Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

All of the above. It is infuriating. If the Government were to listen, even the energy supply companies want them to invest more in energy efficiency and insulation. Right now, in the ECO4 scheme—energy company obligation 4—the companies cannot even find the requisite number of properties to upgrade. As that goes on, we are losing the supply chain instead of building it up.

If we really want green growth, green jobs and lower energy bills, it is perfectly obvious that more money should be spent on energy efficiency. Ironically, the Government never listen to that, but they should listen to the third sector and the energy companies who praise the Scottish Government for their direct investment in support of energy efficiency programmes. In contrast to the Government’s blank cheque for nuclear, Scottish renewable projects still have to pay the grid charging penalty, making it harder for them to compete in the contract for difference auctions.

This autumn statement means that we still have an incoherent energy policy. It does nothing for Scotland. Hard-working families are still going to suffer, living standards are still falling, and the disabled are now threatened with losing support unless they are forced into jobs not of their choosing. It is not difficult to choose a different path for Scotland—it is a path that other smaller countries in western Europe are already on, so why not Scotland? It is time we took that different route.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the winding-up speeches. I call the shadow Minister.

Powering Up Britain

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I think the greenest aspect of these announcements is the level of recycling in them without the actual funding to back them up. Starting with nuclear, there is no successful European pressurised water reactor project anywhere in the world. Hinkley has almost doubled in price to £33 billion, so we know that Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. That is a huge, scandalous waste of money that could be better utilised elsewhere. On SMRs, there is not even an approved design with the regulator yet. At £2 billion a pop, SMRs are not cheap either, and it is a myth that they will lower energy bills and provide security. Nuclear is the only energy technology to get more expensive rather than cheaper over the years.

We need more storage. I keep asking about pumped storage hydro. Please will the Government agree a carbon floor mechanism so that SSE can get on with Coire Glas and Drax can get on with the Cruachan extension? While the United States has the Inflation Reduction Act, when we look at the budget for allocation round 5, funding has been cut by a third from £285 million to £205 million, while we have inflationary pressures of 30%. The reality is that it will not deliver what we need it to deliver. Has the Minister looked at the lessons from the Spanish auction, which failed miserably and did not deliver on allocations?

The Minister knows that we need a greater ringfenced pot for tidal. At the moment, tidal stream energy has a 80% to 90% UK supply chain. If the Government do not increase the ringfenced budget, we risk offshoring manufacturing again. If he is talking about being powered by Britain, he needs to increase that funding for tidal stream so that we are building the UK supply chain.

On CCS, Acorn was not even mentioned in the statement. It was promised to us in 2014, and now it is not even mentioned. Is there going to be a definitive funding allocation for Acorn and are there going to be timescales for that funding, or is it a further betrayal when the Government are taking in £60-odd billion in additional oil and gas revenues? The reality is clear: Scotland has the energy, but Westminster keeps the powers.

Independent Review of Net Zero

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Thursday 9th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before you respond, Mr Brown, just remember the timings that were agreed.

[Alan Brown]

I will aim to be brief. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and I would like to see the Government set a 1 GW target for tidal stream. We need to follow through on the recommendation of the report and set a clear plan for investing long-term in CCUS, hydrogen production and pumped storage hydro, for supporting a carbon floor mechanism and for replacing the EU funding for the European Marine Energy Centre. I hope the Minister will work with us on planning consents for major infrastructure projects. Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 is reserved to Westminster, and there is a sign-off process for Scottish Ministers. If we are going to speed up the consent process, we need to work with the UK Government to do that. Hopefully the Minister will work with us on that with the Energy Bill going forward. There is so much to welcome in the report. I wish we had more time to debate it further, but I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood on it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Kerry McCarthy.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let us hope that there are no more devices like that. That is clearly not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has made his view known and it is on the record.

[Alan Brown]

It is great to hear Tory Back Benchers tying themselves in knots to argue about why they are voting for the principle of fracking.

