Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I should, as ever, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, and very happy to discuss the opportunities that are opening up for her community and others throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, I have visited her constituency and observed for myself the huge enthusiasm for new nuclear, as well as the additional benefits that it can bring to the wider energy sector.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The potential loss of 2,800 jobs at Tata Steel in Port Talbot is devastating for workers and their families, with possible knock-on effects for Trostre in Llanelli. As well as investing in the electric arc furnace, will the Government commit themselves to primary green steelmaking in the UK to preserve our security and our jobs?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady should, alongside us, celebrate the £500 million that the Government are contributing as part of an overall £1.25 billion investment in the modernisation of steel production at Port Talbot through, for instance, the electric arc furnace. Government and industry will also invest £100 million in skills to ensure that there are thousands of jobs for the future, and that we reduce emissions as well.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose the Government’s Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, for which there is absolutely no need. It will do nothing to bring down people’s energy bills, either domestic or business, and will severely damage the UK’s reputation in the world. Moreover, as I understand it, production from the new fields would be exported.

When Labour was in government, I was privileged to have the opportunity to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the Climate Change Act 2008—a ground-breaking world first that led the way on tackling climate change. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) became the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and he worked hard not only on renewables at home but on ensuring that the UK was taking the lead on the world stage in respect of climate change.

Now, just as there has been growing consensus around the globe on the urgent need to tackle climate change, it seems that we have a Government who no longer want to give that leadership. Even petroleum-producing countries such as Oman are now investing heavily in renewables, but we have a Prime Minister who was not even sure if he wanted to attend COP meetings, we have vacuous anti-green rhetoric, and now we have this Bill. It makes the UK look ridiculous on the world stage, not to say hypocritical, that with our proud history of urging other nations to do more to tackle climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels—and signing agreements to that effect, including recently at COP28—the UK is now prioritising a Bill to promote the exploration of more oilfields with production at who knows what future date.

What the Government should be doing is prioritising the roll-out of renewables. So often during oral questions we hear the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero boasting about the roll-out of renewables, but he should reflect on how much more the UK could and should have done by now. First, there was the wind farm ban in England. Even now, when the Government talk as if they are planning to lift the ban, the situation is completely ambiguous, and they have not promoted wind power enthusiastically. Just think: if there had not been a ban in England, we would have had additional capacity on top of what Wales and Scotland provide, nearer to the big centres of population. We all know that the Government have not moved fast enough to strengthen the national grid to transport the electricity from the wind farms where it is produced to the centres of population.

Then, we have the fiasco of the last auction process —allocation round 5—where the Government did not receive a single bid for floating offshore wind because of their stubborn refusal to sit down with the industry and recognise the huge impact of inflation, and the need to alter the price structure accordingly. The Irish Government listened to the industry and conducted a successful auction. We also saw the complacency of the Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), when he came to this House and said, “Oh, well, there’s another chance to bid for next year”, losing valuable time and sending worrying signals to the industry about the Government’s commitment to developing floating offshore wind. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), investors now lack confidence in investing in the UK because they simply do not know which direction this Government are going in.

I could go on. We could have seen a lot more progress on solar and marine technologies—those are some of the things the Government could be doing if they listened to the industry, instead of wasting time on this Bill. The UK Marine Energy Council has identified the barriers to the roll-out of tidal stream energy: a lack of clarity on future support, which is damaging investor confidence; a consenting process that is slow and onerous; a lack of innovation funding; the cost of setting up supply chains; and a lack of grid capacity. The same could be said about many other emerging renewable technologies, and that is where the Government’s energy should be concentrated, not on this ridiculous Bill.

On electrification of the railways, when Labour left government in 2010, there were plans to electrify the line from London to Swansea. We then had the ridiculous pantomime of the Tories cancelling Cardiff to Swansea, reinstating it, and cancelling it again. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who was then Secretary of State for Wales and is now the Chief Whip, said that electrification was pointless as the nature of the track meant that trains would not go any faster, but that completely misses the point. As anyone who has been in the square in front of the station in Cardiff knows, the pollution, the carbon emissions and the noise from the diesel engines tell us exactly why we should be pushing on with electrification: to reduce our emissions. Instead, we have this Bill to extract more oil and gas from the North sea, rather than moving away by producing renewables and ensuring that our industries and our transport can operate on clean energy. That is what the Government’s priorities should be.

