Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Timothy Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Michael Shanks
On the Government Benches, we are trying to cut people’s bills as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman was a core part of a Government who failed to do that for many years. I am surprised that he did not rise to congratulate Great British Energy on its investment in solar panels on schools and hospitals, because his constituents are benefiting from one on a hospital and one on a school. He should welcome that.
Nick Timothy
If the hon. Member wants to talk about my constituency, he can talk about the betrayal of the Sunnica application, which is being imposed on my constituency by the Energy Secretary. The public will see that the answer was not a “no” from the Minister. Families across the country should be worried; this is becoming a pattern. For weeks, I asked Ministers about their plan to align with the European carbon price. For weeks, they denied that it would happen, and then, once the local elections were done, they did it, increasing electricity bills by stealth for every family and business in the country. Now it is the same for gas bills. When will the Minister be straight with people and admit that the Government are adding to the bills of families and businesses, not cutting them?
Michael Shanks
The House will have heard the shadow Minister’s failure to welcome solar panels on a hospital and a school in his constituency, but he can deal with his own constituents. On the question of the emissions trading system, on one side, we have National Grid, Energy UK, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Make UK and the Confederation of British Industry welcoming it. On the other side, we have the shadow Minister and the deputy leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). I think I know who I would take my advice from.
Nuclear Power: Investment
Nick Timothy Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Conservative party is a pro-nuclear party and we welcome any decisions, backed by investment, that increase Britain’s nuclear capacity, because we cannot deliver cheap, reliable and secure energy without it. Although the investment announced today by the Secretary of State is significant, it is a fraction of the £230 billion cost, which will ultimately be borne by consumers, of his plan to decarbonise the grid. Unlike the intermittent technologies backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power. It generates inertia to stabilise our grid. Nuclear power plants require substantially less new grid infrastructure compared with dispersed generation from wind and solar. It is to the shame of successive Governments over many years that Britain relinquished its status as a world leader in civil nuclear technologies. In 1965, we had more nuclear reactors than the United States, the USSR and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 1966, we built 10 nuclear power stations, but we gave all that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1994 and has fallen consistently since then.
Labour came to power in 1997, saying that it saw no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations. In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative Government who planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years and it is thanks to that work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of these announcements today. Can he reiterate, despite the headlines this morning, that the final investment decision has not yet been made? He said in his statement that he will announce it in the summer, but can he give us a more precise date when we will be told the total Government investment and the private capital raised?
This statement is a downgrade on what the previous Government put in motion. Today, the Energy Secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation and no news on Wylfa. The nuclear industry is expecting news of a third gigawatt scale reactor. The previous Government purchased the land and committed to build, but on this today the Energy Secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the planning inherited for a third gigawatt scale plant at Wylfa and will he recommit to the Conservative policy of 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050?
Although it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build our first small modular reactors, this is a downgrade on what was previously planned. Can the Secretary of State tell us why he has awarded just one technology rather than two as set out previously? Furthermore, will he commit, as other countries have, to going faster?
Canada has approved a plan for four SMRs by 2029. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. The contrast between this caution on nuclear and the Government’s rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years, while betting the house on unreliable and intermittent renewable technologies and shutting down British oil and gas in the North sea, could not be clearer. We need the Energy Secretary to focus on the positive, not to stake our country’s future and people’s bills on ideology.
Ed Miliband
I feel a bit sorry for the hon. Gentleman; it is hard on a day like this to be an Opposition Member. Nevertheless, I will try to answer his questions, such as they are. On the question about the final investment decision, he will be aware that we are currently doing the private sector capital raise. When that is complete, we will proceed to the final investment decision, which will take place this summer. That is obviously important.
On his fundamental question, I do slightly scratch my head, because he says that this is a downgrade—we have announced the largest nuclear building programme in 50 years! What he says might have looked good in the mirror this morning, but it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question, which goes to the point I made at the end of my statement, is this: why did the Conservatives make all these promises on nuclear but fail to deliver them? There is a simple answer. It was not because of a lack of diligence from his colleague the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The simple reason is that they did not put up the money. They did not make the investment. The one thing that has bedevilled the nuclear programme is a failure to invest public money.
In this spending review we are putting in £14 billion for Sizewell, £2.5 billion for SMRs, and £2.5 billion for fusion. Those are significant sums of long-term capital investment. The Conservatives made all these promises, but they did not put in the money. I was the guy who identified Sizewell, and I am back here delivering Sizewell. This Government are willing to make the investment. We welcome the support from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), such as it is, but he needs to learn some lessons. Public investment, not decline, is the answer for Britain.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We welcome the Government’s renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue, after years of dither and delay from successive Conservative Governments. It has been 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009, and now, seven Prime Ministers later, we are finally seeing real movement. That is not a success story but a warning. Short-term thinking, poor delivery and exorbitant costs—
Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations
Nick Timothy Excerpts(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and I hope to give a voice to your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, given the interest in this important subject in Romsey and Southampton North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing the debate and making such a comprehensive speech. He was even wise enough to quote the fire experts from the county that matters most—by which I obviously mean Suffolk.
