to feed in his thoughts on the future of Ofgem.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Biomass burning has always been a sticking plaster, and it has allowed successive Governments to claim green progress while continuing to emit immense amounts of CO2. The public were promised £20 billion a year of green investment, but instead we are getting less than 6% of what is needed. When will the UK Government commit to significant direct investment in long-term energy storage such as pumped hydro storage and green hydrogen production, so that the UK can move past burning forests for its energy?
Michael Shanks
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I reiterate that we wish we were not in the position we were in when we came into government, whereby this was the only option that would deliver security of supply out to the early 2030s. We have sought to get the best possible deal for sustainability and for bill payers, but I agree that we need to be building what comes next.
Last year we announced that, for the first time in 40 years, the Government would be funding long-duration energy storage, and I have held a number of meetings with developers on pumped hydro and also on new, modern forms of long-duration energy storage. There are some really interesting, innovative ideas out there. Ofgem is currently putting in place the technical specifications for the cap and floor scheme, and we want to get that rolling as soon as possible. From all my meetings with developers in Scotland, I know that there is huge potential around pumped hydro in particular. They are waiting for certainty from the Government in order to move forward, and we are determined to give them that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Reports show that Drax has behaved appallingly, and under the last Government it seemingly had pretty free rein. I welcome the fact that this settlement includes a drastic reduction in subsidy, an upping of sustainability in supply chains to 100%, and a windfall tax principle that will deliver value for the British bill payer. I also welcome the further consultations the Minister has outlined, but this raises the question: why were the last Government unable to get anywhere near to this deal?
Michael Shanks
I am tempted to say that we will have to ask the Conservatives that question, but they are under new management, so they do not know why the previous Government that they were all Ministers in made the decisions that they did. The truth is that for far too long—under, I think, eight different Conservative Energy Ministers—they signed off deal after deal with Drax with uncapped profits and nowhere near the sustainability criteria that they should have had, letting Drax do whatever it wanted with that power station. We have put a stop to that. Let us be really clear: we have halved the subsidy, taking £6 off every single bill in this country every single year, we have increased sustainability to 100%, and we are delivering the energy security this country needs, but we should not have been in the position on coming into office where there were nowhere near enough long-term plans for the future of our energy system.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I think I detected one item of agreement between the Minister and his shadow, which was that there needs to be a long-term solution and this is not a short-term fix. Surprisingly, there seems to be little support from the Government Benches for Drax, which plays a major part in the regional economy. In my own constituency, Associated British Ports invested £150 million in the facility to import the biomass, and a significant number of my constituents will be involved in the supply chain. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will bear in mind the impact on the local economy as we move forward to a longer-term solution?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I would gently point out that the shadow Minister and I agree on a lot more than he likes to pretend—or I like to pretend, perhaps. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are aware of the importance of the jobs at this particular power station and in the supply chain, and we will be working with Drax on what that looks like. We are of course changing the role that Drax will use the power station in Selby for, and I will ensure that I have those conversations about the supply chain. I would be happy to speak to him more about that in due course.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Minister should be commended for ending the terrible deal negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, which led to higher bills, excess profits and poor sustainability standards, but it is worth saying again that there seems to be no end to the Conservatives’ rank hypocrisy on energy policy. In government, the then Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), signed off planning consent for the Drax carbon capture project, saying that
“the public benefits…outweigh the harm.”
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), has now come to the Dispatch Box to decry the costs, while the right hon. Member for East Surrey also opposes Drax. Has the Minister considered capturing the burning hypocrisy of Conservative Members, because it seems to be a truly inexhaustible resource?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes the point for me. He forgets, of course, that the Conservatives are under new management, so it is all fine—we just forget everything that happened in the last 14 years and move on. Of course, we have had to pick up the pieces from the last 14 years, and while the Conservatives will not take responsibility for those decisions, we have grasped the challenges and are moving forward as quickly as possible.
The truth is that not only did we inherit an energy system without the long-term planning it should have, but Drax did not have a deal that was good for the climate, good for energy security or good for the hard-working people of this country, who paid year after year for the subsidies that the previous Government negotiated. We have halved the subsidy every year, putting money back into people’s pockets and, of course, making sure that any excess profits come back to the Exchequer.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The net zero madness coming from this place is truly staggering. Bearing in mind that this power station used to burn coal from a coalmine less than 20 miles away, we are now transporting wood from 3,000 miles away. We are paying over £10 billion in subsidies for this power station, and it is producing four times more CO2 than a coal-fired power station. Can the Minister explain how this is contributing to net zero?
Michael Shanks
I was not aware that it is the Reform party’s policy to reopen the coalmines—
Michael Shanks
That is good to know.
I am proud that, as a country, we have moved past coal-fired power generation, which is incredibly destructive for our environment. We closed the last coal power station, at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, last year. Its workforce proudly recognised the role they played in powering the country for many years, while also recognising that the drive to net zero is important. While we are building a clean power system that delivers energy security for the future, the Reform party would take us back to the stone age.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the strict new sustainability rules imposed on Drax, which will mean that we do not pay a penny for unsustainably sourced biomass. Can he give the House a bit more detail on the role of the independent adviser? Their work to hold Drax to account will be critical to ensuring that this deal progresses.
Michael Shanks
The point of having an independent adviser is that, while the role of the Low Carbon Contracts Company as the counterparty to the contract for difference we have agreed and the role of Ofgem as a regulator are incredibly important, we think there is also a role for someone independent to make sure they are analysing the particular questions about biomass and sustainability, while also having an eye on the science as it moves forward.
Part of the challenge is that, over the years, the sustainability information we have, and the types of forestry and where the biomass comes from, have changed. The adviser will play an important role in advising my Department, Ofgem and the Low Carbon Contracts Company on this deal in the years ahead. It is important to say that we want to make sure we also have an independent review of what the future looks like, so that in five years’ time we are not looking at the same decision as we are now.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on energy security. Can he give us some idea of the timetable for when the first small modular nuclear reactors—preferably ones built by Rolls-Royce, which has expertise in this area thanks to its excellent work for the Royal Navy—will be commissioned?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman will not draw me into the ongoing competition on small modular reactors, but he has made the case for his preferred company.
Last week, the Prime Minister announced that we have a new commitment to reviewing the 2011 planning statement so that we can have much more new nuclear across the UK. That is particularly important because previously there were only eight designated sites. Small modular reactors, of course, open up possibilities right across the country, and we want to see much more of that. We are moving as fast as possible to make sure these reactors are under way, and I hope that we can move at such a speed that the Scottish Government will change their objection to having small modular reactors in Scotland.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The news of a windfall tax on Drax was welcomed by people across my constituency. Will the Minister assure me that this will be the end of grotesque profits going to Drax at the expense of the taxpayer?
Michael Shanks
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have significantly reduced the ability of Drax to make profits, but we have also ensured that if there are excess profits, they are clawed back on behalf of the British people. The additional rates of 30% and 60% in the mechanism that we have designed will ensure that any unexpected profits are clawed back. That was not the case under the eight previous Energy Ministers in the previous Government who signed off deals on Drax year after year. This is a new way of operating that protects our energy security, as well as protecting the hard-working people of this country.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Drax is a clean energy scam that has been handed £6 billion by successive Conservative Ministers since 2012, when that money should have been spent on getting energy bills down. The Minister rightly cites past excess profits and I believe he said specifically that the new contract will allow Government to claw them back. Will the contract allow clawback of previous excess profits and remedy the past misspending of public money? Or will the clawback apply only as we go forward into the future, in which case that is still throwing good money after bad, just slightly less of it?
Michael Shanks
We do not have a mechanism to claw back past profits from any company—that is not something that Governments are able to do. What we can do is move forward with a fair system that reduces the subsidy considerably, and has excess profit mechanisms and a windfall tax in place to ensure that if the company generates additional profits, we can claw that back for the British public, which is important. The level that we have agreed in the deal brings the subsidy down to a considerably lower level—half what it was under the previous Government.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I welcome the revision of Drax’s role in our energy system, reducing biomass and ensuring that where it is used it displaces gas, not excess wind and solar. However, we also need to find new low-carbon forms of dispatchable power, backed up by long-term energy storage at scale. Hydrogen is a strong candidate for that. By moving fast, the UK can reduce costs and regain our early-mover advantage. Will the Minister work with industry at pace to ensure the opportunities around hydrogen are known, explored and exploited?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that one of the really important outcomes of the new deal is that instead of cheaper wind and solar power being displaced by Drax when it operated with baseload capacity, Drax will only operate when we need it on the system. That means that the cheaper, cleaner power sources that we are building in abundance, of which we want to see much more in the years ahead, can generate and deliver cheaper power for the people of this country. On my hon. Friend’s wider point, it is important that we explore the role that hydrogen can play in the system. We are looking at a number of different technologies at the moment. Just last week, I met some investors looking at the future of the gas system to take forward some of those questions, and I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend in the future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said that he is looking for
“strong and credible low carbon alternatives”
to burning biomass in order to generate electricity. Will he ensure that those alternatives do not include so-called energy from waste plants, since burning waste is as dirty as coal? And will he follow Scotland and Wales in placing a moratorium on the construction of new waste incinerators?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we want “credible low carbon alternatives”. I will look at the specific points he mentions, but we do not see such generators as key to the review we want to undertake. We want to look at carbon capture and other technologies and, crucially, how we store some of the renewable energy that we are generating in abundance that we cannot use at times of peak demand, including long-duration energy storage and, increasingly, short-duration energy storage batteries that are powering more than they have done in the past. I will look at the specific points the right hon. Gentleman raises.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The last Government’s deal with Drax was not just shocking value for taxpayers, leaving us all on the hook for subsidising sky-high profits during a cost of living crisis, but bad news for the environment, with real concerns about the sustainability of Drax’s supply chain. As the Government rightly take a measured approach to ensuring that we protect not just bill payers but workers as we seize the benefits of the green transition, what assurances can the Minister give my constituents that this will be a far better deal for our country?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right that this is a good deal, in the short term, to ensure security of supply into the early-2030s, which was key to NESO’s advice on the basis of security of supply. In the process, however, we have sought to halve the subsidy that Drax was given by the previous Government and deliver on the sustainability criteria, taking that from 70% to 100%. This is a good deal for the people of this country.