Let me get back to local consent. The Government amendment refers to consulting

“regional mayors, local authorities and parishes”.

That is quite a vague concept and could open things up to cronyism and political machinations. However, I welcome the sentiment of the Secretary of State, who is now talking about local referendums. It is good to know that the Tory Government now believe in the principle of referendums for people to exercise their democratic right; I look forward to Scotland being able to implement that next year. I welcome that damascene conversion.

The Tory Government’s new-found enthusiasm for shale gas is not based on credible evidence. They have put forward arguments that it will increase energy security, that it is required because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and that we need to move away from our reliance on Russian oil and gas imports, but really they have arrived at a solution to a problem that does not exist. It is quite clear that the UK had minimal reliance on Russian imports and has already managed to eliminate the small percentage of oil and gas imports from Russia.

If the argument is that shale gas will reduce prices, that is quite clearly not true either. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng)—the then BEIS Secretary, now the former Chancellor—admitted that any shale gas would be an internationally traded commodity on the international market and that traders would determine prices. The only way that that will not happen is if there is another damascene conversion and if the Government are planning some sort of nationalised energy company that will frack the shale gas, control it and put it on the domestic market at low prices. Otherwise, it will be all about the international market.

The harsh truth is that there is not even enough firm evidence of the reserves available in the basins that can be used for extraction. Without that knowledge, any talk of increasing energy security and reducing imports is pure fantasy at this stage. Any talk of jobs or of boosting local economies also remains completely speculative—there is no evidence for it.

Energy Prices Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Committee stage
Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

It is a fair point and, as my hon. Friend pointed out earlier, Labour Members also have a new clause, which they want to push, calling for a report to Parliament in 28 days, so it seems to be a timeframe that we can all agree on.

New clause 18(2) would mandate the Government to assess what average household bills will look like when the pledged support scheme ends next April. I appreciate that estimating future energy bill increases is not an exact science, but the Government should be able to come up with an indicative price range, which should also give a look-ahead at the supposedly two-year support period of the so-called energy price guarantee. This is an important exercise, because it was the Prime Minister who told us that the two-year policy would stop average bills hitting £6,000 a year. As I said earlier, the explanatory notes for the Bill state that these mitigations will prevent so-called average bills of £2,500 from rising to £4,200. That means that, without further support, average household energy bills will, on the evidence before us and according to this Government, rise to something like £4,200 to £6,000 per annum. How on earth is that affordable? Clarity is required urgently.

New clause 18(2)(b) is all about analysing fuel poverty statistics. Now, when I mention fuel poverty statistics, we need to remember that these are not statistics but real people we are talking about—people who cannot afford to heat their homes; people who might not even be able to turn on their cooker and heat their food; parents skipping meals; people with health conditions that are made worse because they are having to live in a damp house; terminally ill people who are having to move out of their homes and are unable to die in dignity in their homes because they cannot afford to heat them; people on prepayment meters who are building up their standing charge debt because they cannot afford to put money in them. That is the reality of fuel poverty. That is why I want the Government to assess and report on the reality of their policy decisions during this cost of energy crisis.

Fuel poverty statistics lag behind real time: it takes time to analyse the statistics and then bring them through. The cost of energy has gone up so quickly that past fuel poverty statistics are effectively meaningless. National Energy Action estimates that, even with a £2,500 average bill put in place, some 6.7 million households will end up in fuel poverty. We need to understand how much worse that will get across the United Kingdom. I suggest that if the Government wish to make an informed decision about what future support packages will look like and how they will actually support the most vulnerable, they should be the ones to undertake the assessment.

That feeds directly into subsections (2)(c) and (2)(d), which are about, first, assessing the merit of extending the universal scheme as it was originally intended and, secondly, looking at a more targeted approach. The key to subsection (c) is ensuring that we have no further increases in fuel poverty. Given that we are still saying that 6.7 million households will be in fuel poverty, that is an extremely tame target. The real target should be the eradication of fuel poverty, which is why I am willing to support many other amendments on the Order Paper, particularly from other parties, on energy-efficient installations and the upgrading of homes to EPC band C, which is a UK Government target. There should be greater investment in energy efficiency measures, and truly upgrading homes will reduce bills, reduce the energy demand and of course create additional green jobs.