As for jobs, the people working in the oil and gas industry have valuable skills, and we must make absolutely sure that they have the opportunity to move across to other, similar industries: renewables and infrastructure. For that, the Government need a clear industrial strategy and to provide proper retraining opportunities for those who need to do so. Of course, the way to improve job opportunities is to ramp up the speed and scale of renewables development.

There was a question earlier about Labour’s policy. I will not detain Members by reading all 22 pages of our plans to make the UK a renewable energy superpower, which can be found on our website, but to be brief, we are absolutely committed to slashing people’s energy bills by making the UK a renewable energy superpower, creating the new green jobs of the future and ensuring a just transition. If we win the next election, we will create Great British Energy to be a publicly owned champion of clean energy generation. We have plans for a national wealth fund that would invest alongside the private sector in the jobs of the future, such as in clean steel plants, and our plans are underpinned by a proper industrial strategy that will give investors confidence. On that note, I suggest that the Government drop this Bill, and turn their attentions and energies to developing our renewables sector and making sure we can proudly lead the world on a just transition to a fossil-free world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

It will be useful for us both if I write to my hon. Friend and set out the technical assessments, constraints and issues around that, because he makes an interesting point.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government have finally committed to a carbon border adjustment mechanism to protect our energy-intensive industries from being undercut by imports made with dirtier energy or in more heavily polluting processes. Will the Minister explain why the Government are delaying that until 2027, when the EU is introducing equivalent legislation a whole year earlier? Will he speak urgently to ministerial colleagues about bringing that date forward, both to protect our industries and reduce our carbon footprint?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the introduction of a carbon border adjustment mechanism. This is to make sure that we do not have carbon leakage—to use the jargon—where carbon costs imposed on companies here lead to that production simply going abroad, with no betterment to the planet. His Majesty’s Treasury takes the lead on this particular policy, but I will ensure that her sentiments are passed on to my Treasury colleagues.

Floating Offshore Wind

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on not only securing the debate, but all her work on raising the issue of offshore wind and floating offshore wind.

It was shocking and disappointing that the Government were not nimble and responsive enough with the industry to attract any bids for floating offshore wind in the last round, AR5, thus losing a year in the race to tackle climate change and to get ahead in the worldwide race to develop renewables. The Irish made the necessary adjustments, and they had a successful bid. I am not saying that we should always be in hock to manufacturers, but we need to listen to the people who will develop the renewable forms of energy, and co-operate, getting clear messages out so that they feel that the Government have a clear strategy and want manufacturers to be here, or they will be off somewhere else, as we saw clearly with Ireland on the border.

I will not dwell on that now; I would rather look to the future to see what needs to be done for us as the UK to get the most out of the development of floating offshore wind. We in the UK are well placed to grasp the opportunities and to reap the rewards that the development of floating offshore wind offers. Furthermore, it offers us a real opportunity to reinvigorate areas of the country where industry has declined in recent years, the very areas where we have deep ports and industrial base, and have for a long time been concerned about the decline of traditional industries. They are well suited to be leading the way on floating offshore wind.

In south-west Wales, for example, we have not only the potential in the Celtic sea, but the two ports, Milford Haven and Port Talbot, offering deep waters, plenty of space and a strong industrial base. Between them, we have my constituency of Llanelli, with its strong traditions of engineering firms and metal industries producing a huge range of components, from cables and bearings to complex equipment for the automotive and other sectors.

If the Government get this right, there is much potential for jobs in FLOW—the abbreviation the hon. Member for North Devon used for floating offshore wind—and the supply chain. Indeed, the floating offshore wind taskforce said that FLOW might support 30,000 jobs by the end of the decade. A report by Opergy in 2022 highlighted that with the right strategy, that could be as many as 67,000 by 2040. The report also noted that to get that jobs bonus, the Government will need to be proactive in addressing the skills gaps. To grasp the opportunities, we need a grim determination and a coherent industrial strategy from Government.

Here in the UK, we have this tremendous potential for floating offshore wind, as we are surrounded by sea, with plenty of strong winds. Floating offshore wind has the advantage of being able to be deployed further out, in deeper waters, where there are stronger and more consistent winds, and where it is too deep for fixed turbines. Furthermore, away from these islands, 80% of the world’s potential offshore wind energy is in fact in deeper waters. Therefore, the potential for export of FLOW technology and components is significant.