My hon. Friend also touched on the important work we need to do in the broader energy space to deliver energy security. That is why clean power 2030—our sprint to deliver decarbonised power—is so important, delivering good jobs in supply chains across the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This statement should be a warning to all those across the House who are cheerleaders for renewable energy. Let us not forget that, in 2010, Drax power station was the poster boy for green energy policy. Of course, it turned out that instead of green energy, it has produced more CO2. We have chopped down natural habitat 3,000 miles away to bring it and burn it in a power station in England, and consumers pay the grand total of £1,000 million a year for the pleasure of doing so.
The Government have not learnt from that lesson. Only this year, we have had a similar mistake made with wind energy, where the Government have given a subsidy six times what the price of gas would be. Will we find a Minister in 15 years’ time standing again at the Dispatch Box to apologise for a waste of public money, high electricity prices and environmental disaster?
Michael Shanks
After an urgent question and a statement, I hope that I will not still be standing here in 15 years’ time, and I suspect the House will support that. Let me be really clear. I do not remember Drax being the poster child for the clean energy transition. I have outlined clearly why this decision is important in terms of energy security, but we wish that we as a Government had had more options. Unfortunately, those options were not there, so we have made the best of a difficult situation to get an incredibly good deal that delivers value for money, improves sustainability and delivers on energy security. In the 2030s, I want to see our clean power system delivering cheaper bills and industrial manufacturing jobs across the country. I hope that, in 15 years, the right hon. Member and I will have a conversation about how that is delivering for our constituents.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State talked about being under new management, and I suspect that he will be saying the same thing in a few months after the inevitable bloody coup. I commend the statement, which will do some really important things, including: capping Drax’s output; a windfall tax on Drax; millions saved by halving subsidies paid for by my constituents; and the forcing up of sustainability. It is a pragmatic solution to a disastrous inheritance. Does the Minister agree that this will be a better deal for taxpayers and consumers for our energy security and our environment?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend summarises the importance of the deal clearly. We have limited the expected rate of return for Drax to a level below that of monopolies regulated by Ofgem. We have halved the subsidies provided to Drax that were in every single deal from the Conservative party, year after year, saving £170 million each year of the agreement. We have introduced a windfall tax with 30% and 60% rates to be clawed back should Drax have excess profits. We are delivering on energy security and on tougher sustainability requirements, but at the heart of the deal is better value for money for the hard-working people of this country.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Drax has been a greenwashing con that has ripped off the British public for far too long, so I welcome the statement. The Minister and the Energy Secretary have done more than eight previous Tory Energy Ministers, and indeed one Lib Dem Secretary of State. I welcome the move to slash the subsidy for Drax and to enforce 100% sustainability targets on its supply chains. But when the Minister talks about a windfall mechanism, may I gently urge him to call a spade a spade? This is a windfall tax on Drax and we should be proud of saying so.
Michael Shanks
At the risk of getting into trouble with those responsible for tax matters, I simply say that this is a windfall mechanism that does exactly the same thing, and it does exactly what the Conservatives failed to do in 14 years, which is to ensure that there is a good deal and good value for money for the British public, delivering on energy security and, crucially, getting us to a point where our clean power plan for 2030 delivers energy security, climate leadership and jobs right across the country. It is the ambition of doing something different in this country and doing it fast, and we are committed to delivering it.
Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields
Michael Shanks Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the ruling on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields as unlawful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The Government’s priority is to deliver a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North sea that recognises the role that oil and gas will play in the coming decades. This transition will be in line with our climate and legal obligations. It will drive us towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long-term jobs.
On 29 January, the Court of Session published its judgment on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North sea. The judgment set out that the previous consents granted to Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful, as they failed to take into account the emissions from burning the fuel produced. As a result, if developers wish to proceed with these projects, they will need to reapply for consent, this time considering scope 3 emissions, as required by the Supreme Court judgment last year.
Although the judgment itself is a matter for the courts, the Government have taken rapid action. In early January, we consulted on revised environmental guidance to take into account emissions from burning extracted oil and gas, to provide stability for industry. The consultation closed on 8 July, and we are working towards publishing the finalised guidance as soon as possible. Once the guidance is in place, the Government will resume making decisions with regard to the environmental impact assessments for offshore oil and gas developments. The Court confirmed that it is in the interests of good administration for the consultation and guidance to be completed properly. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of individual projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw in Parliament or anywhere else, because doing so would prejudice future regulatory decision making should the respective developers decide to resubmit these projects for approval.
More widely, this Government are determined to deliver the long-term jobs and investment and the clean energy future that this country needs to ensure that people working in the North sea, and those involved in the oil and gas industry across this country, have the long-term future they need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just for clarification, you do not have jurisdiction on the planning issue, and it is no longer in the court, so I am a little bit confused by your assertion that you will be involved going forward.
Michael Shanks
I am happy to provide clarification based on the advice that I have, which is that this is a matter for the applicants in the court case, who are entitled to appeal the judgment, should they wish to do so. If they wish to make a further application in this matter, my Department will be responsible for making that judgment, and I seek not to prejudice an application by giving an opinion one way or the other on these matters. I hope that that sits well with you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Well, kind of, but obviously Members will want to ask you about this issue today, so I do not want to try to close it down too early.
Andrew Bowie
In August, this Government withdrew lawyers from the case defending the legal challenge to the issuing of licences for Rosebank and Jackdaw in the North sea. Given this Government’s decision to revoke any defence, the Court’s quashing of approval was all but inevitable. It is deeply disappointing and yet unsurprising that this Government, driven by their zealotry, are happy to put billions of pounds of investment, and thousands of jobs, at risk just because something does not align with Just Stop Oil’s vision of the future. It demonstrates that this Government are not willing to stand up for businesses or workers.
The Labour party seems to misunderstand this simple point: if we shut down our oil and gas industry, we will not use any less oil and gas—even the Climate Change Committee knows that. The Department seems to ignore the fact that we will simply rely on more imports instead. If those imports are liquified natural gas, they will come with four times the production emissions, and if we import from Norway, we will be shipping in gas from underneath the very same North sea. Sacrificing our domestic industry, only to rely on foreign imports and compound global carbon emissions, is utter madness for our economy and for the climate. It makes a mockery of our prospects for growth, and it will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost revenue. To put that figure into perspective, it is equivalent to eight and a half years’ worth of winter fuel payments.
Last week the developer of Rosebank, Equinor, announced that it is slashing its offshore wind investment. Does the Minister appreciate that the self-harm inflicted on the North sea is damaging investment in other offshore renewables industries, too? That could be wrecking our path forward.
The Government are utterly confused. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State are completely out of touch with the public, obviously, but apparently also with each other. It is no surprise that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice growth and investment in energy security for his ideological obsession, so may I ask the Minister for clarity? This is a very important point. Will the Department treat the applications, if they are resubmitted, as existing applications or new applications, given that it has a ban on all new licences moving forward? Will the Government back growth and back British workers when the decision reaches his Department, and who does he think will win this argument outright: the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for his response, although I am not sure it is entirely constructive in this conversation. He knows as well as anyone that the process is live, and the companies involved in these two projects have the right to apply in future. It would be wrong for me to prejudice those applications, in the House of Commons or anywhere else, by stating an opinion—
Michael Shanks
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s question in a moment, but what he failed to mention was how we got to this position. The Court of Session clearly outlined in its judgment that the previous Secretary of State had made a decision that was unlawful, so once again this Labour Government are having to clear up a mess created by the previous Conservative Government. Unlike them, we will follow due process. As I outlined, we consulted on what the future of the consenting process would look like in light of the Supreme Court judgment. That is something he would have had to do if he were still in this job, because we had to respond to the Supreme Court judgment. If he is telling us now that, in government, he would have ignored the judgment of the Supreme Court, that is an interesting perspective to take.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, we were clear during the election that our position is: no new licences to explore new fields. The two projects are in existing licensed fields. The question for the courts to decide was the consent for those individual new projects, and that is the process that we will now take forward if those companies should wish to resubmit their applications. The broader question about the future of the North sea will be about not one or two individual projects but the reality that it is a declining basin and that the long-term future does not rest in oil and gas, as important as they will continue to be for many years to come.
What we have sought to do as a Government is to kick-start what the economic future will look like beyond oil and gas, recognising that the North sea is a declining basin, recognising the importance of new technologies such as carbon capture and hydrogen and investing in measures such as the clean industry bonus that will deliver jobs in Aberdeen. There is only one party that is serious about working out what the transition looks like and what comes next to safeguard jobs in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across the north-east, and it is not the Conservative party.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the Government’s commitment to supporting production in existing North sea oil and gas fields and for confirming the desire to partner closely with industry and workers on the transition away from fossil fuels. Does he agree that the workers and communities that rely on the North sea would be in a much stronger position if we had not witnessed over the last decade a chaotic mismanagement of the decline in the basin that he has just referred to, and the failure to plan for the loss of 70,000 jobs in that decade alone?
Michael Shanks
The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point, which is that the failure to acknowledge that the transition is already under way is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that everything will carry on as it was. The reality is that in the past decade a third of the oil and gas workforce—70,000 workers, as my hon. Friend says—have already lost their jobs and the transition is under way. We are determined to ensure not only that the transition leads to a future in the North sea energy sector that, yes, involves oil and gas for many years to come, but that we build the industries of the future now so that there is no gap. The alternative is to do what the previous Government did, which was to pretend that the transition was not under way and then somehow deal with the shock that would come when North sea oil and gas inevitably declined to the point where workers’ jobs were not protected. We are determined to build what comes next and to protect good, well-paid jobs in the North sea for many decades to come.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The decisions that we make in the next decade on energy will make or break the planet, and this is also key for the Jackdaw and Rosebank oilfields. Should the proposed developers apply for a new development consent, the ruling gives the Government the opportunity to take a rational, science-based approach and make a decision on the future of the field based on what is best for the planet, the people of Britain and the UK’s international leadership.
Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), approving these oilfields this will not protect UK workers. Despite promises of jobs, not a single UK design or construction role has been created. Instead, that work has been outsourced to Dubai. Business leaders agree that a fair transition away from oil and gas will boost our economy, create jobs and attract investment. The Liberal Democrats oppose the oilfields at Jackdaw and Rosebank. Instead of pouring money into an energy source that is not consistent with our climate commitments, we should be calling on the Government to invest in renewables and an ambitious green energy strategy that lowers costs, creates jobs and secures our future. What assessment will the Minister make of our climate commitments?