Given how damaging fuel poverty is, and that the Government have not made clear what future support will look like, I cannot believe that the Labour party is not willing to support manuscript new clause 18 and try to force the Government’s hand to provide information to Parliament so that we know the real impact of the cost of energy crisis.

Amendment 16 is about support for off-grid homes. Earlier, I highlighted that a one-off payment of £100 for alternatively fuelled properties is insufficient. Liquid fuels have increased in price from 30p a litre to more than £1 a litre, which is three times more expensive. People cannot afford to fill their fuel tanks. They have to lay out a minimum of £500 to £600 for a delivery. If they do not have that cash, they do not get it—they do not get credit. Filling a tank costs about £1,200 once VAT is included. Why do the Government think that a one-off £100 payment is sufficient?

One of my constituents lives in an off-gas grid property. He rightly observed that the energy price guarantee is being paid for by the general taxpayer, because it comes out of borrowing or taxpayers’ money. That means that off-grid customers are effectively subsidising people on the gas grid who are getting a bigger support package. Four million households are effectively subsidising 28 million households, which actually have cheaper fuel bills. It is an incoherent policy, which is why we brought forward amendment 16, but I would also support any other proposals that would make the Government support those who live in off-gas grid properties.

I wrote to a previous energy Minister about regulation of off-grid fuels for properties. The answer I got was that we do not need regulation; the market will take care of itself. That in itself shows a complete lack of understanding of what it is like for people in rural properties who cannot shop around. Generally, there is only one supplier in the area, so it gets to set the terms and conditions and the prices of the fuel that people buy. The Government need to look at regulation of those fuels as well.

Amendments 10, 11, 14 and 15 are about giving Parliament a greater level of scrutiny and approval. It is about ensuring that proposals are implemented under the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, which puts all the powers into the hands of the Secretary of State. I tried to point this out to the Secretary of State who, as a Back Bencher, was all about Parliament sovereignty, but now that he is in the Cabinet he is yet another hypocrite who is quite happy to take Henry VIII powers and other unparalleled powers for himself. [Interruption.] I said hypocrite, yes.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Who were you referring to?

[Alan Brown]

The Secretary of State.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

No.

Energy Update

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The only aspect of this rehashed statement to welcome is the acknowledgment from the Minister that the current proposals are insufficient to avoid a catastrophe. What we should be getting today is a proper updated statement on energy security and a net zero update that would reflect additional investment in renewables such as pumped storage hydro, Peterhead carbon capture and storage, what is happening with the Rough gas storage facility, the decoupling of renewables from gas, and grid upgrades.

The reality at the moment is that 6.5 million households are in fuel poverty, and if the energy cap increase goes ahead as planned, then 9 million households will be in fuel poverty. What is the Minister’s red line for the acceptable number of households that will be left in fuel poverty? What does he say to the businesses that have had no support to date? Does he agree with Make UK, which says that 60% of manufacturing businesses are now at risk? What assessment has he made of the impact on agriculture and the food and drink industry, and does he agree that the tax cuts proposed by the incoming Prime Minister will adversely help the rich and do nothing for the lowest-paid workers? The incoming Prime Minister has talked of scrapping the green levy. Has he explained to the incoming Prime Minister that there is no single green levy, and that doing so would not actually be a solution for reducing household bills?

On nuclear, will the Minister confirm that Hinkley Point C is now nearly 50% over budget and is years late, and that EDF now wants a delay to the payment start dates? For Sizewell C, will he confirm that the upper estimate for construction and finance is £63 billion? That is £63 billion to be added to bill payers’ bills, and it will not actually reduce energy bills in the future. In 2019, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s estimate for the nuclear clean-up cost was £131 billion. When will we get an updated figure? Surely that in itself indicates that we need to end this nuclear folly and madness.

