Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I will not be drawn on confirming whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is the most beautiful part of England—I will leave that to him. However, what he proposes sounds like a fantastic idea and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further. We see huge potential for a whole range of renewables. Those kinds of innovative projects—smaller scale as well—are what could deliver not just benefits for the system but real benefits for the communities that host them.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Moving from gas to electricity in home heating is an important part of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yet at the Select Committee hearing last week, we heard real concerns that people in energy debt are unable to disconnect from gas and are therefore still stuck paying standing charges. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are to remove that problem and ensure that more people can take up the opportunities presented by electrifying home heat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

As so often, my hon. Friend is correct on these matters. He usually has a quote that shows that, just a few months ago, Opposition Front Benchers agreed with us on many of these matters, but have suddenly changed their position. As my hon. Friend says, our proposals are not only critical to delivering energy security in an increasingly uncertain world, but to tackling the climate crisis, which has such an impact on our lives now and in the future, and to the economic opportunities of the 21st century.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We need to ensure that the technology that we import to increase grid capacity is secure. US officials recently found kill switches in Chinese-made components for solar farms. The Conservatives have been clear about the security risks that China poses in our energy supply chain, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he discussed that issue in his recent meeting with Chinese officials? If not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I always agree with my hon. Friend, but on her initial point, I probably do not. I am not sure that we do all agree in this House that we should remove the volatility of fossil fuel prices. Some want us to remain linked to fossil fuels for longer and longer. We are determined to remove that vulnerability from people’s bills, so that we do not face the price spikes that many families still struggle with. She is right to point to targeted support as well. We are looking at social tariffs. Part of the challenge is that the phrase means different things to different people, but we are clear that bringing down bills for everyone is a top priority for this Government, and the clean power mission is how we will do it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. The Energy Secretary has said that there is a “principled case” for removing green taxes from electricity bills, and the cost being met by increases in green taxes on gas bills. That would be a net tax rise for every household—80% of the country—that uses gas. This was not an argument that he made before the election, so can the Minister take this opportunity to rule out any increase in taxes, charges or levies on gas bills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on two fronts. First, we are not closing down oil and gas. It will continue to play a part for many years to come, but there is a transition under way, as there has been for many years. The truth of the matter is that, while we want to create the jobs that come next, he turns his face against all the investment in what those jobs will be, which means that, under his plan, the transition will not lead to a future for that incredibly skilled workforce. We are determined to do it differently, so that there are good, well-paid jobs in the future and a secure energy mix for decades to come.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank everybody who has wished me well for my birthday. I got the best birthday present, and that was the knighthood for Sir Billy Boston, who had to leave Wales to play rugby league. This is the first knighthood for rugby league, so it is the best present I could have had.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

can make it

“harder…to heat our homes”.

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call Luke Murphy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

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

[Michael Shanks]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Where was the question?

[Michael Shanks]

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

Gas Storage Levels

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The shadow Minister’s point would be well made were it not for the fact that it is completely untrue. If we look at the facts, the capacity market notice that he mentions was cancelled—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister has made a direct hint that what the Member said was untrue. Is he sure of that, or does he want to rephrase it?

[Michael Shanks]

I apologise, Mr Speaker; I think the shadow Minister was confused in the facts that he gave to Parliament today. I am happy to set that right.

Let us look at the facts. The National Energy System Operator—the people who run the system—stated clearly:

“At no point were electricity supplies less than anticipated demand and our engineers were able to rebalance the system without the need to consider any emergency measures.”

If we listen to the experts—to National Gas and to NESO—they both confirmed over the weekend that there was resilience in the system. I reiterate the point that the system operated exactly as it was intended to do.

If the shadow Minister has complaints about how the system operates in the country and the gas storage situation, he may want to look at some of his colleagues who were in power over the past 14 years. He knows the truth about his party’s record. He is a very smart guy, and he knows they left us exposed. He knows they did not do enough to build the system that we need and he knows what caused the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. While his party is busy crowdsourcing policy advice on Twitter from net zero sceptics, it would be far better if they looked at their own record in government and, instead of criticising us, recognised that we are getting on with building a resilient energy system for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister missed from his story the role of Liz Truss. When she was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2017, she made the decision to close our gas storage facility. Does the Minister agree that if we want energy security and lower prices, that all depends on reducing our reliance on the volatile nature of the international fossil fuel market? Does that not mean that his clean power action plan for 2030 is exactly the right policy to address the events of the past few days?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The decisions that the previous Government took on storage are for them to answer, and anyone who looks at their record will rightly raise questions about that. On the broader point, he is right. The only plan for how we can get off the volatile fossil fuel markets, to which the previous Government left us far too exposed, is the clean power action plan that we have announced. If the Tories oppose that, they need to come up with their alternative to deliver the resilience in the system that we are fighting for every single day.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister has got the point.

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right; this is an incredibly important issue that gets to the heart of the fact we inherited from the previous Government not just an economic mess but a series of policy decisions not made, and an energy system that needed us to take serious decisions quickly to build resilience for the future.