Michael Shanks
For the reason I outlined in previous answers, I will not comment specifically on these two projects. In answer to the hon. Lady’s broader point, any future applications for the North sea have to recognise the Supreme Court’s ruling that the end-use emissions, the scope 3 emissions, must be taken into account in any application.
We are now working through the significant number of responses to our consultation at the start of this year, on how people who wish to apply for consent to extract hydrocarbons from the continental shelf can comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment. An environmental assessment will be absolutely necessary. That is not a decision we have made from a political point of view; it was required by the Supreme Court.
We will follow the law of this land, as I would expect any Government to do, although apparently not a Conservative Government. We will put in place a robust system to ensure that any applications that come before us are judged fairly on their merits.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, constrained as it is by the legal situation. What a cheek the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has. He comes to the House pretending to be a hero and protector of the oil industry, when 70,000 jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out, were lost on his Government’s watch.
On the point at issue, there must be balance in the necessary transition from carbon to renewables. It is not an either/or. We have been in the North sea for two generations, and we will be there for two generations more as we wind down the basin. Politics is often about symbols, and the renewed consents for Rosebank and Jackdaw, if they come, offer an opportunity to reassure workers in this industry that they will not be left behind when we plan for a fair and just transition from the old to the new.
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. This industry has many thousands of extremely talented, skilled and experienced workers, whom I have had the great privilege of meeting over the past seven months in this role. We have to ensure that we build a resilient industry for many decades to come.
Some of that will be the oil and gas that is already licensed and consented, and any other projects that come through the process, but it will also be about building the industry that comes next. It would be irresponsible of any Government to focus on one at the exclusion of the other.
The reality is that the North sea is a super-mature basin. A transition is already under way, and it is incumbent on us—and on any responsible Government—to build the industry that comes next while continuing to support the oil and gas industry that we have today.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a double standard in the Government backing Heathrow expansion to drive economic growth, but not providing the maximum possible support for our domestic oil and gas industry?
Michael Shanks
The Chancellor was very clear in her speech that there is no conflict between our net zero commitments and the industrialisation that we want to see. Economic growth projects such as the runway at Heathrow will be important but, as the Chancellor said, they will have to be in line with our climate obligations.
Importantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said, this is not an either/or. Oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our economy for many years to come, but we have to plan for what comes next and take cognisance of our legal and climate obligations.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I urge the Minister and Labour colleagues to take no lessons from the Conservative party on a fair and just transition away from fossil fuels, because our coalfield communities in this country were destroyed by Tory Governments over decades. In contrast, we need to look at the growth we are now providing by lifting the onshore wind ban, investing in carbon capture and storage, and establishing GB Energy.
Michael Shanks
I will find the question, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend is right that historical transitions in key industries have left workers high and dry, instead of recognising that a transition is under way and supporting that workforce into what comes next. The coal industry devastated large parts of my constituency in Lanarkshire, and areas across England and Wales, which continues to have consequences for generations. We are determined that that will not happen with the North sea, but it requires us to plan the transition and to put it in place now, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything is fine.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
What will workers in Scotland be thinking right now, as they watch the UK Government, and a Scottish Minister, going out of their way to accelerate the decline in North sea oil and gas jobs, in advance of replacement jobs coming onstream, as they can see at Grangemouth? Does the Minister not understand that the reduction in attrition to North sea oil and gas production must be commensurate with a reduction in demand and an increase in renewables jobs? He has got that mix all over the place.
Michael Shanks
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is one of the Scottish National party cohort seeking to move to our other Parliament, but the SNP’s position in Holyrood is the same as ours, which is that we must be cognisant of climate change obligations with regard to any new licences. Perhaps he has a different position from his colleagues in Holyrood—I am not sure—but the SNP recognises, rightly, as we do, that the future requires investment in oil and gas for many years to come, to which we are committed, and that investment must match our climate obligations. The transition that is now under way must have Government at its heart, supporting the jobs and industries that come in the future. If the hon. Gentleman supported some of the investment that we propose, such as at Great British Energy in Aberdeen, instead of deriding it at every single turn—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I have again united all the Members of Parliament from north-east Scotland who oppose investment in their own constituencies. If the hon. Gentleman supported that investment, maybe he would see the jobs of the future coming.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost in the North sea, energy bills hit record highs and the Government put Britain’s energy security in the hands of Vladimir Putin. Having made a patently unlawful decision on Rosebank, the Conservatives are lecturing us on energy policy. The truth is that our clean energy mission will deliver the jobs and economic growth of the future, our commitment to climate action and lower bills. The Conservative party is stuck in the past. Will the Minister remain focused on the future and deliver our clean energy mission, which will deliver the economic and environmental benefits the public want to see?
Michael Shanks
As my hon. Friend says, the long-term future of our energy security in this country is not in oil and gas, as important a part as it will continue to play for many years to come. The clean power mission that we are driving forward at pace is about building home-grown renewable power that will deliver energy security in the long term, although oil and gas will continue to play an important part for many years to come, not just in our energy mix but in our country’s wider economic system. We will support the jobs and industries in north-east Scotland to ensure that transition is fair and prosperous for all.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that if the Government take the factors around emissions into account in a future application, it will not be for the court to then say that having taken them into account, the Government have arrived at the wrong decision in wanting to proceed? Surely, it is for the Government to decide whether to proceed, not the courts?
Michael Shanks
We are still digesting the detail of the judgment, but my understanding is that, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, the Supreme Court made it clear that applications should take account of scope 3 emissions. In the process that we put in place, which I will not pre-empt, we will have to justify how the applications have met that requirement. It will then be for the North Sea Transition Authority to make a judgment and the Secretary of State, ultimately, to make a decision. If somebody wanted to take that judgment to a judicial review, they could be entitled to do so, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that the decision will be for the Government.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that.
I recognise what the Minister said about court judgments. May I press him, though? His predecessors had to admit that there was no energy security in proceeding with Rosebank because 80% of the oil and gas that it would provide would not be for the UK market, so it would not drive down British consumers’ bills. Is that still his understanding of the project? Is that not another good reason why we should rethink it?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality. This year alone there have been a number of examples around the world of that present reality already having a huge and devastating impact on people’s lives.
On the balance that we want to strike, yes, the oil and gas industry is important to our economy and to our energy mix, but the long-term future requires us to move towards clean power. Even if gas is extracted from the North sea, it does not help with consumer bills in this country, because it is traded on an open market to the highest bidder and sold by private companies. This is not a nationalised industry—it is owned by private companies, and gas is extracted by private companies and sold by private companies—and consumers in this country do not benefit from their gas coming from abroad or from the North sea.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.
Michael Shanks
To be clear, I am not suggesting that I cannot comment because of particular legal action. My Department will have responsibility for making the decisions, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice that process by giving my view on those applications in Parliament or anywhere else. That is entirely how such applications end up back in court, and that is what I am determined to avoid.
We clearly outlined the question of licensing at the election: we will not issue new licences to explore new fields, existing licences will be honoured, and we will not remove licences from fields that already have a licence. However, consents—the point at which extraction takes place—must take into account climate tests, and not least the compatibility test laid down by the Supreme Court. Any applications now or in future must take account of that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The sixth carbon budget was put in place by the previous Government. It was pretty ambitious, and it is now for this Government to identify how it will be achieved. The Minister seems to be taking an entirely practical approach, and I commend him for that, but can he assure us that the Government will ensure that any new applications will be approved only if they can achieve any offsets or mitigations in their own right, so that we keep in line with the carbon budgets that are in place, which we are legally obliged to achieve?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend touches on some of the key questions that we asked in the consultation, which closed just a few weeks ago and to which we had a significant number of responses. The Supreme Court’s judgment requires us to look at some of the tests that he mentioned—particularly whether there are offsets or mitigations—and we will announce how we will put that into effect in due course.
On the guidance that comes from the consultation, we have only just closed the consultation and are working as fast as possible on the results from that. However, applicants for consents will absolutely have to take account of the scope 3 emissions. It will be for them to outline in their applications how they intend to mitigate any impacts to achieve such consents.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
We have already seen that if Rosebank does not go ahead £6.6 billion-worth of investment and 2,000 jobs will be lost. Those 2,000 jobs are really important to us in the north-east of Scotland. They are there for sentiment and for confidence, and they are also to show that we have a future. At the moment, it feels like the north-east is being sold down the river and that any opportunity we have is being lost because the Government are so ideologically committed to moving away from oil and gas now, as quickly as possible, and not to doing that when it is right. Are the Government still committed to jobs and security in the north-east of Scotland? It does not feel like that, living up there.
Michael Shanks
I gently say to the hon. Lady that it has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology—[Interruption.] It is about the Government responding to a legal judgment of a court—not just the Court of Session in this particular case, but the Supreme Court—on a decision taken by the previous Government to grant consent unlawfully. We now have to respond to that Supreme Court judgment and ensure that any future application process is robust and does not end up in the courts again—that is what we are determined to do. It will be for individual applicants to bring forward their applications.
On the wider point on jobs, I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that there is certainty in the north-east of Scotland. I have spent a lot of time in this job making an effort to get to know not just the individual companies, but the supply chains, support companies and those on apprenticeships that work in the north-east. It is important to me, as it is to the hon. Lady, but I say to her and her whole party that we cannot move forward simply saying that oil and gas is the only future for the north-east of Scotland. They are finite resources, and we are clearly saying that the balance requires us to start investing now in the transition, so that there are good well-paid jobs for many generations to come.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of the just transition and the need to move gradually to renewables. He quoted from our party’s manifesto that
“We will not issue new licences to explore new fields,”
but I remind him that there was another part to that paragraph. It says:
“because”
—there was a reason for it—
“they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure, and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”
Can he confirm that the 3 million oil barrels that would come out of Rosebank would in fact not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and would only worsen the climate crisis?
Michael Shanks
We have outlined in the seven months we have been in government our determination to deliver the energy security that this country has lacked in the past 14 years. The previous Government displayed a lack of preparedness not just for our energy security in future, but for the bills—higher than ever before—that all our constituents paid and that led to the cost of living crisis. That was because the Conservatives were happy to have us at the casino of fossil fuel prices. We are determined that that will not be our future and that we will no longer be in thrall to petrostates and dictators. Even though very little of our gas comes from those countries, we remain vulnerable to the prices set by international markets. We are determined that that will not happen, and we are building the clean power system that will take us away from it.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister talks of the threats of the climate crisis and the need for us to meet our climate commitments, which is encouraging to hear. What steps are the Government taking right now to improve the energy efficiency of homes across the UK to help us reduce our dependence on oil and gas?