Finally, does the Minister agree that his Government need to introduce a freeze in the energy cap and urgent support for businesses, and to review budget allocations to councils and devolved Governments, so that energy cost pressures on schools, the NHS, transport and care services can be properly funded during this time of emergency?

Ministers’ Severance Pay

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Brown, let’s see if you can do better than your colleague.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the new Education Minister gave a one-fingered salute to the crowd outside Downing Street, that was symptomatic of this Government, who have been putting two fingers up to the entire UK for the tenure of the former Prime Minister. Given that we have a zombie Government, with Ministers who are clearly in place on a temporary basis, does this Minister agree that they should not take severance payments when they rightfully get sacked when a new Tory leader comes in?

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, at end insert—

“(6) “Owned by a foreign power” means owned by a company controlled by a foreign state and operating for investment purposes.”

This amendment is a definition of “foreign power” set out in Amendment 2.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) the nuclear company is not wholly or in part owned by a foreign power, and

(d) the fuel rods for the company’s reactor are supplied by a UK based company.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from designating a nuclear company owned or part-owned by the agents of a foreign power and ensures that the fuelling of the designated company’s reactor is provided by a UK based company.

Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 8, at end insert—

“(e) detail of any public funding agreed as part of the project development and the services being provided for this funding.”

Amendment 9, page 5, line 21, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament in respect of each project in relation to which a nuclear company has been designated under section 2(1) before exercising the power under section 6 (1), setting out—

(a) the expected overall capital cost of the prospective project,

(b) the expected up-front cost of the prospective projects,

(c) the general terms of the project for the sale of electricity onto the grid, including—

(i) a statement of whether the Government has offered the nuclear company a minimum floor price mechanism for the sale of electricity onto the National Grid,

(ii) the minimum floor price mechanism included in any arrangement including any inflationary or baseline indices, and

(iii) the duration in years of any such arrangement under sub-paragraph (ii); and

(d) how decommissioning costs of the project will be met, including in the event of insolvency of the nuclear energy company, setting out any role for—

(i) revenue collection contracts, including any percentage specifically dedicated to decommissioning costs;

(ii) protection of decommissioning payments for time of need;

(iii) insurances; and

(iv) consumer risk.”

In respect of new nuclear projects, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the up-front and overall expected cost of the project, details of any agreement reached terms for the sale of electricity onto the National Grid and how decommissioning costs will be met, including in the event of the nuclear company becoming insolvent.

Amendment 8, page 6, line 15, at end insert—

“(n) provision about penalties the Secretary of State may apply if the level of power outages of a nuclear reactor results in up to 60 non-operational days in a 12 month period.”

Amendment 3, in clause 7, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) When exercising the power in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not cause the excess of expenditure being incurred over the allowable revenue cap to lead to further charges upon revenue collection contracts.”

This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from allowing the levy of further consumer charges should an increase in allowable revenue be agreed following increases in costs or timescale of a nuclear project.

Amendment 4, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) When exercising the power in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out how an adjustment in the company’s allowed revenue is to be made without relying on revenue collection contracts.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set out how an adjustment to allowed revenue, following an increase in costs or time, is to be provided for by means other than additional customer levies.

Amendment 7, in clause 11, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power under subsection (1) to require each designated nuclear company to make an annual report of—

(a) the number of outages of each reactor, the reasons for outages and the total number of non-operational days per outage, and

(b) an assessment of the operational lifespan of the reactor and its key components and details of all safety inspections carried out.”

Amendment 5, in clause 32, page 24, line 24, at end insert—

“(5A) In the event that a relevant licensee nuclear company cannot be rescued as a going concern, or if a transfer of the undertaking to a wholly owned subsidiary does not result in the establishment of a going concern, the Secretary of State must establish a Government-owned company into which the assets, liabilities and undertakings of the relevant licensee nuclear company may be transferred in order to allow electricity supply to be commenced or continued at the nuclear installation in respect of which the relevant nuclear licensee holds a nuclear licence.”