The fact that we have several demonstration projects operational, such as Kincardine and Hywind, also puts the UK in a good position to be a world leader. The UK can only grasp the full benefits of developing FLOW, however, if we get ahead of the game and become the country that is exporting the turbine technology and the components, rather than letting other countries get ahead, offering greater certainty and incentives to lure investors. Otherwise, we will find ourselves importing the very components that we could have been manufacturing here.

Unfortunately, the UK invests a lower percentage of GDP than our competitors, such as France, Germany and the US, and we spend a lower percentage of GDP on research and development. What we need to attract investment, and research and development is certainty, along with a clear strategy from Government. First, we need that strong commitment by Government to ramp up investment in FLOW at scale. For that, we need a generous budget in AR6 to allow a number of projects to go ahead. We need the scale so that companies see that it is worth while to invest in component factories in the UK. Scale will bring prices down and make investment economically viable. Companies need to see that more projects are definitely on the horizon. We need certainty, enthusiasm and commitment now, before those companies go elsewhere. We also need long-term clarity on the Celtic sea seabed leasing.

We need investment in our ports now. There is real concern in the industry that the ports are not being developed quickly enough and that investment needs to be much greater. We must recognise that they need huge capital expenditure now and that the revenue will not come until later through the FLOW projects. Although £160 million in grant funding is available through the FLOW manufacturing investment scheme, the FLOW taskforce has identified that some £4 billion will be needed for FLOW ports, so there needs to be a support mechanism for ports to manage that. There need to be interim measures now to ensure progress at pace and the development of a revenue support scheme to give long-term certainty and create assets that will attract investors.

Turning to the national grid, it is estimated that we will need to build some six times as much capacity in the next 10 years as we have in the last 10. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the challenges, but perhaps he could outline what steps he is taking to ensure that we have the capacity and skills for that vital development to take place. It is crazy to continue with a situation where companies are being paid to turn onshore wind turbines off simply because the capacity is not there to transport the cheap electricity to the densely populated areas where it is needed. The challenge to the grid capacity posed by FLOW is enormous, so I would be pleased to hear what the Government are doing in this respect.

Then, sadly, we come to our steel industry. If it were not so tragic, would be farcical. We have had the devastating news from Tata that it wants to close the blast furnaces in Port Talbot, followed a few days later by the news from Scunthorpe that British Steel have also proposed closing the blast furnace. Just when we want to invest in manufacturing the components for FLOW, we are losing the capacity to produce our own steel, and we will have to import more. It is no good saying that this is a green measure, as we know that iron ore will be being smelted with the same blast furnace process elsewhere in the world, quite likely with lower environmental standards. We lose jobs, there is no environmental benefit, it is a threat to our security, and we are more vulnerable to price fluctuations in the steel market, which will have an impact on our ability to manufacture the components for FLOW. Yes, we welcome investment in the electric arc furnaces, but that capacity is needed simply to try to mop up some of the 800 million tonnes of used steel that we export for recycling. Some grades of steel can only be produced in the blast furnace process at present. We need the investment in the technologies of the future to green those processes so that we can produce all the grades of steel that we need in the UK.

Then we come to the railway. The Government have a sorry record on the railway west of Cardiff. When Labour left office in 2010, we had committed to electrify the railway west of Cardiff at least as far as Swansea. Then the Conservative Government cancelled it west of Cardiff. After lobbying by MPs, the Government then relented and agreed to electrify to Swansea, but then they cancelled it again. Contrary to what the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), said one day at the Dispatch Box—that it is not worth doing because it would not save time—it absolutely is worth doing to help reach net zero by using electricity from renewables, including FLOW, instead of dirty diesel. That will offer an opportunity to upgrade the line not just to Port Talbot, which is now clearly urgent, but on through Llanelli to Pembrokeshire.