Michael Shanks
I give credit to the hon. Lady for the ingenious way she got that important question into the urgent question. She makes the good point that, as well as ensuring we have built the clean power system for the needs of the future, we want to reduce as much as possible the need for households to heat their homes by making them much warmer in the first place. We are doing that by improving the standard of homes through the work being done by the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on the warm homes plan. We know that some of the poorest people in our country live in substandard homes that are cold and that take far too much of their monthly budgets to heat. We are determined to do something about that, as well as working across the piece on energy-efficiency measures that reduce demand in the years ahead.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
The remaining global carbon budget is extremely small, amounting to just five years’ worth of present global emissions. There is significant evidence that burning all oil and gas in existing fields globally would exceed the 1.5°C global limit. The climate pollution from burning Rosebank’s reserves would be more than the combined annual CO2 emissions of all 28 of the lowest income countries in the world. Does the Minister agree that we should focus on a fair transition for our communities and workers as we move to other forms of energy, rather than giving CPR to an already declining industry?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend outlines again the importance of tackling the climate crisis that is with us now. That is why the Government have been determined to move faster, through our clean power action plan and through the Department’s wider work to decarbonise across our economy. That is incredibly important and we do not have a moment to waste.
A fair transition is key to ensuring that we move away from a carbon-based economy. We have already closed the last of our coal power stations, which was an important moment, and my visit to Ratcliffe on Soar was an important moment for me to recognise how a transition can be done well—[Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), chuntering that that was done under a Conservative Government. It was an example of where the Conservative Government recognised that the coal industry was declining and that a transition was necessary, but he seems not to recognise that the same is true of the oil and gas industry, which is declining. If we do not start planning for that future now, we will leave those workers with nothing.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Government profess to want growth and jobs, yet they are giving no incentive or indication whatsoever to the developers of Rosebank and Jackdaw that if they spend millions of pounds on a new application, the Government will or will not grant consent. As a result, those developers are much more likely to say, “I won’t bother; I’ll invest my money elsewhere.” Will the Minister give an indication—yes or no to a compliant application?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond what I said at the beginning by asking me not just to give an opinion but to adjudicate on applications, right here in the House of Commons, before either company has applied. I think he knows fine well that I will not do that. We have put in place a robust process whereby the Supreme Court judgment will set out a clear pathway on exactly what companies must do in future applications. It is highly likely in this case that both companies involved in those projects will seek to apply again. They will do so and the Government will make a decision in due course. On the wider point about investment, the Government are doing everything to make this one of the most investable places in the world to come and do business—that is important. Our clean energy action plan, which he opposes, will deliver up to £40 billion of investment every single year in the industrial future of this country, and he should get behind it.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and appreciate his approach in not wanting to prejudice the judicial process. I wonder whether we would be discussing this if Conservative Members had had a similarly responsible approach to government. In very general terms, does he agree that it is vital that the Government honour not just the letter but the spirit of our manifesto commitment, and that this proposal was originally approved over 20 years ago?
Michael Shanks
It is important to separate the question of licences in these two cases from the consent process—licensing and consenting have always been different processes. We have said that we will absolutely respect licences that have been issued. We have no plans to and will not revoke existing licences, but neither will we issue new licences to explore new fields. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there have been licences for those fields for a very long time, and we will not revoke them. The question now is about specific consent applications for those projects. That will come before the Department when we have put in place the process to respond to the Supreme Court judgment, and when the companies, if interested, re-submit their applications.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?
Michael Shanks
On 20 June last year, the Supreme Court ruled that regulators must consider the impact of burning extracted oil and gas in the environmental impact assessment for new projects. Of course, we were already in an election cycle by that point. I do not know what the previous Government would have done, but a Supreme Court judgment gave a very clear steer that regulators must consider that impact, so I find it very hard to believe that they would have continued to defend a case that the Supreme Court clearly stated could not continue. This Government took the view that it would be wrong to put more public money into the case, when the two applicants themselves accepted the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the Opposition are saying that they would have continued to pour public money into such a case, I would be very surprised—or perhaps disappointed, but not surprised.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Conservative Members are speaking up now, but I was present at the United Nations General Assembly when they risked investor confidence in the UK. The then Prime Minister rowed back on net zero commitments, risking investor confidence in the UK and risking our global reputation on climate leadership. This Government are putting us back on the world stage when it comes to climate leadership, and we have a goal: to deliver clean power by 2030. Does the Minister agree that the UK’s key growth sectors of the future include renewable energy, and that there will be jobs for the future in renewable energy and our own Great British Energy?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend’s point about investor confidence is important. Investors lost all confidence in this country under the previous Government; not quite knowing who was going to be in No. 10 or No. 11 at any given moment certainly did not help investor confidence. We are building back that confidence, and have already seen tens of billions of pounds in investment since we came to power, and 70,000 new jobs.
It matters that this country takes a leadership role on climate, because the transition that we want to deliver here is also being delivered right across the world. The country with the fastest transition to clean power last year was China. In some cases, Members of this Parliament are trying to row back on our net zero commitments. We are determined to double down on those commitments, because that is the best way to deliver stability and energy security, bring down bills and create the industrial future and jobs that this country needs.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Hardly a day passes in this place when Ministers do not tell us how broke the country is, yet here we have a Minister who cannot give a commitment to extracting the liquid gold that lies under this country, although it could generate jobs and tax revenue, give us energy security and reduce the import bill. Is it not a fact that the court judgment has driven a hole through the growth strategy, because due to the legal targets for CO2 reduction that we have set, every major infrastructure project in this country will be legally challengeable, and could be turned down on the basis that it generates CO2?
Michael Shanks
The reason we are in this situation is that the Court ruled that the previous Government made an unlawful decision by not taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court. That is not me saying that from a policy perspective; it is the Court saying that, and we are now moving as quickly as possible to put in place a process that gives confidence to industry and allows applications to come forward. We have said that oil and gas will continue to play an important role for many years to come. We will not revoke existing licences, and therefore it is open for applications for projects to come forward, which will be considered on their individual merits.
However, the right hon. Gentleman and I will always disagree on the fundamental point that tackling climate change is in all our interests. Right around the world, we see the impact of not tackling climate change. It is a clear and present danger to our country and our national security, and we will tackle it.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Another day, another Labour Minister cleaning up the mess of the Conservatives who came before them. The only reason why we are having this discussion today, and why there is any lack of clarity for workers in the north-east, is that the Conservatives messed up in government. However, does the Minister agree that supporting projects such as Rosebank and Jackdaw is entirely compatible with our drive towards a net zero economy? We will continue to need domestic oil and gas to 2050 and likely beyond, and therefore we should maximise UK production, since we can do so with the highest possible labour and environmental standards, and should secure and create jobs in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right. We are putting in place a robust and clear process, so that applications can come forward that are in line with what the Supreme Court ruled, and can be decided on their merits. That is important. On UK production, as I have said a number of times and will keep saying, oil and gas will play an incredibly important role in the UK for many years to come. That investment is important, as are the jobs and the skills in the north-east.
My hon. Friend mentions environmental standards. In my past few months in this job, I have been pleased to hear about the huge amount of work that oil and gas companies have undertaken to decarbonise their work through electrification and other means. This question is about the scope 3 emissions, however, that the Supreme Court ruled must be taken into account; that is about the end use of the hydrocarbons as well. We will put in place a process to deal with that.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Last week, in excess of 400 redundancy letters were issued to workers at Grangemouth, Scotland’s only oil refinery, so perhaps the Minister will start matching his warm words about the just transition with action. On the North sea, what the industry, the investors, the workforce and our journey to net zero require is certainty. He obviously cannot comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw, and so cannot provide the answer that I think we all know is ultimately coming, but can he give us some certainty on when he expects the Government to issue the updated environmental guidance?
Michael Shanks
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, we are moving as quickly as possible. Having built on what needed to be done about the scope 3 emissions, we introduced the consultation as quickly as possible. We sped up that consultation, and engaged with the industry to make sure that we still got a substantial number of responses. We now have those—it closed two weeks ago, I think—and we are considering them. We will issue information about the process as quickly as possible. I cannot give him an exact date, because we have to analyse the consultation responses; it would be pointless to seek consultation responses and not look at them.
More broadly, the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Grangemouth. It is, of course, extremely disappointing that Petroineos has decided to cease refining there. For the benefit of the House, I will say that when I arrived in the Department seven months ago, the first thing in my in-tray was Grangemouth’s closure. Of course, that did not arrive in July with the Labour Government’s election—it had been known about for many, many years—but not a single plan had been put in place by the Conservative Government, or the SNP Government in Edinburgh. We moved as quickly as possible to invest in the future, and to give funding to Project Willow to make sure that there was a viable economic future for that site. I wish that I was in power five years ago to start that work, but the Opposition and the SNP failed to do anything about Grangemouth for at least 10 years in which we knew that its situation was precarious. The right hon. Gentleman will have to answer for that.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for the Government’s rapid action, which he alluded to earlier. Does he agree that it is thanks to our record-breaking investment in not one but two first-of-a-kind carbon capture projects that we are getting on with delivering the good jobs that our communities deserve?
Michael Shanks
I do think that carbon capture is important. We were delighted to put forward the investment to get the track 1 projects over the line, and we are looking forward to seeing those develop. That was about giving investors confidence after a protracted period, under the previous Government, in which those projects fell by the wayside several times. We were determined to get them over the line, and I am delighted that we did.
We remain supportive of the track 2 projects, particularly the Acorn cluster in Scotland, which may have an impact on areas such as Grangemouth in future. We want to see investment there as well. Such investments are incredibly important for building the jobs of the future. That is partly why the Government are determined to look at what comes next, and not just to support the oil and gas industry, as important as that is at the moment.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister has talked long and loud about confidence in the industry, but disappearing investment does not engender any confidence. The 200,000 people employed in the oil and gas sector in this country will look askance at GB Energy, which looks less like the second prize and more like the booby prize. The point is that the oil and gas that we are taking from the North sea fulfils existing demand; it does not create new demand. It keeps the lights on in our homes, shops, offices and schools right now.