This amendment ensures the continuation of a nuclear project where a failed company cannot be rescued as a going concern or successfully have its assets transferred to a subsidiary.

Amendment 10, page 24, line 26, at end insert—

“(7) Prior to a transfer falling within section 32(3), the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament.

(8) The report under subsection (7) must set out—

(a) the liabilities associated with the nuclear company;

(b) any estimated costs of getting the plant operational again if it has been temporarily shut down;

(c) the estimated lifespan of the nuclear power station; and

(d) decommissioning costs and confirmation of any funding provided by the nuclear company for this purpose.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the matters listed prior to any transfers falling within clause 32(3).

[Alan Brown]

I express my condolences on the untimely passing of Jack Dromey. I pass on my sympathies to his family, particularly the Mother of the House.

I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 6 to 9 in my name. I make it clear at the outset that I still oppose the Bill. The strategy is completely wrong, but I tabled these amendments to seek transparency and to see whether there is any seriousness to ministerial words about their willingness to consider amendments and their openness to further parliamentary scrutiny.

Let me start with amendment 9, which is all about ensuring that Parliament has a fuller understanding of what sums are involved and what commitments the Government will be making as regards any new nuclear project. The Minister has been very good at telling us about the mythical savings that will accrue via the regulated asset base funding model introduced by this Bill—they are estimated at between £30 billion and £70 billion.

What the Government are not so good at is telling us what money they want to commit for the likes of Sizewell C. In effect, they are telling us, “Let’s save money for bill payers by signing up to a less bad deal for a new nuclear project.” According to the impact assessment, the capital and financing cost is going to be in the region of £40 billion to £60 billion for a new nuclear power station. It is a strange logic to tell us that £50 billion being added to our energy bills at the time of a cost of living energy crisis is somehow a good thing. By default, the Government are also confirming just how much of a stinking, rotten deal Hinkley Point C was for bill payers if we are saying that we can save that much money compared with the contracts for difference model for Hinkley C.

We know that eye-watering sums are intended to be committed, but the Bill, as it stands, gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to sign off on a new nuclear deal. Amendment 9 tries to address that by setting out key criteria that should be laid in a report before Parliament. In Committee, and at other times when there has been quizzing on cost transparency, we have been given the con trick, “We cannot share that information for commercial confidentiality reasons.” If Parliament is told that the capital cost of a new power station is some £23 billion, which is the current estimated cost for Hinkley Point C, we do not know what the breakdown of that £23 billion is, so there is no way that that would breach commercial confidentiality. We have a right to know what up-front costs are being committed to or forced on bill payers, and it is important we know that for any deals on the sale of electricity. As I said, at the moment the Government tell us how much money the RAB model will save, but they want to continue to be vague on how much a new project will actually cost. We have the smoke and mirrors argument that it is a basic RAB payment that somehow, in the future, gets partially negated with the sale of electricity to the grid.

In Committee, the Minister also argued that if the capital cost of the project was somehow known, it would be harder to raise capital in the private markets. That is a nonsense argument, given that other infrastructure projects have their costs put in the public domain while capital is still to be raised. I would have thought it advantageous for it to be in the public domain how much capital is required to be raised, in order to generate competition for that capital investment. Initial capital-raising discussions would need already to have been held to get some assessment of the viability of the project as it was being developed. Lines about market sensitivity and best value just do not stack up as a counter argument.

We also need to know what other costs are committed to during the anticipated construction period. Under the RAB proposals, consumers will start to pay money as soon as construction begins, but they are not committed to the full construction cost because that gets spread out over the 60-year operational contract period. It is only right that bill payers know what costs are being committed to at the outset before that final sign-off of a 60-year contract.