The fact that there were such clear themes from Members across the House and across the divides of the House—right and left, net zero enthusiasts and sceptics—shows that we are dealing with an undeniable problem that the Government have not yet gripped. There was a clear consensus across the House, from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), that there is a total absence of regulation with this risky technology. There was also agreement, from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), about the effects of the policy on the countryside, such as on the availability of good farmland and on rural roads, as well as the challenges of fire service response times in the country. The hon. Members for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made the point that BESS fires can have serious effects on our precious rivers.
I also want to single out the speech by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who drew attention to the dodgy finances of a lot of the firms behind a lot of these applications. That is something we need to investigate further. There was broad agreement on the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) that these battery sites should not be allowed to go ahead until a proper system of regulation is introduced.
I am afraid that I am going to breach the cross-party love-in by picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) said about ideology. The Government are betting on battery energy storage systems thanks to their ideological aim to decarbonise the entire grid within five years, therefore choosing to depend on unreliable, intermittent and expensive renewables. That is the root cause of the dependence on the technologies we are debating. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) can intervene if he wishes.
It is the consequence of the zeal of the Energy Secretary that we are debating these subjects. Thanks to net zero policy costs, which are relevant more than wholesale gas prices, Britain already has the highest energy costs in Europe. Pushing policy to run faster than technology will allow risks a crisis in the grid and in our economy.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As someone who worked in the energy industry for five years before coming to this place, I would appreciate some honesty in recognising that the applications the hon. Gentleman has just referenced have been in the pipeline for a lot longer than the Labour Government have been in power.
Nick Timothy
The hon. Member will note the enthusiasm and ideological zeal of the Energy Secretary, which began, I think, in his very first week when he came to this House and announced that he was imposing masses of solar farms on parts of the country and, in the case of the solar farm in my constituency, completely disregarding the independent expert examining authority. That is a clear difference between the two Governments we are discussing.
Mass solar is inefficient and produces less power even than wind, which has a higher load factor—between 10% and 11% for solar, between 22% and 28% for onshore wind, and between 30% and 38% for offshore wind. And that is wind, which is unreliable in itself. The comparison worsens next to nuclear, as it would take 8.5 million solar panels, taking up at least 10,000 acres of often top-quality farmland, to produce enough power to match an average reactor. To the surprise of no one, the World Bank says we are one of the countries with the “least generous conditions” for PV. Indeed, we rank higher only than Ireland.
Batteries and solar panels also expose us to dependence on China, which produces more than 80% of the world’s solar panels. Many are made with slave labour, and perhaps all contain kill switches controlled by Beijing. While an amendment to the GB Energy Bill was passed to ban the Government’s new quango from using slave-made imports, it does not apply to private sector purchases. So much for ending our dependence on foreign dictatorships and human rights abusers. So much for our energy security.
Giant solar fails even on its own terms, because it is four times more carbon-intensive than wind and nuclear. Apart from biomass, solar is the most polluting of all renewables.
As this debate has shown, there are very real safety concerns about the battery sites that we must address. These battery sites pose a public safety risk that the Government are simply ignoring. With 150 BESS sites already in operation, and with well over 1,000 planning applications in the pipeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) noted, this needs to be confronted as a matter of urgency. Building these sites and trying to deal with the safety questions later is reckless, expensive and dangerous.
When a fire starts at a BESS site, highly toxic emissions are released into the air. They include chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride, heavy metals and carcinogens, forcing people to stay indoors. These fires do not need oxygen to keep burning, so they can last for weeks. They can be reignited easily, and the health effects of exposure to these gases are a major concern.
Just look at the fire in Liverpool four years ago, which several Members cited. It took 59 hours to put out. In answer to my written questions, the Government have confirmed that no environmental impact assessment has been made of that incident, so no lessons are being learned. And this year we have seen fires at battery sites near Rothienorman in Aberdeenshire, and in East Tilbury in Essex.
I have repeatedly raised fire safety directly with Ministers, but no satisfactory answers have been given. The Government have made no assessment of the adequacy of fire services near battery sites. There is minimal oversight from the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency.
The National Fire Chiefs Council recommends a minimum distance of 25 metres between grid-scale batteries and occupied buildings, but it is only guidance and there is no statutory requirement to maintain this distance. As the Liverpool fire proves, a major blaze can affect people over a much wider area anyway.
We need clear involvement from the fire and rescue services in the planning application process for battery sites, looking at concerns around construction, fire safety and retrofitting. Henry Griffin from Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service has described battery sites as an “emerging risk”, saying:
“There can be complications with vapour clouds and fires will last a long time.”
Fire services have no legal power to enforce safety measures on battery sites. We need legislation and residents need a say.
Sunnica is one of the biggest solar and battery farms in the country, as mentioned by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), and it has been imposed on our constituents by the Energy Secretary. Three days after entering office, the Energy Secretary approved the application, overruling the advice of examining authorities and, quite clearly from his answer to my question, he had not read the evidence—breaching his quasi-judicial responsibility.
Sunnica will cover over 2,500 acres of prime agricultural land across West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire. Three battery sites will be built, and the whole project will actually increase carbon emissions. Sunnica has treated residents with contempt and used consultants who specialise in questionable assessments of the quality of farmland. Sunnica is also located very close to the RAF bases at Mildenhall and Lakenheath, which host the US air force, and many service personnel live in the area. We believe Russia has already targeted those bases with drones recently, and the director general of MI5 says that arson and sabotage are part of the Russian modus operandi in European countries. To approve Sunnica without assessing this very serious danger is grossly negligent.