Michael Shanks
The whole House will have heard the hon. Gentleman repeat the point that the £8.3 billion investment in Great British Energy is not welcomed by the Conservative party, but it will create jobs—including, I am sure, in his constituency—through supply chains. We never said that all the jobs would be in the head office. There will be an important head office in Aberdeen, in recognition of the skills there, but the investment made will create tens of thousands of jobs, which is important. In the past 10 years, a third of jobs in this industry have already been lost. Either we accept that a transition is under way, and we put in place a plan and processes to build the industry of the future, or we bury our head in the sand and continue to see thousands more jobs go. I am determined not to do that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The highly respected Grantham Institute, chaired by Lord Stern, said that a UK Government decision to proceed with Rosebank and Jackdaw would
“signal to all other fossil fuel producers, including the United States and Russia,”
that they support a “business as usual” approach to the oil and gas industry. Does the Minister acknowledge the leadership role of the UK Government internationally, and agree that such leadership is best shown by our investing in the sustainable green jobs that North sea communities need, not by granting further unjustifiable permissions?
Michael Shanks
I will not be drawn on the applications in this case, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s broader point about the important leadership role for the UK in building the green industries of the future, and on climate change. At COP29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero communicated the importance of leadership on this most pressing issue, and of seeing it not as a future threat, but as a present reality. The UK has an important leadership role to play and, critically, can help deliver the industrial future that we need and the clean power of the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that fuel in Northern Ireland is exceptionally costly, and the rise of all other costs of living is leading to businesses finding it difficult to keep their head above water, let alone turn a profit. The cost of energy is sewn into every facet of business and home life. How will the Minister ensure that the vast resources that we have at our fingertips are utilised? Does he acknowledge that while renewable energy is something to work on, we need energy now? Consent must be considered quickly, and the correct decision must be made on behalf of every home and business in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised those questions with me on a number of occasions in different debates, and they are incredibly important. Indeed, in a Westminster Hall debate, he educated me on how many off-grid households there are in Northern Ireland—it is a surprisingly high number. The issue of where our oil and gas comes from is also relevant, because they are traded on an international market, and the prices that his constituents and others pay are based on what the fossil fuel market does across the world. Given all the geopolitical uncertainty, we want to get away from fossil fuels as fast as possible and on to renewables, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from that as well.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that a workforce with skills honed in the North sea oil and gas sector will have an increasingly vital role in the renewables sector? Given the crucial role for GB Energy, headquartered in Aberdeen, in managing a fair and phased transition, is it not extraordinary that the Conservatives and the SNP have failed to support this proposal in this Parliament?
Michael Shanks
It is a huge shock, but I do agree with my hon. Friend, because failing to back an £8.3 billion investment in your own constituency seems an odd approach for a Member to take, whatever election they are standing in.
Let me make a broader point about other work that we are taking forward. One of the most important things we did recently was get the skills passport over the line. That is about recognising the huge skillset of offshore oil and gas workers; 90% of those skills are directly transferable into renewables and other technologies. Passporting is about ensuring that those skills and experiences are recognised, so that those skilled workers can find jobs in the renewable industry. This important work is about the transition to the jobs of the future. We announced that Aberdeen will be one of the first skills pilot areas, in recognition of the importance of that skills transition for the whole north-east of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The final question is from Tom Hayes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as this is the final question, may I commend the Minister on taking a measured and pragmatic approach at the Dispatch Box? That is in sharp contrast with the Conservative party, which seems to be continuing its journey from zombie Government to shambolic irrelevance. When I talk to investors and businesses in the energy sector, they stress the importance of a plan, whether it is that of the National Energy System Operator, or of mission control, led by Chris Stark. Will the Minister outline the importance of Great British Energy in the planned transition to the jobs of the future?
Michael Shanks
In terms of the tone of the debate, the Government and the Opposition will of course disagree on many things—by the sounds of it, we increasingly disagree on the importance of tackling climate change and net zero—but generally we all want to see a transition in the North sea that is fair and prosperous, particularly for the workers in that industry, to ensure that they have confidence that they will have well-paid jobs to go into. I spend every day in this job taking that incredibly seriously, and whatever disagreements we might have across the Dispatch Box, I hope that is understood. We want to build a transition that recognises that it is already under way, that thousands of jobs have been lost and that it is our duty and responsibility as a Government to ensure that we put in place the industry and jobs that come next. That is what I will spend every day doing while I am privileged to have this job.
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Rampion Extension Development Ltd for the construction and operation of an offshore generating station comprised of up to 90 wind turbine generators, off the coast of West Sussex.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The statutory deadline for the decision on the Rampion 2 offshore wind farm extension project was 6 February 2025. I have decided to allow an extension and to set a new deadline of 4 April 2025. This is to allow time to request further information.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS420]
Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Twigg, and to be back so soon in the year to talk about the capacity market. The draft instrument, which was laid before the House on 16 December 2024, seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. To achieve clean power by 2030, electricity market reform is critical; to paraphrase our clean power action plan, we must reform the capacity market to provide clear and viable routes to decarbonisation for unabated gas, enable low-carbon flexible capacity and incentivise investment in existing capacity.
Before outlining the provisions in the draft instrument, I will briefly provide some context. Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future predicted demand in order to maintain security of electricity supply. It is a well-established, technology-neutral scheme, in which existing and new build electricity capacity receives revenue based on capacity. Participants secure agreements through auctions, which require them to make capacity available at times of system stress.
The capacity market is our main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply and provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility—formerly known as demand-side response—and interconnection capacity. Through capacity market auctions, which are held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body, the National Energy System Operator.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 19 GW of new, flexible capacity, which is needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to a net zero economy. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and it continues to be required in order to maintain security of supply and provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation, based on our day-to-day experiences of operating the scheme. On that note, let me turn to the details of the draft instrument.
The draft instrument makes changes to eight regulations, to deliver technical improvements and changes that support the functioning of the capacity market and that have been identified and explored through consultation. This is about improving security of supply and, by accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies, increasing the role they play in the capacity market, thus supporting the Government’s 2030 clean power mission.
Stakeholder feedback in the consultations identified a need to review the wider timescales associated with the settlement body’s penalty calculation activities, to ensure that timelines for settlement remain appropriate. The settlements body is the Electricity Settlements Company, which is a private company owned by the Secretary of State for the Department and established to oversee the settlement of payments to and from suppliers and capacity providers. The draft instrument amends the timelines for the settlement body’s determinations so that they are in line with those concerning penalty charges.
As part of the requirements under the capacity market rules, some capacity market units must complete an extended performance test. This provides assurance that a capacity market unit from a storage-generating technology class can deliver capacity for the relevant duration. Effectively, extended performance tests are a sub-function of the satisfactory performance days requirement, which requires a capacity provider to demonstrate availability during a delivery year. The policy intent is that failure to meet extended performance tests should have the same consequence as failure to meet satisfactory performance days. The draft instrument ensures that the regime is consistent and that the two demonstrations of performance are treated in similar fashion when failed.
To assist industry when pre-qualifying for the capacity market, the draft instrument further clarifies that a capacity market unit can be pre-qualified only where no contract for difference has been awarded, unless the contract for difference in question has expired or been terminated. The draft instrument further clarifies that a contract for difference means a contract for difference, or an investment contract entered into with the contract for difference counterparty, which has always been the policy intent.
Finally, multi-year agreements provide greater revenue certainty and are likely to incentivise further low-carbon participation in the capacity market, which improves market liquidity and can lead to a greater diversity of technologies. A new nine-year capex threshold introduced by the draft instrument will ensure that new and refurbishing projects, with costs that fall between the existing thresholds, are not prevented from entering the capacity market.
The draft instrument also enables participants to access a three-year agreement with a capex threshold of £0 kW, which is available to low-carbon new build and unproven demand-side response capacity. That will remove barriers for low-carbon, low-capex technologies to access longer agreements in the capacity market. To ensure that projects meet the definition of low-carbon capacity, the draft instrument introduces an emissions-related determination, which is a decision that the delivery body may take, as a further reviewable decision type.
Let me turn now to the two consultations carried out by the Government—indeed, the previous Government—on the measures in the draft instrument. The instrument contains the second phase—phase 2—of the capacity market reforms, which were consulted on towards the end of 2023. These strengthen security of supply and accelerate investment in low-carbon technologies, and respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals. We have also made a number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the regulations and which were laid before the House—many Members here today were also present then—on 16 December 2024.
In conclusion, the draft instrument introduces a number of technical provisions and changes to enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can continue to deliver on its objectives. These reforms will be critical on our pathway to achieving clean power by 2030. They will improve security of supply and, by accelerating investment in low-carbon technologies, increase the role that those play in the capacity market. We need clear routes for the decarbonisation of unabated gas and for the rapid acceleration of low-carbon, flexible capacity, and today we make another step towards that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Our commitment to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the only way to protect bill payers permanently. The Government are determined to support all households with their energy costs, including those that are off grid, and eligible low-income households are being supported with the warm home discount. I urge households off the gas grid to contact their electricity supplier, if they have one, to see what support they can receive.
Charlotte Cane
Many of my constituents, as well as being off grid, have homes built of non-standard materials—clunch or wattle and daub—and those homes are also often listed. What support will the Minister provide to my constituents who are looking to retrofit their homes to move away from oil and improve insulation?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right that, particularly in rural areas, certain house types are often much more difficult to heat due to much older building materials and a lack of insulation. The Minister for Consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), is working to make sure our warm homes plan can reach all communities and all types of households, and I encourage the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) to feed in any ideas for how we can do that for these rural and off-grid households.
Jamie Stone
Every winter, Altnaharra in my constituency is the coldest place in the UK. I can think of lots of pensioners who are faced with the invidious decision of whether to switch off and shiver or to run into debt. It occurs to me that the Department for Work and Pensions may well have a database of these people, so will His Majesty’s Government get the DWP to work with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to identify them and give a helping hand?