To sum up, we have a unique opportunity now to become a world leader in floating offshore wind, bringing down energy costs, cutting emissions, and creating jobs in places like Llanelli. But it needs clear commitment and strategy from Government. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out in detail what his Government are doing to ensure a sufficient scale of development to attract investment in the UK supply chain, enable rapid enough development of the port infrastructure in Port Talbot and Pembrokeshire, retain primary steelmaking in the UK, ensure the timely development of grid capacity and ensure that we have the skilled workforce we need for the green jobs of the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. Last year we were dependent on fossil fuels for 77% of our energy. If we import more gas from abroad, it will be in the form of liquefied natural gas, which, according to a report from the North Sea Transition Authority two weeks ago, has four times the production emissions of domestic gas. The Scottish National party, ably supported by the Labour party, wants to threaten 200,000 jobs, £50 billion of tax revenue over the next five years, and the very subsea engineering and technological capability—not to mention the balance sheets—that we need to develop hydrogen, carbon capture, usage and storage, and the rest of the transition. It is madness, and it is the policy of the SNP.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Yes, we need increased electric arc capacity to reprocess more scrap steel in the UK, but Trostre tinplate packaging works in my constituency needs a grade of steel that can be produced only by the blast furnace process, until green production technologies are developed. With 23 such projects elsewhere in Europe, will the Secretary of State commit to investing in developing these technologies at Port Talbot, thus reducing emissions and keeping jobs in Port Talbot and Llanelli?

[Graham Stuart]

I share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for keeping those jobs, which is why we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds to ensure that these industries can make that transition. I entirely agree with her on the importance of innovation and making sure it is embedded so that not only do we sustain those industries but so that, through innovation, we can strengthen them in the years ahead.

Offshore Wind Contracts

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

May I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman? I met him in his constituency when I visited the European Marine Energy Centre and saw for myself some of the projects in the water. I am personally determined to ensure that tidal stream continues to grow. We maintain our global leadership, with a very high percentage UK supply chain as a further positive to it. He tempts me to get ahead of myself on policy, but I cannot do that. However, what we are doing and what our dedicated pot this year did is further strengthen that so that we can get in a position where that might be a realistic policy position to take.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Even with a higher price, offshore wind would help to slash bills. When the Minister saw the Irish Government recognise inflation, up the price and proceed to a successful auction, what discussions did he have with the industry and with Treasury colleagues about the price to be set?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is a good one. Obviously, we did look at whether intervention, given that prices continue to change after they are set, was the right thing to do. We think that the CfD mechanism—the way that it is operated—is sound and that the best thing to do is to allow that to pass for the year. One reason for having the annual auction was precisely to allow us quickly to adjust, and, as I say, as soon as November, we will be setting the parameters for the next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

The Government have received Nick Winser’s review and it will be published imminently.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Following a debate in Westminster Hall on making heritage buildings more sustainable, will the Secretary of State undertake to meet his colleague the Minister with responsibility for culture to push for the urgent revision of guidelines to allow greater flexibility in the siting of solar panels and other renewable installations on heritage buildings, in order to make them more environmentally sustainable and economically viable?

[Amanda Solloway]

Speaking for myself, I would be delighted to have a meeting on that subject.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Nia Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, but I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the Government’s paltry efforts on energy to date. It is now a year since the horrific invasion of Ukraine by President Putin, which should have been a brutal wake-up call. Not only do we need accelerated investment in renewables because of the extreme urgency of tackling the climate emergency and ensuring that we reduce our carbon emissions, but Putin’s invasion reminded us of the strategic importance of energy security. We have plentiful natural resources and we can provide ourselves with energy security with wide-ranging investment in renewables. Then we come to the issue of cost, as renewables, particularly onshore wind, are now proving their cost-effectiveness.

So whether it is about tackling the climate crisis, energy security or price, the Government should be making investment in renewables an absolute top priority. Despite the Department’s document citing onshore wind as one of the cheapest and easiest forms of electricity generation, they are still being mealy-mouthed about lifting the ban on onshore wind in England. This bill should include a clear lifting of that ban. We know that business needs certainty in order to invest, and the Bill misses the opportunity to give the onshore wind business that certainty.

Now is a crucial time for industry more widely to be investing in the green technologies of the future. Many industries such as steel and manufacturing face huge transition costs to reach net zero, and they will be making unprecedented investments in new methods of production and new production lines. They will be looking very carefully at which countries offer them the best deal on siting their production lines of the future. Not only is it essential that the Government respond to the game-changing US Inflation Reduction Act, and similar moves by the EU—I do not know why they are dragging their feet, as industry is crying out for information and will simply go elsewhere if it does not get it—but they need to address energy costs.