Rushing towards mass solar and battery farms like this is an act of ideological irresponsibility. It is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) might like to read the handbook on how Parliamentary Private Secretaries should behave. It is not their job to be heard. If he wishes to contribute to a debate on a policy area, perhaps he should resign his position and return to the Back Benches.
Nick Timothy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Ipswich were more confident in his arguments, he might want to stand up and take part.
As I was saying, it is bad energy policy, reducing our energy security while increasing the cost of energy for families and businesses. It is bad farming policy because it puts some of our best agricultural land beyond use, and as this debate has shown, it is bad for public safety, because the Government, in their haste and zeal, want to ignore the very serious dangers these batteries bring.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Nick Timothy Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse, and pleased to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
Today we consider the Government’s plan to go on subsidising Drax. Drax is of course not mentioned in the draft regulations, and Ministers had hoped to sneak through this contract for difference without much scrutiny, but we have a responsibility to examine what is actually a very significant change to our country’s energy system. The draft regulations will push ahead with the Government’s four-year extension of the subsidy scheme for Drax, from 2027 to 2031. Such a major move is being made without proper debate or awareness of all the facts. Ministers and Drax itself have kept vital information hidden from scrutiny, covering up the true costs and business practices of the company.
Concern has been expressed about Drax in both Houses of Parliament in recent months. The Public Accounts Committee says that Ofgem allows Drax to “mark its own homework” when it comes to subsidy claims. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has criticised the Government for not sharing key documents about the true nature and cost of their dealings with Drax. Just a couple of months ago, the company was taken to court by a whistleblower who claimed that Drax had made attempts to “deliberately conceal” the unsustainable sources of its wood and
“had likely broken its legal obligations owed to its government funders”.
Thanks to the investigations by BBC “Panorama” and others, we know Drax’s behaviour has not been honest. Drax executives have been caught misleading the media, covering up reports and manipulating evidence. Ofgem fined Drax £25 million for inaccurately reporting data about its sources of wood. We have seen evidence that Drax sourced wood from primary forests in British Columbia and elsewhere. There is more than enough cause for many to doubt the ethical integrity of Drax and whether it should receive more public money.
Before presenting the draft regulations to the House, Ministers should have done their due diligence and published this evidence, so I ask the Minister these questions. When will we see the legal documents associated with the recent court case? When will we see the 2022 KPMG report on Drax’s accounts, which the Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House he would look at? When will we see the Ofgem audit? When will we see the NESO modelling justifying the extension of the subsidy scheme?
The Chair
Order. Mentioning Drax as a company is not within the scope of the legislation in front of us.
Nick Timothy
Forgive me, Mrs Hobhouse, although the main recipient of the subsidy that we are talking about is Drax itself.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Anna Turley)
We are debating the legislation, not a company.
Nick Timothy
The Government Whip could stand and refer to the names of the companies in receipt of the subsidies, if she so wishes.
Anna Turley
We are discussing the legislation; that is the point of principle, and that is why the Clerk has intervened.
Nick Timothy
And, as I say, the main recipient of the public subsidy will be Drax.
When will we see the NESO modelling justifying the extension of this subsidy scheme? When will the Government publish details of their new sustainability criteria and means of enforcement to ensure that biomass is properly sourced?
The Minister should also answer why the Department only sought the advice of the Subsidy Advice Unit on its plans last Friday, knowing that we would be voting on the draft regulations today. The SAU is now running a two-week consultation and will not publish its report until 10 July. There should not be a vote on extending the subsidy until Parliament and the public have been able to examine thoroughly the SAU’s findings. These are big questions that should have been answered before the draft regulations were debated.
Beyond those concerns, we must also ask ourselves whether subsidising companies like Drax is good energy policy. The evidence shows that it is clearly not. The company that I have been discussing is an expensive white elephant for which we have been paying ever since the Energy Secretary first held his post back in 2009. Since the ramp-up that he authorised, the company has cut down 300 million trees, six times more than in the entire New Forest. The company has received £6.5 billion of public subsidy. In the nonsensical world of net zero, it has been classed as clean energy, but it is far from being a source of clean energy. It is a plant for burning wood imported from forests across the world. As new forests are planted to offset the emissions from chopping down the trees, turning them into pellets and burning them, we are supposed to believe that it is clean. The truth is that the plant we are discussing produces four times the carbon dioxide emitted from our last coal plant, which itself produced twice as many emissions as gas. The imported wood has come from rare, at-risk and irreplaceable forests and arrives here on diesel-powered ships.
The Chair
Order. Again, I remind the shadow Minister that we are discussing the legislation, not a particular company and where it sources its materials. I recognise that this discussion is happening across Parliament, but I remind him to limit his remarks to the legislation.
Nick Timothy
I certainly will, but we are talking about legislation permitting the subsidy of biomass. It is not cheap to do so; we pay £500 million for the privilege, and the draft regulations will make it even more costly for taxpayers. Every megawatt-hour produced will now cost £160—more than double the cost of gas power—up from £138 before. Burning these trees is raising the cost of wood globally while reducing biodiversity in key areas and eroding natural carbon capture.