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful point. Where we can co-ordinate information and data across Government to identify people who need more support, we will do so. My Department is currently working with the Department for Work and Pensions to release as much of that information as possible, and we hope that we will be able to make progress in due course.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that new oil and gas developments will not give us energy security? As the fossil fuels they produce will be sold internationally, they will not lower bills and they will undermine our climate commitments.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that, even if oil and gas are extracted from the continental shelf, they are sold on the international markets. The companies that extract the oil and gas are in the business of trying to make as much profit as possible and will sell to the highest bidder, so it does not protect prices for consumers in this country. We were clear in our manifesto that we will not issue licences for new exploration and new fields, but that we will continue to support those licences that have already been issued. Our future does not lie in more oil and gas; it lies in clean power, which is why we are moving at pace to deliver that.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not just on this question, but on securing an Adjournment debate last night on exactly the same subject. As I stated last night, clean power projects in his constituency and across the country are vital to achieving our clean power mission, which will give us energy security and bring down bills for families. Of course, all proposals are assessed on their individual merit through the planning system, and where communities host infrastructure, the Government believe they should directly benefit from it.
Greg Smith
In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) earlier, the Secretary of State completely dismissed the legitimate concerns of rural communities and farmers who are being asked to take on energy projects. Yet last night in the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary found a more reasonable tone, accepting the point on cumulative impact in constituencies such as mine that are being asked to take up to 3,000 acres of projects. Will the Under-Secretary go into more detail about how the Government will put in mitigations on cumulative impact to protect communities such as mine?
Michael Shanks
I would be testing the patience of the Deputy Speaker if I were to go into more detail than I could in an Adjournment debate. The point I made clearly to the hon. Gentleman was that it is not a credible position for him to take that there should be absolutely no infrastructure built anywhere in his constituency. The reality is we need to build new infrastructure, not just energy infrastructure but right across the public sector. I have said clearly that the work we are taking forward on the strategic spatial energy plan and on the land use framework by colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is about trying to ensure that we manage the best use of land, but we will have to build new infrastructure, and communities will have to host it.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
We announced that Great British Energy’s headquarters will be in Aberdeen, recognising the decades of experience in that city as the energy capital of Europe and our determination to invest in good, well-paid jobs in the city. With £8.3 billion-worth of investment behind Great British Energy, it will deliver economic value and jobs right across the supply chain across all parts of the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Great British Energy is the right idea for our time: public ownership, investment in supply chains and the reindustrialisation of our nation.
Mr Alaba
I commend the Minister on the progress he has made on setting up Great British Energy. Can he outline to the House what opportunities our publicly owned champion will bring to Southend East and Rochford and the wider south-east region?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right. Of course, the Great British Energy legislation is still going through Parliament at the moment; we hope that process will conclude soon, but in the meantime, hard work has been taking place to identify all the opportunities for Great British Energy to invest. Both Opposition parties—the SNP and the Conservatives—seem to oppose Great British Energy. Every single investment that it makes, every job that it creates, and every part of the supply chain that it incentivises will be delivered by Great British Energy against the SNP and the Conservatives, who have opposed it at every single stage. I ask them to rethink their position on what is a publicly owned champion to deliver for communities, create good, well-paid jobs, and deliver the clean power future that we need as a country.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We heard from the chief executive officer of Great British Energy the other day. He said that it was not in his brief to cut bills by £300. What is Great British Energy for, then? It turned out that the jobs were not going to materialise either, so how will the Government make sure that we do not have some bureaucrat job-creation scheme in every region of the country, as the Minister’s Back Benchers are calling for, but actually have a company that invests in things that otherwise would not be invested in? Technologies such as wind and solar are already investable, so will Great British Energy focus on those things that need to be brought closer to market?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman strongly makes the case for the importance of a publicly owned energy champion investing in parts of the energy system that are not currently getting that investment; I appreciate his recognition of that. What the interim chair of Great British Energy said very clearly—of course, it has not appointed a CEO yet—and what we have said consistently is that Great British Energy’s headquarters in Aberdeen will of course create jobs, but the majority of the jobs that will be created by that investment will come from the investment that Great British Energy makes in supply chains, in projects, and in developing the clean power that we need. Great British Energy will champion the industries that the right hon. Gentleman speaks about and deliver jobs in this country to reindustrialise communities, and Conservative Members will have to explain why they are against those jobs when they are created, including if they are created in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It was refreshing yesterday to have some clarity on Great British Energy’s plans, not from the Secretary of State or from Ministers—that would be asking far too much—but from the Manchester-based chairman of the Aberdeen-based company, Juergen Maier. He stated that cutting energy bills is a “very long-term project”—not £300 by the next election, then—and that the Aberdeen headquarters, if we can call it that, will employ only 200 to 300 people, far from the 1,000 initially promised, although that may come in 20 years’ time. On behalf of the tens of thousands of energy workers worried for their future, and indeed the millions watching their energy bills rise yet again, can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with the now very interim chairman?
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister must be the only Member of Parliament representing Aberdeenshire who is against investment in Aberdeenshire. He will have to explain to his constituents and businesses right across his community why he stands up and opposes investment in his constituency. Of course, in doing so, he misunderstands the role that Great British Energy will play; the key point of it is that it will invest £8.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in clean power projects right across the country, helping to unlock private sector investment and create supply chains in this country. The shadow Minister has now turned his face against all of those jobs that will be created in Aberdeen, which is a question he will have to answer for his constituents.
Andrew Bowie
The Minister has a right cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about protecting jobs in Aberdeenshire, when tens of thousands of energy workers are going to lose their jobs because of this Government’s decisions on the North sea. The British people were promised lower bills by the next election; now, they have been given a vague assurance that in the very long term bills might come down, and they are meant to be grateful for that.
The arrogance of this Government is staggering, if not surprising. They are so driven by ideology that they will not even allow Government lawyers to defend licences issued for Rosebank and Jackdaw, and are willing to see imports of fracked gas increase as long as they go down in history as the Government who shut down the North sea. While pensioners freeze as the Minister’s Government strip them of the winter fuel allowance, and as people are made unemployed due to his Government’s position on the North sea, can the Minister see why people across this country are quite miffed that the Government get to waste £8 billion of their money on the GB Energy white elephant?
Michael Shanks
First, let us be absolutely clear that Great British Energy will invest in clean power projects right across the country, including in the shadow Minister’s constituency. Secondly, he has an absolute cheek to come to this Chamber and talk about jobs in oil and gas, when more than 70,000 jobs were lost in North sea industries over the past decade—the shadow Minister was in the Energy Department for at least a chunk of that time. The truth is that a transition is under way in the North sea. Conservative Members were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it was not happening as thousands of people lost their jobs. This Government are determined to build what comes next; the shadow Minister stands opposed to that, and he will have to explain to his constituents and the people of Scotland why he does not support that investment.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we are clearly on the sprint to deliver clean power by 2030, demand for electricity in this country is likely to double by 2050. Our reforms around connection to the grid are important —they will make sure that there is space for demand projects, such as data centres, to connect—but so is building the grid for the future, so that we have capacity in our network to deliver on our growth aspirations.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Michael Shanks
I cannot speak on behalf of the House of Commons authorities, but under the building regulations of 2021, all new non-residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations must install charging infrastructure. In government, along with colleagues in the Department for Transport, I hosted roundtables yesterday, and I will host another today, on how we can unlock much more investment in charging infrastructure, because that is critical in supporting the transition to electric vehicles.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
What engagement has the Minister had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities council leaders on local power plans? Does he agree that a partnership approach by Government, councils and community organisations, such as the West Lothian Climate Action Network, is key to the success of local power plans?
Michael Shanks
I agree with my hon. Friend. The local power plan is a key part of what Great British Energy will deliver. It will give communities the power to develop local power projects wherever possible, and to achieve the social and economic benefits of doing so. We are engaging with a number of stakeholders across the UK. Because of the devolution settlement, our main contact will be with the Scottish Government, who have their relationship with COSLA, but we are determined that local government across the UK will help drive this forward, and will have the capacity to support communities in doing so.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire
Michael Shanks Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this evening’s Adjournment debate. It has certainly not been lacking in hyperbole, and I look forward to responding to his specific points. Phrases such as “ticking time bomb”, “intent on destroying” and “thrown under the bus” suggest that we have taken a rational view on some of these decisions, although I will say that his comment about “two Teslas on the drive” suggests that our constituencies are quite different. Perhaps that will come forward in my remarks.
I will pick up on the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s speech before turning to some of the specifics. He put forward a case that wrongly asserts that the only options are either a clean power system with renewables at its heart, or nuclear. I will come to his point about SMRs shortly, but I agree with him that there is a rational case for balance. We see nuclear as playing a critical role in our energy system in the future, but we also understand that building out a clean power system requires building renewables as well, because they are cheaper to operate and they deliver home-grown energy security in a way that gas plants do not. I will come back to the clean power action plan’s pathway in due course.
The truth is that the hon. Gentleman spent the past 20 minutes outlining—in fact, he was quite open and honest about this—that he wants no infrastructure built in his constituency at all, yet I assume that his constituents still want to be able to rely on that infrastructure in their daily lives, including railways, hospitals, schools, energy and prisons. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues certainly want us to use prisons much more, but he does not want us to build prisons anywhere in his constituency. I am always very careful about the arguments on nimbyism, but at the heart of this issue is a real question about the fact that, at some point, we have to acknowledge that if we are to build infrastructure in this country, it has to be hosted somewhere.
As someone who has one of Europe’s biggest onshore wind farms just outside my window in my constituency, I recognise that some constituencies will have to host important infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we all need to play a part in that. The reality is that delivering energy security requires us to build much more infrastructure, even if that includes small modular reactors. However, it is estimated that demand for electricity in this country will double by 2050, so the need of all our constituents, including the hon. Gentleman’s, for electricity and the jobs of the future will mean building much more infrastructure.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cumulative impact of infrastructure, which the Government have tried to wrestle with. That is partly why we launched the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we have a holistic approach to planning the energy system in the long term—the work should have been started a long time ago, but it was not undertaken by the previous Government. Alongside that, colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have launched the land use framework for the same reason: to try to plan the long-term future for land across our country. Given that food security is incredibly important, how do we protect land for food, and how do we identify pieces of land where we will build nationally important infrastructure? That is incredibly important.
I repeat the point that we need to build infrastructure in this country. I am afraid that we have buried our head in the sand for far too long with respect to the infrastructure that is necessary, and the grid is struggling as a result. It is really important that we find a way to build that infrastructure in a holistic way that recognises the cumulative impact on communities. I want the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that I recognise that point.
