Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review
Debate between Michael Shanks and Graham Leadbitter(2 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The report by NESO has clearly uncovered serious structural failings at National Grid, but let us not forget that the Government’s response to the outage was severely wanting as well. On the Monday following the outage, the Transport Secretary confirmed that she was relying on the contents of a three-day-old conversation with Heathrow, with no assessment from the Government and no conversations with National Grid. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that sufficient lessons are being learned in Government to ensure that, when the power supply to critical national infrastructure is affected in the future, the Government are not left without answers again? Additionally, Members will understand the phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, meaning “Who guards the guards?” Why did it take such a serious outage for the National Grid to be audited like this? Surely better oversight may have identified the shockingly poor risk management.
Michael Shanks
Since I did not realise in my statement earlier this week that the hon. Gentleman is now the SNP’s energy spokesperson, I welcome him to his place—I hope he will bring the same customary sunshine that his predecessor in the role did to our deliberations in this place.
On the incident itself, clearly there are lessons to be learned from the way the energy infrastructure worked on 20 and 21 March, and for Heathrow on the configuration of its internal network and how that worked. The incident itself is clearly one we want to avoid at all costs, but actually the process was carried out safely, passengers were informed and the disruption was kept to an absolute minimum, but if an airport such as Heathrow closes, there will be disruption. I am not sure that I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the handling of the incident. He is right on the broader point about how we ensure we are regularly auditing the processes of maintenance work going forward. The three transmission owners in the UK have a responsibility for doing that, and that is regulated by Ofgem, which regularly checks on this. The second part of Ofgem’s review announced today will look specifically at whether those maintenance backlogs and any other long-standing issues have been resolved, and look at the lessons we can learn on ensuring that those processes actually happen and that we do not just have things sitting on a list but not actually delivered.
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery
Debate between Michael Shanks and Graham Leadbitter(4 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the work that the Government are doing following our £200 million commitment to support the future of Grangemouth through the national wealth fund. There have been 84 serious and credible inquiries about projects there, and I have been meeting those involved in some of those projects to discuss what more the Government can do to ensure that they are delivered. We will say more about that in due course, but we are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to bring the projects forward. As we have said since day one, we are determined to deliver a sustainable, viable industrial future for Grangemouth. The difference between Grangemouth and the Prax Lindsey refinery—I want to separate the two slightly—is that while we may have issues with the owners of various sites across the country, an 18-month redundancy package was put in place at Grangemouth and that is not the case in this instance, which is why the Government are particularly calling on the owners of this refinery to do the right thing for the workers there.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Westminster’s mismanagement of the energy sector is clearly being felt across these islands, and the Government were right to arrange a statement today to address the possible closure of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. However, that is not a courtesy that the Labour Government have ever extended to Grangemouth in Scotland: they have not once come to the Chamber to make a statement about it. We have seen Labour pull out all the stops for Scunthorpe and now begin that process for Lindsey. Will they think again and do the same for Grangemouth?
The Shetland gas plant is also owned by Prax, and is also a significant employer. What steps are the Government taking to secure the future of this site, and why did the plant not feature in the statement, if only for the purpose of an assurance?
Michael Shanks
Let me deal with that on two fronts. First, we have come to the House repeatedly to talk about Grangemouth. I have had meetings with a number of Members over the past year to discuss Grangemouth, probably more than I have had to discuss any other issue, and I have weekly meetings with Scottish Government Ministers, businesses or others to discuss Grangemouth’s future. No one wanted the outcome that we got from Grangemouth, but we have done everything in our power to turn that around and deliver a viable economic future for the site, so I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s criticism, which I think is misplaced.
Secondly, I apologise to the House for being unable to give explicit details about every part of the business, but one of the problems is that we have not been able to obtain clarity from the company about all the interdependencies within its own business group. We will discuss more of this in the coming days as we engage with the official receiver. It is important to separate the issue of insolvency for the refinery—the specific issue that we are discussing today—from the wider group issues, but I have no doubt that we will return to some of those in due course.
Cost of Energy
Debate between Michael Shanks and Graham Leadbitter(4 months, 3 weeks 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
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.
Energy Rebates: Highlands and Islands
Debate between Michael Shanks and Graham Leadbitter(7 months, 4 weeks 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 thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for securing this incredibly important debate. He has the pleasure of representing one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland, to which I enjoy going on holiday often. It is great to be discussing this long-standing issue for the highlands and islands of Scotland, which, as he mentioned, was also raised by former Members.
The context of this discussion is important. Energy bills are too high for too many people right across the country, not just in the highlands and islands. This Government have made it clear from the outset that we want to put in place an energy system that delivers lower bills permanently; removes the price spikes that all our constituents, including those in the highlands and islands, have faced over the past few years; and speeds up the transition to home-grown clean energy.
The hon. Gentleman made the point, as have others, that the north of Scotland plays an important role in delivering clean energy at the moment. That brings us back to a conversation that we have had in this place a number of times—indeed, in the previous debate, I recruited the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) to help me with it—on community benefits. We need to do much more for the communities that host this nationally important energy infrastructure and the network infrastructure that goes with it to get power across the country. They should feel benefits from that in their bills and their local communities, and we are looking at that.