It gets worse. The sixth carbon budget demands the removal of 23 million tonnes of emissions to avoid even more painful behaviour changes from the general public. This company is being used as an expensive “get out of jail” card, with more public money potentially coming down the line for carbon capture. It was for those reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) withdrew Government support for schemes such as this last year, which led the chief executive officer of the company that we have been discussing to call her “reckless and irresponsible”. Cutting down and burning trees in the name of saving the planet is not just reckless and irresponsible, but complete madness.
If Members here today believe that this is environmentalism and a solution to climate change, I have a bridge to sell them. The Climate Change Act 2008 has created a complex web of targets, quotas and regulations, as well as policies set by a monomaniacal and unaccountable quango tying the hands of elected Governments and twisting policy out of shape. It is producing an energy system that is less secure and more expensive, while doing nothing to prevent rising carbon emissions worldwide.
That is why we will vote against the draft regulations. I urge colleagues from all parties to join us and show that they are truly committed to a secure and rational energy system, and not throw more money at the Energy Secretary and his very costly mistakes.
Michael Shanks
We are somewhat through the looking glass with the response from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Suffolk, who seemed to forget in his long list of things that were wrong with the contracts previously that it was his Government that agreed them. This Government have sought to improve every single aspect of the contract: halving the subsidy, improving sustainability, only running on the system when it is required, and delivering security of supply. He talks about being reckless and irresponsible. What would have been reckless and irresponsible is to come here and say that we do not care about the security of supply and the importance of finding the dispatchable power that we need. That is the decision that we are here to allow the Government to take forward—
Nick Timothy
If the Minister is interested in the security of supply, why will the Government not allow new licences for oil and gas in the North sea?
Michael Shanks
We are considerably off the topic of the draft regulations, but since the shadow Minister makes the point, I will answer the question. We have not said that there will be no new oil and gas. We have said that there will be no new licences to explore new fields, taking into account all the available evidence, which is that the North sea is a declining basin. If we manage it properly, we can have a future energy process in the North sea that delivers on carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and oil and gas for many years to come. There is much more on our oil and gas policy that we can discuss, perhaps in a different debate.
On these particular draft regulations, the shadow Minister asked a number of questions, which I am happy to follow up on. On the KPMG reports, perhaps he did not see, but I wrote on 25 February—as soon as I could following my statement in the House, because I take these things very seriously—and the chief executive of Ofgem responded on 12 March. Both letters are in the Library and the shadow Minister can read them. The KPMG reports do not belong to the Government or to Ofgem; they belong to Drax, and it is for Drax to decide whether to release legally privileged documents.
Clearly, analysis that NESO provides to the Government is sensitive, for very good reasons—a considerable amount of what NESO does in running the energy system must be kept secret, for commercial reasons and so that the Government and NESO can freely exchange information—but it published a summary of its advice on its website, which, again, the shadow Minister can look up.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate, first of all, we are back from recess, which means we are back to work. The Government do not have time to waste, hence, I am afraid, we scheduled consideration of the draft regulations for the first day back; we have things to get through. She made the point that there are alternatives to biomass. A number of others have made that point, too, but they have yet to name the alternatives and what can be built within two years to provide the necessary supply.
We do not think that there is a long-term future for unabated biomass—we agree on that—but the crucial point is that we have a short-term security of supply issue that we have to resolve. We need dispatchable power when we need it, and the alternatives—gas, as the shadow Minister says—are considerably more expensive. The Conservative party might want to consign us to much more of the fossil-fuel casino and higher bills for all our constituents. This is a short-term decision for us to move away from that.
We have significantly increased the sustainability requirements and we will appoint an independent sustainability adviser to provide expert advice and challenge to both Government and providers on sustainability policy and delivery. We want to take sustainability much more seriously than the previous Government did, but this is an essential short-term measure to ensure the security of supply across the country. The draft regulations—copies are available in the room if Members have not had a chance to read them—will enable the Government to continue to deliver security of supply at the lowest possible cost for consumers while protecting and enhancing vital sustainability measures, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Timothy Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Several times now, I have asked Ministers to rule out aligning the British carbon price with the European one and each time they have refused to do so. They have already abandoned their promise to cut energy bills by £300 a year, but alignment would increase wholesale costs and therefore increase bills for every family in the country. Can the Minister, at last, be straight with the public and tell us whether the Government plan to match the European carbon price—yes, or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are engaging with industry on this matter. The Confederation of British Industry and Energy UK are clear that they should support alignment, but we are looking at that. Ultimately, we are doing everything that we can to bear down on energy costs in this country. That is why we are sprinting to clean power. We inherited an absolutely atrocious legacy from the Conservative party, which allowed businesses and consumers to bear the price of a broken system. We will not make the same mistakes, which is why we are cracking on with the job.
Nick Timothy
I think we are getting closer to the Government admitting their secret plan. As soon as the local elections are done, Labour is going to sell out to Europe, and the result will be higher bills for British families. But there is more: the EU is expanding carbon pricing to include transport and heating emissions, so alignment with the expanded scheme would mean extra taxes on every British family for driving their cars and heating their homes. Will the Minister rule out aligning at least with the expanded scheme and say no to new taxes on everyday life—yes or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am absolutely disappointed by the Conservatives. I should expect more, but maybe I need to get used to being disappointed. We saw the press release a week ago, and it has had no publicity because it is a Conservative party scare story. It is absolute nonsense. The Government are serious about bearing down on the cost of energy for businesses, and we are getting on with the serious work of doing that. I suggest that the Conservatives get a grip and join us in that task.
Draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
Nick Timothy Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your charismatic and generous chairship this evening, Dr Huq, and to respond to these regulations on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
We agree that, by ensuring that products meet minimum requirements for energy efficiency, regulation can reduce their negative environmental impact, make them longer lasting and encourage greater recycling. Energy labelling also gives more information to consumers, helping them to make better-informed decisions about their energy usage. In principle, energy efficiency clearly helps to reduce bills and emissions. We understand that these particular regulations need to be implemented as part of the Windsor framework.
However, we offer a word of caution to Ministers. These regulations put a modest compliance cost on manufacturers that sell their goods in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the Government are now considering aligning the whole of the UK with net zero laws written and decided in Brussels. We would be signing up not only to the European Union emissions trading scheme, with its significantly higher carbon price—increasing our carbon price has not been ruled out by Ministers in a succession of answers to our questions—but to a whole slew of regulations that will be enforced by the European Court of Justice.
There certainly needs to be co-operation with our European neighbours, but we must also maintain our sovereignty and flexibility in an increasingly volatile world. Brussels will, understandably, always act in the interests of the European project and its member states. That is why we must protect the interests of our citizens by putting British industry and consumers first.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nick Timothy Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Michael Shanks
I think the hon. Gentleman knows more than anyone about the work that the previous Prime Minister Theresa May did in this area—work that his party is now moving away from rapidly. The Conservatives were right then: the only way for us to bring down bills, deliver economic growth and tackle the economic opportunities is for us to be on this journey together. Conservative Members used to strongly believe in that. We will continue on that path because it is the right thing for the country to do.
Nick Timothy
That was a long-winded answer, but the Minister did not actually address the question, and I think he just gave away that it is Labour’s secret plan to increase the price of carbon—a massive rise in the carbon price—adding hundreds of pounds to families’ bills and decimating British industry. Given Labour’s election promise to cut bills, will he take this moment—he can look up into the camera if he likes—to promise the country that by the next election bills will be lower, as Labour promised? Yes or no?
Michael Shanks
Never mind long-winded answers—that was a very long-winded question. I have not revealed any secret plans, but the Conservatives have revealed their not so secret plan, and I can tell the county that it is just as disappointing as the one the country rejected seven months ago. We have been very clear that it is our commitment to bring down bills, and we are determined to deliver on that. Unlike the Conservative party, which left consumers across the country exposed to volatile fossil fuel markets—the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that bills went up and up and up when his party was in government—we will bring them down. His party wants to take us back to the fossil fuel casino but we will not do that.
Renewables Obligation Certificate Scheme
Nick Timothy Excerpts(3 months 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
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Dr Murrison—I shan’t promote you any further than that just yet.
I am pleased to respond to this important debate on the renewables obligation certificate scheme. Although the scheme was closed in 2017, its costs remain with us and are a reminder of how difficult it can be to unwind long Government contracts. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), on securing this debate, which I believe is his first in Westminster Hall. I am sure he will get to debate more glamorous issues than chicken litter in the future.
Like South West Norfolk, my constituency of West Suffolk has chicken farmers grappling with many of the issues raised by Members, including avian flu, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. I echo what the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) said about the cost of energy in rural areas, which is very often overlooked.
I will not join the commentary from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the predecessor of the hon. Member for South West Norfolk. I did plenty of that in The Daily Telegraph before I was a Member of Parliament. It is pleasing that Suffolk and East Anglia are so well represented today.
We must always be very careful when considering how public money is spent, especially when it comes to subsidies. There are lots of reasons why the Government might sometimes provide public support towards outcomes that are not necessarily the most narrowly efficient, but promote a wider social or local economic good, but they must always guarantee value for money for the families who ultimately foot the bill. Renewals obligation subsidies have fallen short of that standard. Originally introduced in 2002 by the last Labour Government, and closed to new entrants in 2017 by the last Conservative Government, the renewals obligation remains a significant drain on the public finances, providing a fixed rate of financial support through 20-year-long contracts.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
By the time that the new renewables obligation closed, the cost of large-scale offshore wind had come down by half, allowing contracts for difference to be introduced, which have seen it grow at scale. It has enabled a brand-new industry to start and progress in this country, has it not?
Nick Timothy
I will turn to contracts for difference in a moment. We may discuss them in this debate, or perhaps in other fora, but it is important that we are honest with ourselves about the full costs of some of the renewable technologies upon which we have come to depend. With the hidden costs that apply to wind farms, I do not think that we have been quite so honest. That is not a party political point but something that has been true across the party divide. In 2023-24 the scheme cost £7.6 billion, and it will remain high, at £6.9 billion in 2028-29, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. That proves how dangerous it can be to lock in subsidy schemes under lengthy contracts, with the cost passed on to people’s energy bills.
That is not the only zombie renewables subsidy scheme. Introduced in April 2010, feed-in tariffs were made available for schemes with capacity for 5 MW or less as an alternative for smaller projects, such as rooftop solar panels. Closed to new entrants in 2019, the scheme still sustains 20-year-long contracts, and £1.84 billion of feed-in tariff payments were made last year. Far from saving money, renewables subsidies have come with significant long-term costs.