The hon. Gentleman noted that several projects are in the queue to connect to the grid—I think there is some 746 GW in the queue at the moment. I say gently that the reason it has got quite so out of control is that the previous Government did not manage the queue properly. There was not sufficient reform to manage it, so there are, as he says, several zombie projects that will never be developed but are taking up space in the connections queue. We have announced that we want significant reform to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that will actually be delivered, that are important for our energy security and, crucially, that will free up space for demand projects to be connected to the grid, which is important for our economic growth. More on that will be announced by NESO and Ofgem in due course.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give an answer to some of his specific points, because for legal reasons I have to be careful not to comment. However, Rosefield, the solar farm that he mentioned, is at the pre-application stage. The application for development consent is expected to be submitted in, I think, Q3 or Q4 of this year. At this point, it is developer-led.
On a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should say that the Government do not go out and identify these projects; developers identify the projects and then have a conversation with landowners.
Greg Smith
The problem with the argument that the Minister is trying to construct is that every time a developer comes along with a proposal, and the community pushes back with “Why are you doing this?”, the answer—every single time—is “Because the Government are asking us to.” That is what frustrates communities and frustrates me every single time. If the Minister accepts that that is the developers’ excuse, he can either correct them and say, “No, the Government are not asking you to do this,” or find a way to challenge those presumptions and the cumulative impacts, which I am grateful that he says he wants to address.
Michael Shanks
I take the point, but although the Government absolutely do say, “We need to build a clean power system and therefore these projects are important,” what we do not say is, “Please build a solar wind farm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.” These are developer-led projects; it is developers who identify the site.
On the question of land ownership, the Government are not in the business of appropriating land for energy projects. The landowners have made a decision to sell their land for these projects, and that is a relationship that they have with the developer. It is a developer-led process. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to provide his views as the process continues. If the Rosefield application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, he and all his constituents will be able to engage with the planning process and register as interested parties.
I reiterate that although the Government think that the planning system could be considerably more efficient, that is not about removing the robustness of the system so that communities no longer have a voice. We want communities to have a voice in the process, but we do not want them to be hanging around for years until decisions are made. We want the process to be more efficient, but communities should absolutely still have a voice. That is incredibly important.
If the application comes to the Secretary of State, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the pre-application consultation process has been carried out properly and adequately, in compliance with the Planning Act 2008. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given my Department’s quasi-judicial role in these applications, I cannot comment on anything more specific.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on batteries. Battery storage is incredibly important. To build the clean power system we need, we need a mix of both short-duration storage, which batteries provide, and long-duration storage, which we have not built in this country for an extremely long time. We have announced that we will build new long-duration storage, but we know there is an important role for batteries to play in short-duration storage so that we can store the clean power generated from wind and solar for when we need it.
Of course, these projects will go through the planning process too. I am aware that East Claydon has been rejected by the local council. Of course, the applicant has a right to appeal. Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be wrong for me to comment on that particular case at this point.
More generally, batteries are important both for maintaining storage and for reducing people’s bills by storing clean power, which we know is much cheaper in the long run. This minimises the investment in new generation, so if we get the mix of batteries right alongside other renewable technologies, we can help to minimise the need to build more infrastructure by storing power for when we need it. Batteries play an important role in balancing the electricity system.
We outlined in the clean power action plan that between 23 GW and 27 GW of grid-scale batteries could be required to meet our decarbonisation goal by 2030. Not far from my constituency, one of Europe’s largest battery plants was announced recently, so this infrastructure is being shared across the UK.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on rooftop solar, which is a real opportunity. He rightly talks about warehouses, and we have a lot of multi-storey car parks, a lot of factories and a huge number of roofs in this country that I am happy to see covered in solar panels. It is not an either/or. There is certainly a role for rooftop solar, and we have announced that we want to see a rooftop revolution in solar. We have been working on bringing forward new building standards so that new build houses and commercial buildings have this as a key part of their design. There is also a critical role for ground-mounted solar, and we can meet our ambitions if we combine the two.
The previous Government launched a solar taskforce to build out as much capacity in rooftop solar as possible, while also increasing the number of ground- mounted solar projects, and we have reconvened it to address not just the roll-out but how communities can benefit much better from hosting that infrastructure. We look forward to publishing that soon.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke about food security, and I make it clear that we take the view that food security is national security. It is critically important that we maintain food security across the country. Even if we built out all the solar that we currently expect to build, it would still take up less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land, so we do not see food production and renewable energy as competing priorities. The two can co-exist.
We all want to see a resilient and healthy food system. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Mid Buckinghamshire both mentioned floodplains. Tackling climate change will be one of the most important ways to reduce the frequency of floods in such areas, which is crucial for maintaining arable farmland. We have to tackle the climate crisis if we are to maintain our food security, but we also want a balanced approach to land use.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the land use framework, which was announced last week. Unsurprisingly perhaps—far be it from me to say this—The Daily Telegraph misleadingly suggested that all of this farmland will be reused for renewable energy projects. That is not what the framework says. It says there are a number of uses for that land in relation to sustainability, such as where there are peatlands or particular environmental schemes that could help to lock in carbon, support biodiversity and wildlife, and help us to meet our climate obligations. It is not that the land will be used to build energy projects, as the article wrongly said.
We are determined to bring communities with us. We want communities to have a voice and for communities that host infrastructure to benefit from it, so we will deliver a package of community benefits.
On small modular reactors, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not see energy as coming from one source or another. Nuclear will play a critical role in our energy mix far beyond 2030. It provides a critical amount of baseload, as well as skilled and well-paid jobs across the country. We want to see the SMR programme rolled out. We inherited much of that from the previous Government, but it had not really been progressed and none of it had been built during those 14 years. We now want to move at pace to deliver it. We see nuclear as important, alongside a balanced renewables system.
I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for securing the debate. He and I will not agree on everything, but I hope we can find a way to ensure that we build a resilient energy system that balances the needs of different communities. On his point about the cumulative impact, I hope we can find a way through that, so that all communities benefit from infrastructure, but some will have to host it as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Plutonium Disposition Strategy
Michael Shanks Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will work with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to immobilise the UK-owned civil separated plutonium inventory at Sellafield.
Continued, indefinite, long-term storage leaves a burden of security risks and proliferation sensitivities for future generations to manage. It is the Government’s objective to put this material beyond reach, into a form that both reduces the long-term safety and security burden during storage and ensures it is suitable for disposal in a geological disposal facility. Implementing a long-term solution for plutonium is essential to dealing with the UK’s nuclear legacy and leaving the environment safer for future generations.
Following a public consultation in 2011, the Government at the time formed a preliminary policy view to pursue reuse of plutonium as mixed oxide fuel but to remain open to any alternative proposals for plutonium management.
The NDA has since carried out substantial technical, deliverability and economic analysis to identify a preferred option for a long-term disposition solution, including options for immobilisation and reuse. The outcome of this work recommended immobilisation as the preferred way forward to put the material beyond reach soonest and with greatest delivery confidence.
Following further development work the NDA will select a preferred technology for immobilisation of the plutonium as a product suitable for long-term storage and subsequently disposal in a GDF. Organisations involved in the delivery of this work will include the NDA—in particular Sellafield Ltd and Nuclear Waste Services—the UK National Nuclear Laboratory and the wider supply chain.
We expect that around the end of the decade, following Government approval, the NDA and Sellafield will begin delivery of the major build programme of plutonium disposition infrastructure. This programme is expected to support thousands of skilled jobs during the multi-decade design, construction and operational period.
While work continues on long-term immobilisation, the NDA is ensuring the continued safe and secure storage of plutonium in the UK. As part of this approach, new facilities are being built at Sellafield to repack the plutonium inventory for placement in a suite of modern stores.
[HCWS388]
Marine Renewables Industry
Michael Shanks Excerpts(1 month, 1 week 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 Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am tempted to say that, although this debate has been great, it has gone on for so long that Ms Jardine has turned into Mr Betts, so I did not get the chance to congratulate her on her new job.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister not to comment on the benefits of that.
Michael Shanks
I won’t. Hopefully, it was not the upcoming speeches from me and the shadow Minister that drove her from Chamber. In any event, it is a delight to be here.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) not just for securing this debate and the customary way that he introduced it, but for the engagement we have had since I came into this post on this issue and many others. He is a great champion not just of marine renewables, but of Orkney and Shetland. In fact, in the last debate we had in this Chamber, he declared that God came from Orkney and Shetland. I am glad that we did not get into the theological nature of the debate this afternoon.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. I pay tribute to the various policy teams and organisations that have clearly done a very effective job of getting a consistent set of lines out to Members of Parliament; they have certainly earned their salary this week. Those are important points, and I will address each of them.
As hon. Members have said, the sector has enormous potential relating not just to energy outcomes, but to the many positive opportunities in skills, supply chains and innovation. The UK can export that innovation to the rest of the world. I will say at the very beginning that the Government are hugely supportive of marine energy, and we want to do what we can to support it.
I will start by giving some context on the Government’s position. As Members will be aware—many have raised it today—we published the “Clean Power 2030” action plan just before Christmas. That was an important step in providing some considerable detail on how the Government will deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030, which is hugely ambitious but achievable. It picks up on some of the strands that Members have raised this afternoon, including how we will deliver more effective grid connections and connections reform, as well as look at the planning system and consenting. It is about all the various things that Members have raised that hold back so much of the delivery of such projects across the country.
Clean power by 2030 is not some ideological project, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), and others in the Conservative party might like to suggest. It is a critical pathway for how we deliver energy security in the long term; all our constituents have been facing a considerable cost of living crisis as a result of us not having home-grown energy security. The clean power mission is about ensuring that we not only have that energy security but tackle the climate crisis and deliver economic growth. I make no apologies for the fact that we are a Government moving at pace, because it is important that we grasp the opportunities for the implementation of both marine technologies and the many other innovative technologies that Britain can be a world leader in delivering. It is also our best opportunity to deliver cheaper energy for people across the country.
I want to pick up specifically on the point made by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) and the shadow Minister on the clean power action plan. It is right to say that marine renewables are not in the top lines of the pathways to clean power by 2030, because we do not think that that technology is quite at the point where it will be deployed at scale to help us to achieve that mission. That does not mean that we do not hope that projects will come onstream before 2030.
Although we are sprinting to deliver clean power by 2030, that will not be the end of the journey. By 2050, we estimate that the electricity demand in this country will have doubled, so this journey will require us to harness all possible technologies to continue to expand our energy supply over the coming decades. That is where I think marine renewables will start to play more of an important role, as they get past the commercialisation challenges and their price comes down, and as we have some more confidence in the technology.