The creation of Great British Energy, the first publicly owned energy company in this country for 70 years, is about harnessing clean energy and investing in communities, and of course it will be headquartered in Scotland. I know that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey and his SNP colleagues did not support the Great British Energy Bill, but I hope that in time they will see the benefit of Great British Energy delivering a greater quantity of cheaper energy right across the UK, which will bring down bills for everyone, wherever they are.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about locational pricing. If we were to design an energy system from scratch, we would not design the system we have at the moment, which is the legacy of electricity infrastructure being built in different places, at different times and in different ways across this country for a century. Our ambition is to deliver a lower-cost, renewables-based energy system, so we are considering what reforms to the energy market will look like to enable electricity prices to better reflect local conditions. That could have a significant impact on communities like the one the hon. Gentleman represents, recognising that there should be some relationship between where energy is generated and the price people pay for it.
There are potential reforms on the table. The previous Government started the consultation and we have picked it up. Many hon. Members will be aware of the options. They include the possibility of zonal pricing, but it is important that we balance such options with potential capital investment impacts, so there is detailed work going on before we reach any decisions. Reform of the electricity market does not have to be defined simply by locational pricing; we will look at a number of other reforms to the national pricing model, and we continue to work closely with the regulator, Ofgem, and the new publicly owned National Energy System Operator to look at how they might work.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission and distribution costs comes up in debates inside and outside this place. It is important to recognise the difference between the two. Electricity network charges are paid for connecting to, and using, the electricity network. They are paid by consumers across the country, both industrial and domestic, through the standing charge on their energy bill. Transmission charges are based on the costs that users impose on transmission by connecting in different locations, which means that there are higher charges for those areas that require energy to be transmitted a long distance. However, as we have discussed, transmission costs are generally lower in the highlands and islands than in other parts of Great Britain because Scotland is a net exporter of energy.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty comes with the distribution cost, which is the cost of supplying households in each area with electricity. It is based on the complexities of how we get electricity to individual households, so places like the highlands and islands face higher distribution costs, for obvious reasons: the mountainous terrain, sparse population, distance between houses and poor weather conditions all contribute to those costs being some of the highest in the UK.
Graham Leadbitter
On the point about transmission charges versus distribution charges, transmission is, in effect, distribution to the rest of the UK. Energy is transmitted for people to purchase at the other end. It does not cost any less to do that—in fact, it costs more. Purchasing energy hundreds of miles away from where it is created, but paying less to receive it, seems completely inequitable.
Michael Shanks
I think that would be true if transmission charges were higher in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, but that is not the case. Distribution charges might be lower in certain parts of the rest of the UK, but the transmission charges are higher, taking into account exactly that point.
We would like to get the grid into a place where we have much more generation capacity being built next to population centres, as well as the investment in the highlands and islands and the North and Celtic seas, but there is no doubt that the grid we will need to build in the future will be very different from the one where we built a gas or coal power station next to a city. We do have to wrestle with these questions of how we get power to the right place.
We also have to take into account how to build in capacity for when renewables are not generating. Parts of Scotland may well generate more electricity than they can use, but not always—not 24/7, 365 days of the year—so the whole grid has to be part of the answer. As the hon. Member referred to, one solution is the hydro benefit replacement scheme. It provides annual assistance of about £112 million to reduce distribution costs for domestic and non-domestic customers in the region, which works out at around a £60 annual reduction in household bills.
Many hon. Members have raised the really important point of standing charges, which are considerably higher in the highlands and islands than in many other places. The setting of standing charges is a commercial matter—they are not fixed by Government—and is regulated by Ofgem. However, the Government have taken the view, as we made clear during the election and in subsequent weeks, that the burden of standing charges on energy bills is far too high. We have had a number of conversations with Ofgem and others about that, including on the amount of variance between standing charges across the UK.
We are committed to lowering standing charges overall, and we have been working constructively with Ofgem on that. In August, Ofgem published a discussion paper addressing many of the issues on standing charges. It sets out the options for how we can reduce them, including moving some supplier operational costs off the standing charge and on to the unit rate, which would rebalance some of the issues raised by the hon. Member; increasing the variety of tariffs available to consumers in the market; and, in the longer term, reviewing how system costs are allocated. That will affect consumers in many ways, but in the meantime we want to work with Ofgem on any practical steps we can take to reduce standing charges as much as possible.
Before this debate, we had a debate on the wider questions around fuel poverty. I will not go over many of those points again, but I will just make the point that many aspects of fuel poverty are devolved to the Scottish Government, which in the autumn Budget last year received the biggest settlement since devolution. We have also announced £1 billion through the warm home discount, which provides an annual £150 rebate off bills for low-income households. That has a Barnett impact and there is therefore money for the Scottish Government to invest if they wish to do so.
The household support fund is an England-only scheme to provide support for those most in need. Of course, it is for the devolved Governments to decide how they want to allocate the additional funding, and the Scottish Government have not implemented a like-for-like scheme, but they do have a wide range of support for households in response to the cost of living crisis.
As I said, we had a very good debate just before this one on fuel poverty. The Government are committed to tackling it. Policy in this area is devolved in Scotland, but this is one of many questions about how we bring down costs for all consumers right across the UK. In our plan for clean power by 2030, we commit to delivering what will be cheaper energy—that was confirmed by the NESO this week. It will require a huge amount of effort, but as part of that we are committed to looking at the review of energy market arrangements as well.
This is a complex issue with a number of layers to it. I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey for raising it again. The challenge of how we lower bills for all is part of the energy trilemma that we are facing around how we demonstrate climate leadership, improve our energy security and lower bills in the long term. It is one that we are tackling head on, and we are determined as a Government to ensure that we do what we can to lower bills for all households across the country—in the highlands and islands, and right across the UK.
Question put and agreed to.