The phasing out of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs is being used by the Government in their efforts to hoodwink the public on the true costs of their net zero policies. The National Energy System Operator’s 2030 report made several highly questionable assumptions about how the Government’s goal of decarbonising the grid will cut energy bills. One of the points made by NESO was that energy bills would fall due to the expiration of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariff contracts, but those contracts will expire regardless of the speed of decarbonisation, so it is misleading to include that as a benefit of the Government’s deeply flawed clean energy plan. We will see costs increase significantly elsewhere, thanks to Government policies.
The renewables obligation and feed-in tariff schemes should be a warning. The Government are consulting on substantial changes to the next round of contracts for difference, which replace the previous subsidy schemes. They include easing eligibility criteria for fixed-bottom offshore wind, as well as extending the lifetime of contracts subsidising renewables from 15 years to 20 years. We are at risk of wasting billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a race to meet the unrealistic clean power target.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. What he says is very interesting, but I am not entirely clear where he is headed. Is this a shift in Conservative policy on green industry and the renewables industry, which they have previously championed, or is this just an attack on Labour’s plans because he does not like them?
Nick Timothy
I would never suggest that the hon. Lady has tracked everything that I have written through my career, but I have been making these arguments for a number of years. The Leader of the Opposition has made the point that one of the things our party did not get right in government was setting ambitious goals on things such as energy policy without having a clear enough plan to deliver them. My concern, and the concern of the Conservative Front Benchers, is that this Government are making not only a similar mistake but a graver mistake because of the speed and unilateralism of their energy policies. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Lady smiling, and I hope that is in approval of what I said.
Leigh Ingham
To clarify, is the Opposition’s position on the energy transition and energy security that the Government are moving too quickly for our country? Would they rather see a different approach? I am interested in what the suggested approach is, given that we face an imperative in the international context, as others rightly pointed out.
Nick Timothy
It is absolutely our position that the Energy Secretary is trying to move too quickly. The plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is deemed by many experts to be unrealistic. It is predicated on a report produced by NESO, which itself says that the plan will lead to higher bills, and on calculations based on the carbon price increasing to £147 per tonne. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government’s policy is to ensure that Britain’s carbon price should remain lower than the European carbon price for the duration of this Parliament, because the Secretary of State has so far refused to say that.
On the question of security, the Government are in such a rush with offshore wind farms that they are sourcing the turbines from China, and there are big questions about whether the technology in the turbines will continue to be controlled by the Chinese. We are having a debate right now about security and the threats presented by Russia; we could equally be talking about the same kinds of threats from China, and how our dependence on technologies produced by China and energy that is generated using those technologies leaves us exposed to Chinese influence.
By NESO’s own admission,
“Unprecedented volumes of clean energy infrastructure projects are needed to meet the Government’s energy ambitions.”
As long as policy races ahead of technology, costs will inevitably increase for taxpayers and consumers, and that is before we even consider the consequences of the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget. The committee has recommended a limit on the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions of 535 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which represents an 87% reduction by 2040 compared with 1990 levels. That is an ambitious goal, but it is one that the committee’s own data shows will come at a net cost of £319 billion over the next 15 years. If we are to debate this, the Government should be honest and open about that fact.
No Government have ever rejected a carbon budget, and the Energy Secretary has so far refused to come to the House to make a statement on the publication of that budget, so perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government intend to accept the carbon budget in full. The Climate Change Committee believes that we will need a sixfold increase in offshore wind power, a doubling of onshore wind power and a fivefold increase in solar panels by 2040. To accelerate the growth of renewables at such a pace would require a huge increase in public subsidy.
How do the Government intend to address these climate and energy goals? Can the Government rule out increasing public subsidy under contracts for difference of any kind to reach these goals? By how much will public spending have to rise as a result? By how much will bills have to rise? Will the Minister guarantee that Britain will continue to have a lower carbon price than Europe, and can she still guarantee that energy bills will be £300 lower by the end of this Parliament, as her party promised in opposition?
There are so many questions left unanswered, and so far only silence from the Energy Secretary. That is not because the Government do not understand the scale of the challenge they have set themselves. The Energy Secretary understands it all too well, but he will not admit publicly what his ideological attachment to net zero and his net zero policies mean for us all: nothing less than a revolution in how we live our lives, and the massive expansion of public spending for a system of energy that is less reliable and more expensive in generating power. We need complete clarity, so that the mistakes of the renewables obligation are not repeated. Failure to do so will leave us poorer and exposed to risk and instability in the world.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wonder whether the Opposition spokesperson has spoken to businesses on this matter because, in all my conversations with businesses, both in opposition and now in government, it is clear that they want certainty. They need a stable investment environment if they are to make long-term decisions. They cannot invest in renewable energy, in industrial decarbonisation or in the economic growth this country needs without certainty. We know that one reason why we are in the economic situation we are is the lack of stability and the economic chaos at times under the previous Administration, particularly under the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk. Therefore, certainty is what we need to have. Business is crying out for that.