On the broader point about consumers, she will know that my hon. Friend the Minister for consumers is doing a lot of work on exactly what the warmer homes scheme will look like, to ensure that people have as warm a home as possible. She is right that at times such as this, the people in the poorest households struggle the most. We are doing what we can to ensure that homes are insulated and, in the long term, to bring down bills. The only way to do that is to deliver clean power by 2030—faster than the previous Government would ever have managed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have met Unite on a number of occasions over the past few months since Petroineos made the disappointing decision to follow through on its closure plans for the Grangemouth refinery. It is important that we look at every possible option, and we have done.

It is also important that the Government are clear that we want to see a long-term sustainable future for the refinery site. That is why we invested in Project Willow, which at the moment is coming up with credible investable propositions for the site. We want to protect the workers and do whatever we can to ensure a just transition at Grangemouth and for industry right across the country, but those options need to be long-term and sustainable so that we do not drive workers back into this process again a few years down the line. We are committed to ensuring that we invest in long-term sustainable propositions for the site, and of course we will meet anyone and discuss any propositions to help make that happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is so good to hear the Minister affirm the need to bring the public onside, as well as private sector investment, to achieve the transformation towards green power and net zero. The Liberal Democrats support Great British Energy if community energy is at the centre of the Great British Energy Bill. Our colleagues in the Lords are debating amendments relating to direct participation in and benefit from community energy. Will the Minister agree to those proposals if they come to this House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend asks an extremely important question. All communities should benefit from the transformation that we want to make to the energy system. Part of the answer is improving how we use smart systems right across the energy system, so that people have much more consumer-led flexibility in their options—we are moving forward with that. In the clean power action plan that we published last week, we committed to doing much more to give people the power to take advantage of some of the opportunities she mentions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Community engagement and funding are important. With large-scale solar farms planned for agricultural land, does the Secretary of State think that there are any circumstances in which local communities might know better than him?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with my hon. Friend that nuclear will play a central role in our clean power mission, and will continue to be a critical part of our energy mix as we progress towards 2030 and far beyond. Great British Nuclear is continuing to drive forward the competition on small modular reactors, with bids currently being evaluated by the Department, and I look forward to having more to say about this in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Bill Esterson]

The last Government held a consultation on electricity market arrangements, but despite having said that that was their flagship policy in this area, they did not publish the results of that consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that electricity and, indeed, energy market reform is crucial to achieving the Government’s stated 2030 clean energy targets and to reducing bills, and can he say whether this Government will publish the results of the last Government’s consultation and if so, when?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks that was a “gotcha” question, but, of course, the Conservative party did not vote for the Bill at all. Amendment or not, I do not think he can really speak about what Great British Energy might deliver, because, despite it being one of the most popular policies at the last election, the Conservatives failed to bother to vote for it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

Last week, the National Energy System Operator published a full systems cost analysis of the Secretary of State’s flagship project to carbonise the grid by 2030. This morning, the Secretary of State said on several media outlets that the report shows that his plans will lower bills. I remind the House that the report assumes that gas prices are 40% higher than the Department’s own estimates, that the price of carbon price is at least double what it is now, that the Government can commission more offshore wind in the next two years than in the last six combined without moving prices, and that they can build the grid at a pace we have never seen before in this country, without any delays. Even if all that is achieved, page 78 of the report shows that the cost of the system will be higher. For clarity, would the Minister like to repeat at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State’s claim that the NESO report shows that Labour’s system will lead to a lower cost of electricity?

--- Later in debate ---

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

My hon. Friend is right; there are good projects right across the country that we hope to invest in in the lead-up to delivering in 2030. The NESO report clearly set out that our aim is achievable. The Conservative party wants to continue having the arguments of the past; we are determined, with ambition, to deliver on the arguments of the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Michael Shanks and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the importance of community energy projects throughout the country. We want to see many more of them, but we have inherited a grid that needs significant upgrading, and we are now working apace to ensure that that happens. Part of the work that I have been doing with National Grid and others involves trying to identify the next steps that are needed to shorten the connections queue, and also to make it more affordable for smaller community projects to connect. There is an important role for partnership as well, with some of the bigger renewables projects giving part of their connections queues to smaller ones, and that is already happening in some parts of the country. There is no doubt that there is much more to do, but we are, as I have said, working apace to try to move this forward after 14 years of inaction.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), the lack of national grid capacity is holding back the UK’s push towards renewable energy. There are numerous examples of projects that have been delayed because they are waiting to be connected to the national grid, or because connection is too expensive. In my constituency, we cannot even connect the solar panels and batteries for the ambitious plan to decarbonise and electrify the refuse fleet for South Cambridgeshire district council. The projects that have been delayed include the building of new homes, which is crucial at present. Can the Minister explain to us how we are to reach this stage on the scale and at the pace that is needed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Shanks]

I could be wrong, but I think the right hon. Gentleman previously said that his own Government’s plans on onshore wind in England were not the right approach to take. I agree with him, which is why we lifted the onshore wind ban. The reality is that whereas the previous Government used to talk the talk on climate action, we are the ones now delivering—and delivering an energy system fit for the future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

One way to increase clean electricity generation in the United Kingdom would be to invest at pace in new nuclear. We left government with a clear plan to get to 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050. Does that target remain?