Liz Saville Roberts
I do not know whether the Minister will touch on the Crown Estate, so I am taking the opportunity now. On the point about electricity demand doubling, there is such potential in areas such as Wales and Cornwall, if it so wishes. The concept that the Crown Estate should be so centralised in the United Kingdom works badly in the interests of not only Wales but areas such as Cornwall. What does the Minister tell his Welsh Labour colleagues about why that issue cannot be devolved, when it would make such a difference to our local economies?
Michael Shanks
I will touch on the Crown Estate later in my speech. On that specific point, I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the idea that devolving the Crown Estate is the answer, and I take issue with the suggestion that the Crown Estate’s considerations in Wales somehow come from Whitehall. I have met a number of representatives of the Crown Estate, and they are in engaged with the Welsh Government and with communities in Wales. If we can do more on that, I am very happy to reach out to the Crown Estate, although I am not directly responsible for it and it is not accountable to me. Of course, it has published a number of strategies recently and there is more coming on the long-term vision for the Celtic sea and other parts of the Crown Estate in Wales. It is about partnership work, which includes not just bringing together the Crown Estate but how we look at the planning system and consenting, as well as the strategic spatial energy plan more broadly to plan for the long term. I will come back to some of those points later.
Although marine renewables are not at the centre of that clean power action plan to 2030, they will hugely benefit from the actions that we will deliver through it, not least on grid connections. Grid connections are all about future-proofing the grid in this country so that it can meet the demand of the future, and prioritising a grid queue that has got out of control with over 700 GW waiting to connect, which is simply not deliverable.
I would like to turn to the issue of funding, but first I wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), who does not look a day over 21—but that is the last time I will pander to the Lib Dems. He raised a point about Great British Energy, as did a number of other hon. Members, many of whom I cannot help but notice did not vote for it, but now want it to be headquartered in their constituencies and deliver significant amounts of funding. Great British Energy will play a role in this space. It is our first publicly owned energy champion, and it will deliver and deploy clean power across the country and help with some of the innovation and development work.
Marine renewables are exactly the kind of technology that Great British Energy might invest in at an early stage and have a significant impact on, rather than technologies that are at a more confident stage. Hon. Members may not have had the opportunity to reach out to Great British Energy—the Bill is still going through the House of Lords, so it does not technically exist yet—but the start-up chair, Jürgen Maier, has had a number of meetings across the UK, has engaged on questions about a whole range of technologies and is keen to continue to do so. It will be for Great British Energy, as an independent company, to make its own investment decisions based on a whole range of factors, including the return on investment potential, but I see marine renewable technology as a potential benefit for it.
We think that tidal stream energy will play a significant role, particularly beyond 2030. As many Members raised, tidal stream will bring balancing benefits to a future electricity system that will have renewables at its heart. The balancing role that tidal can play—as a baseload, in the traditional way of thinking about the electricity system—would be important. Currently over half of the world’s tidal stream deployment is situated in UK waters. However, this Government want to go further and faster, as the technology has huge potential.
Aside from having one of the world’s best tidal resources, the UK also hosts world-leading marine energy hubs. Many hon. Members spoke about the EMEC. I have been pleased to speak to the EMEC over the last few months; the Minister for Climate, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), visited recently and I hope to get to Orkney to do the same at some point.
When we came into power, the Government took the contracts for difference option that had been started by the previous Government and increased the budget to try to get as many projects as we could over the line. That led to a 50% increase in the ringfence for tidal stream to £15 million in the last allocation round. That demonstrated our commitment to the technology and ensured that 28 MW of tidal stream was secured in allocation round 6, including 9 MW for projects based in Orkney.
Mr Carmichael
The creation of the ringfence in AR4 had an absolutely transformative impact, so my sense is that meeting the industry’s request for a much bigger ringfence in AR7 could do similar. I am not expecting the Minister to tell us today whether that is the direction of travel that the Government are intending to take—although he is welcome to—but could he at least tell us when we might get an answer on that?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. One of the things we announced before Christmas in the clean power action plan was the broad outline of where we see allocation round 7 progressing this year, alongside the clean industry bonus. We will be saying more about that in the weeks ahead when we launch the initial information on what it will look like, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is not surprised that I cannot announce anything today about what ringfences might be in place.
It is a tricky balance. The aim of the CfD and the reason that it is effective at what we want it to do is that it has to balance the deployment targets that we want to see with the critical role of delivering value for money for those who will end up paying for it—the consumers and all our constituents. Ringfences have an important role to play, but there is a danger that a ringfence could lead to us paying significantly more for a particular technology than we might want to.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is being very generous. Actually, the setting of the ringfence is a process that could be significantly improved by the taskforce being set up, as that would allow the Government to understand what is going on in the industry, which improved understanding could inform decisions such as the setting of the ringfence.
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman is determined to move me more quickly through my speech; I promise that I will come on to the taskforce. He is right that the more visibility we have of projects that might bid, the more aware we can be of what the sizes of ringfences and budgets for each pot in the CfD might look like. A range of factors makes that complex, such as whether projects are at final investment decision stage, or whether planning and consent are in place to allow them to bid into the auctions. There are many factors, but the visibility point is well made. On ringfencing, I hear what hon. Members have said and what has been passed to our Department over the past few months, but we will seek to balance the needs to deliver deployment and to ensure value for money when making these decisions.
A number of hon. Members raised the issues of licensing and consenting, which are at the heart of our aims for reform of the planning system. We want to continue to have a robust planning system in which communities have a voice, but we also want to move much faster in making decisions, so that projects are not held up for years on end.
Andrew Bowie
The Minister is being very generous, and I apologise for taking his time, given that I have just spoken. He talks about reforming the planning system so that projects can be built faster. Obviously, a lot of the projects we are speaking about are in Scotland. Can he update us on discussions with the Scottish Government about reform of the planning and consenting provisions in the Electricity Act 1989, which are seen by some—not by all—as an additional burden for companies seeking to develop such projects north of the border?
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s raising that point, because that is an important piece of work that we have been moving forward. With the Scottish Government, we launched a consultation, which ran for four weeks, on how the consenting process could be reformed, so that we can change the 1989 Act in a number of key areas. I think the consultation closed a couple of weeks ago; the responses are now being analysed, and we will bring forward legislation in due course.
That is a good example of partnership working with the Scottish Government on attempts to deal with some long-running issues. Across the UK, the key point is that the aim is not somehow to reduce the burden of planning where there are still opportunities for affected communities to contribute; it is about saying that it does not serve communities, developers or the Government well when decisions are held up for years on end. That is part of how we will speed these things up.
Other hon. Members mentioned the supply chain, which is incredibly important. That is why we as a Government have said that we are not agnostic about industrial policy in this country; we want manufacturing to come to these shores. It is encouraging to see that there is already significantly more UK content in tidal stream projects than in some other technologies that we have in this country. That is a real positive. I hope that we can continue that and learn from it for offshore wind and other technologies that we want to expand.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and many others asked about setting up a taskforce. I am very open minded about that, and when I met the Marine Energy Council just before Christmas to discuss this and a number of other matters, I said that. I cannot quite remember how many taskforces I am currently chairing—we do like a taskforce, and they are important —and I am extremely grateful for the expertise of those who give up their time to come into Government, to help us to shape action plans and route maps and to understand what the challenges are. I am open to the suggestion, but if we set up something like that it must have a clear purpose, and at end of it we want a set of actions that Government and others can drive forward. That is what my officials are working on, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman more about it.
On the technology point, the Government’s position is that overall the wave energy industry is at research and design phase. That is a key step on the journey to potentially achieving commercial viability, but we do not think it is quite there yet. We are aware that it has huge potential, given the nature of this country, and significant strides are being made to take it forward. My officials are regularly in touch with those in the sector and are being kept up to date on the latest developments. We hope that all these technologies will become extremely successful and the Government are happy to do whatever we can to support that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he had not had time to write a speech but then, as always, he made a very eloquent contribution. I think that he and the hon. Member for South Devon made the same point about partnership, which is critical to all of this. The coast around this country offers enormous potential in our energy future, in floating offshore wind, in which we are already a world leader in so many ways—I hope we will continue to be so—and marine renewables, in the economic programme that we have already, and particularly in fishing. The point was strongly made that this is not about competing priorities, although it might seem like that; it is about how we can bring industries together to ensure that they co-exist. We can get real strength from that.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply to everyone who has spoken in the debate. If he is not able to reply to this question right away, I am happy for him to come back to me in writing. I know he is keen to engage with all the regional Administrations, and I wish to make a plea for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know it was difficult because the Assembly was not meeting, but the Assembly is back and playing the game again. Has he had the opportunity to talk to the Department for the Economy, to see how we can move forward collectively and in partnership?
Michael Shanks
That is an incredibly important point. I told the hon. Gentleman the last time we spoke on this topic that I am going to Northern Ireland soon for the next inter-ministerial working group for Energy Ministers from around the UK; I think that is in March. I hope that while I am there I have the chance to meet different organisations, because I am keen to understand how the energy system in Northern Ireland works, given the separate grid. I do not have responsibility for energy policy in Northern Ireland but I want us to work together and learn from each other.
To conclude my remarks, I am, first of all, grateful—I thought that this debate might finish at 3 o’clock and I was going to have to sum it all up in 30 seconds, but I have a little more time. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their contributions. I have come away from every energy policy debate in this place enthused by the real cross-party consensus on so much of this. There is much on which we do not agree, but on a lot of this we do. We need to hold on to that consensus because achieving the future economic and energy benefits of marine renewables will require them to outlive any particular Government. That consensus has been a strength over the past few decades and I hope it can continue. I have always said that I do not have any monopoly on wisdom on these questions and I am keen to hear and learn from projects in constituencies across the country.
It is clear that there is huge excitement in the sector. I hope that we can harness that and drive forward the development of these technologies in the future, and remove the barriers there at the moment. Those barriers will be removed even if they are not specifically barriers to marine projects, although I think marine projects will be affected by many things, such as planning and grid reform, to unlock the immense potential that we have across this country. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I hope to return to his constituency soon to see many of these projects and learn more about them. Together we can drive far more marine renewables in the UK, delivering value for money for households and harnessing the abundance of clean energy in this country.