In places such as Grimsby, it is particularly important to have a place-based solution to the current situation, showing what the energy transition would look like in such places. I urge the hon. Member for West Suffolk to take a bit of a tour, to talk to businesses and people who are trying to get much-needed investment into places such as Grimsby, and to see—I am not quite sure what his proposals are—what he can say to them on how to get long-term investment.
Nick Timothy
Of course we talk to business all the time. I talk to businesses in my constituency and we have been talking to businesses and organisations representing the more energy-intensive manufacturing businesses in this country. They are clear that energy costs have been too high, partly because of issues such as high carbon prices. They are very concerned about the prospect of the carbon price rising under this Government. The hon. Lady talked about global fossil fuel markets—I have heard the Energy Secretary say that a lot when he has referred to global gas markets. There is no single global gas market in the way he describes. Prices for fossil fuels are so much higher in Europe than America, which is much more dependent on fossil fuels than we are, because of policy choices. Therefore, can she guarantee that we will have a lower carbon price than the rest of Europe by the end of this Parliament?
Kerry McCarthy
I understand that the hon. Member asked the Secretary of State that question at the last DESNZ orals and I think he also raised it when we were opposite each other in a statutory instrument Committee. I refer him to the answers that were given then. I think we should get on—I am going to try to talk about the renewables obligation for a while and not be distracted.
The scheme played a fundamental role, as already noted, in getting the UK to where we are now on renewable energy generation. Combined, the UK-wide RO schemes support nearly 32% of the UK’s electricity supply, providing millions of UK households and businesses with a secure supply of clean energy. The scheme is now closed to new capacity, for reasons I will come on to.
Thetford power station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, has been accredited since the first day of the RO, back in April 2002, so it has so far received Government support for nearly 23 years. Over that time, it has generated more than 5.8 TWh of low-carbon baseload generation. That has been a valuable contribution to our transition to net zero. It has also increased our security of supply by generating home-grown energy. As he said, the station has provided 100 jobs in his constituency and co-benefits in handling poultry litter.
The station has another two years of support before its time under the RO ends, in March 2027. We are aware of the concerns about the future of the station once that support ends and my hon. Friend has done an excellent job in outlining those concerns today. My officials have repeatedly engaged both with the owners of the Thetford plant, Melton Renewable Energy, and with DEFRA officials to discuss those concerns.
To explain the overall context, as I have said, the RO has done sterling service in bringing forward the successful large-scale renewable energy sector that we see in the UK today. That has paved the way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) said, for the cost reductions that we have seen over the last few years under the contracts for difference scheme, but its time has passed. The energy landscape has evolved since the scheme was launched in 2002 and it no longer provides the market incentives or the value for money that the transition to clean power requires.
The RO was designed to support renewable energy-generating stations during the early stages of development and generation, and to allow the recovery of high capital costs. For that reason, RO support is often significantly higher than that provided under successor policies such as contracts for difference. We must always bear in mind that consumers pay for the scheme through their electricity bills, and delivering value for money for them is essential. For that reason, we do not plan to extend RO support.
As I said, support under the RO for the early adopters, such as Thetford power station, lasts for 25 years. Stations accredited later in the RO’s life receive support for up to 20 years. All support will end in March 2027, when the last assets fall off the scheme and the RO finally closes, so Thetford—as I am very aware—has two years to run. The limits on the length of support were imposed to balance the need to provide investors with important long-term certainty—for 25 and then for 20 years—with the impact on consumers.
Although we do not consider extending the RO to be a viable option, I assure my hon. Friends that I understand their concerns. In some cases, generating stations may be able to continue generating electricity on merchant terms once their RO support ends, and continue until the end of their operational life. However, some generators have told us that their stations will not be economically viable without Government support.
We are conducting further analysis and assessment to better understand the issue, including the implications for consumer bills and the clean power mission. My officials are working with DEFRA to consider whether there is a case for intervention for biomass-fuelled stations, taking into account the electricity system and the supplementary environmental benefits that some stations provide. That work is in addition to the robust value for money assessments that we undertake to ensure any possible support is in the interests of bill payers.
I appreciate that Melton Renewable Energy and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk are looking for early answers, but I must stress that no decisions have yet been made and we are happy to continue the conversation with him.
Fuel Poverty: England
Nick Timothy Excerpts(3 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
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this important debate.
I hesitate to compete with a Yorkshireman, but it has also been very cold in Suffolk recently, and the stories that the hon. Member told of his constituents will be familiar to all of us in the Chamber today. From the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson)—who is no longer in the Chamber—to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), we were reminded that fuel poverty affects urban and rural constituencies alike. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) rightly talked about the reliance on heating oil in rural constituencies, and the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) was certainly right to say that pension credit take-up is far too low.
As the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said, we cannot ignore the hardship caused by the Government’s decision to cut the winter fuel payment so aggressively for millions of pensioners. Of course there is a case for means-testing that payment, but the Chancellor is cutting it for not just the richest pensioners, but those on very modest incomes. If the winter fuel payment is to be means-tested, surely the proceeds should go to low-income pensioners and the cost of social care, but they do not, because we know that Labour’s spending priorities are to throw the money it is taking from pensioners to the public sector and railway unions that funded it.