Time and again, not just our energy-intensive industries but swathes of manufacturing cite high energy costs as a massive disincentive to continuing their operations in the UK. This situation is absurd, and it would be laughable if it were not so tragic that we have so much potential for cheap energy and yet we offer industry sky high prices. The Government need to give industry long-term certainty on cheap, competitive energy prices if we are to have any hope of new production lines being sited here and providing the valuable green jobs of the future.

Make no mistake: if we do not get certainty on consistent, cheap energy prices, we will lose vital investment in the new production lines, with massive jobs losses. Our competitor countries have major state-owned companies pushing forward with renewables, but the UK Government shy away from any such idea. Such a company can really accelerate investment in renewables. The Welsh Government are now establishing one such company and a future Labour UK Government would establish a Great British energy company to do likewise.

Of course it is not just industry that is desperate for cheap energy; householders have been staggered by the price rises in energy this winter. Even when they make determined efforts to cut down on the number of units they use, they are still stung by rocketing standing charges, for which they can see no good reason. It seems completely perverse that the price of electricity produced by cheap renewable generation is linked to the price of gas. That urgently needs reform and, yet again, this Bill is a missed opportunity to tackle the problem. Nor are the Government doing anything to close the windfall tax loophole that allows oil and gas companies to continue to rack up enormous profits while householders struggle in cold and often damp houses.

Of course, that brings me to that other great failure: the Government’s failure to invest effectively in home insulation. If that had been actively pursued by the Government in the past, energy bills for millions of householders could have been reduced by now.

It is also high time that the Government resolve the problems of the national grid’s lack of capacity with the difficulties and delays in connection. It is vital that we have an effective grid to get energy from where it is generated to the areas of population and industry where it is needed. Not long ago we witnessed the fiasco of electricity generated in Scotland failing to reach consumers in England because of the current lack of grid capacity. But it is not enough to catch up with the present. I know that the Minister for Climate Change in the Welsh Government, Julie James MS, has flagged up the huge quantities of electricity that will be generated by offshore wind in the Celtic sea. She has raised with the UK Government the vital work needed to increase the grid capacity to transmit this energy to where it is needed across the UK. I would be grateful for a categoric assurance from the Minister that increasing grid capacity will be an absolute priority.

Community energy schemes can bring great benefit to local communities, so will the Minister, when he winds up, commit to retaining the amendments to help encourage such community energy schemes. I urge the Government: to retain the amendments made in the other place; to support our amendments to deal with grid delays; to expand home energy efficiency measures; to ban fracking, as indeed we have already done in Wales; and to lift the ban on onshore wind in England, all of which would make for a better Bill.

Energy Charter Treaty

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Far more impressive legal minds than mine—who have been working at ClientEarth, Global Justice Now and Green Alliance—have demonstrated that there is a way for us out of this treaty and that we can, potentially, work with our European partners to create an exemption regime for some of the historic investment cases in relation to which we might be under treaty obligations.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, given that there could be a 20-year timeframe in which we would still be liable for action and penalties, the sooner we get out of this treaty the better? Moreover, what indications has he had that it may be possible to negotiate and mitigate down those 20 years, especially given the huge interest from other European countries?

[Chris Skidmore]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the sooner we get out, the sooner we are not under the cosh. However, when it comes to looking at the mitigation circumstances for the 20-year rule, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands have all signalled their intention to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. As I will explain later, the EU as a bloc will now potentially decide to withdraw from the energy charter treaty, although it will obviously take time to gather agreement and the UK can therefore lead on making a concerted effort to get all the countries to withdraw. If they do, that potentially creates a mechanism by which some of the disputes are unable to be taken forward in certain areas, such as the wider European area; there could be an opportunity to demonstrate how the overall potential liability can be cut by over 60%.

As the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has made clear, the risks of the status quo could hold the UK open to future challenge. The status quo cannot continue, because continued membership of the energy charter treaty risks having a chilling effect if Governments back away from new policies in order to avoid being sued—a danger that UN climate experts specifically warned about in the IPCC report. The UK Government have already recognised the problem, with the then Energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham, saying:

“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.”

I hope to see the same clarity from the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, as well as from the new, beefed-up Department for Business and Trade.