Let us remember that during the election campaign, Labour repeatedly promised us that it would protect the winter fuel payment, but we know that the Chancellor planned the cut all along, because she had said that she wanted to do it as far back as 2014. Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) said, this policy is a political choice, not an economic necessity as Ministers claim. The Office for Budget Responsibility has blown up the Government’s claim that they inherited a fiscal hole. Of the report used by Ministers to justify that claim, Richard Hughes, the OBR chairman, said that
“nothing in our review was a legitimisation”
of that claim. Indeed, the Minister who is with us today must answer this simple question: if the cuts for pensioners and the tax rises were made necessary by fiscal prudence, why did Labour promise in its manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion a year by 2028-29, only to actually increase it by £76 billion in its Budget? This was a choice.
The challenge of fuel poverty affects people of all ages throughout the country. Rather than just creating new benefits and schemes to address the high cost of fuel, we need to resolve the root causes of energy costs more generally. Here, the Government are taking the country in a very worrying direction. The Energy Secretary promises to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Business Secretary wants to ban petrol and diesel cars by the same year. Tough standards on aviation fuel are being enforced; heat pumps are expected to replace gas boilers; expensive and intermittent renewable technologies funded by huge and hidden subsidies are favoured; and oil and gas fields in the North sea are abandoned, left for the Norwegians to profit from what we choose to ignore.
The Energy Secretary has made much of the National Energy System Operator’s report on decarbonising the grid. He says that report shows that he can do so by 2030 without increasing bills, but in fact the report does not say that—and even then, its calculations rest on a carbon price that will rise to £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide. It is no wonder that, in reply to a question I asked him last week, the Energy Secretary would not rule out having a higher carbon price in Britain than in Europe. That will be terrible for families struggling with the cost of heating their home, but it will hurt them—and indeed all of us—in other ways. As long as policy runs faster than technology and other countries do not follow our lead on climate change, decarbonisation will inevitably mean deindustrialisation. That will mean a weaker economy with lower growth, fewer jobs, and less spending power to help those who we have been discussing today—those who need support the most.
Of course, it is not just the NESO report that shows us the future consequences of the Government’s policies. The OBR says that environmental levies will reach up to £15 billion by the end of this Parliament to pay for net zero policies. As those levies will fall heavily on consumption, they will have a particularly regressive effect, as analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Cornwall Insight has confirmed. It is therefore no wonder that Labour’s election promise to cut bills by £300 by the end of the Parliament has vanished without trace, so I challenge the Minister today to do what she has not done since polling day—repeat that promise very clearly. I suspect she will not because, unlike the Secretary of State, she knows the reality of his policies. The Government are adding complexity and contradiction to our energy system and loading extra costs on to families across the country. There is still time for Ministers to think again and put the interests of decent, hard-working people ahead of the Energy Secretary’s ideological dogma.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reassure the hon. Member that we are talking to all devolved Administrations. There are common challenges that we all face and common solutions. We are working in collaboration; we have an interministerial working group, and I am having direct conversations with all devolved Administrations as we take forward our plans.
We are also trying to work with everyone. The challenge we face to turn around the trajectory on fuel poverty is huge and the inheritance is tough, so we want to draw on the expertise of consumer groups, industry and academia as we develop our plan on fuel poverty.
Nick Timothy
The Minister talks about the tough job the Chancellor faces. Does she acknowledge that the job is tough because of the Chancellor’s own choices? The Minister talks about the inheritance but, as I said in my speech, the Labour manifesto said that Labour would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, while the Budget increased it by £76 billion a year. That is why the Chancellor faces tough decisions—they originate with her own political choices. Does the Minister acknowledge that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That is pretty audacious of the hon. Member, given the record of the previous Government, their financial position and the wrecking ball they took to the economy. We have to clean up the mess of the previous Government, so yes, we have had to make tough choices before that. Candidly, if I were in the hon. Member’s position, I would be hanging my head in shame, rather than lecturing this Government on how we clean up the mess they created. What I will say is that, whether on the economy or fuel poverty, we understand that we have been given an atrocious inheritance. We are not complacent about that. Things that the Conservatives were willing to accept, we are not willing to accept.
Draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Nick Timothy Excerpts(4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you bright and early this morning, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations on behalf of the Opposition. Committee Members will be relieved to hear that I shall not detain them long.
It was right for the previous Conservative Government to step in during the cost of living crisis to protect families and businesses from rocketing energy bills. The supply shock from the pandemic and a major land war in Europe created a unique set of circumstances. Thanks to the previous Government, we came through the storm.
Now that the crisis has passed, it is reasonable to finish the work of winding down the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. They were always intended to be temporary measures during a time of national emergency. Now we are presented with the challenge of finding our way back to recovery and a long-term path to lower energy prices.
As the current Government continue down the ideological decarbonisation route, led by the Secretary of State, we will watch carefully in order to protect the families and businesses who bear the cost of unrealistic clean energy targets. Indeed, experts expect the energy price cap to rise next month. The Manchester-based— not Aberdeen-based—head of GB Energy, Juergen Maier, says it will be
“a very long-term project”
to reduce bills by £300, which was a promise that Ministers stopped making as soon as their election campaign ended. I note that the Minister is wiser than her boss in not repeating that promise.
We support the regulations. We recognise their role in winding down the old schemes, but we remain vigilant about new policies that will surely make lives harder and more expensive because of the unattainable and self-harming decarbonisation goals that the Government are pursuing.