Amendment 9 also tries to get transparency about the sale of energy. We are told there will not be a strike rate, but to me it is not credible to believe that some £50 billion-worth of capital and financing costs will be committed for a 60-year operational plan without sufficient confidence on the returns from the sale of electricity. Ministerial clarity is required, and that is why it would be good to have the Government commit to having to report on that.

For example, in a briefing in favour of the Bill, the Prospect union has come up with the ridiculous supposition that if energy prices in the market are at the right level in the future, RAB payments could reduce to zero. Are we seriously supposed to believe that is a credible proposition? Equally, are we supposed to believe that if wholesale electricity prices drop to a certain level way below the operational costs of the nuclear plant in generating electricity, the nuclear company will just carry on regardless, because it carries all the risks? It might not be a strike rate as we understand it in terms of the contract of difference scheme, but given the scenarios I have painted, some sort of guarantee will be looked for and it might be a minimum floor price on the sale of electricity. If so, we should know about it as parliamentarians and bill payers. If there is not a minimum floor price in future and the risk lies with the developer or is somehow baked into the RAB payments, we should know and understand that as well. Otherwise it is about continued closed-door negotiations hidden from the public who are actually paying for it.

Amendment 9 tries to shine a light on what would otherwise be that closed-shop negotiation by a Government who still have not learned the lessons from their desperation to sign off on Hinkley Point C at any cost whatsoever and seem destined to do so again with Sizewell C, just this time with a different model and the bill payers carrying a greater level of risk through the RAB model. I would expect any parliamentarian here who believes in some form of parliamentary scrutiny to be happy to have the Secretary of State obliged to report on the capital cost, any up-front committed costs and any future sale of energy contracts as a basic form of transparency, as amendment 9 seeks.

COP26

Debate between Nigel Evans and Alan Brown

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that this is the first time I have ever had the chance to get my red pen out and add to my notes, rather than having to scrub notes out frantically. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.

COP26 is clearly the most important COP since Paris, and it is critical for our net zero commitments. It is a chance for the UK to be on the world stage, but we have to ask whether matters are in hand. If we look at the Cabinet Office estimates, I would suggest not. We know that the Cabinet Office COP26 budget for this financial year was revised down from £216 million to just £22 million due to the postponement, but what has been achieved to date with that expenditure? What will the future budget look like? We do not really know, which in itself shows the entire farce of the estimates process.

Has the memorandum of understanding between Police Scotland and the UK Government been signed off, underwriting the estimated £180 million policing cost? Where is the budget line for that? We can still recall that the Home Office did not stump up for the Lib Dems’ party conference in Glasgow in 2013, which left Police Scotland £800,000 out of pocket. It is critical that the Police Scotland budget is not affected.

As a member of the BEIS Committee, I was pleased to take part in an inquiry about the COP26 preparations. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has covered it admirably, but I will reiterate some key recommendations that need to be considered. First, we need to ensure that the correct resource allocation from the civil service is in place. That needs a real focus from the Cabinet Office, not its current obsession with Union units. In the last couple of years, the Cabinet Office has also been a propaganda unit—first for Brexit, now the Union. Let us get a focus on COP26, which is a real priority.

We need to put in place measurable outcomes of success. The Committee has also suggested that parliamentary engagement needs to extend to the devolved legislatures, as well as the Westminster process. That brings us to the fact that leaders and relevant Ministers of the devolved Governments should form part of the UK delegation, as well as Opposition MPs. Let us show inclusivity as part of COP26, whatever Governments elsewhere do—but that will take real leadership from the COP26 President, given that we know the Prime Minister’s view on Scottish devolution.

We need the UK Government to set the sixth carbon budget as soon as possible, incorporating the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in full. Serious consideration needs to be given to resetting the fifth carbon budget, which currently is not aligned to net zero.

Something else that I will throw into the mix is reconsidering the cuts to the foreign aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out, a lot of finance needs to be mobilised to help developing countries. We have started to debate the damage and loss going forward. It sends completely the wrong message that the UK, as the host country, is cutting its foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world.

Clearly covid has been an overriding UK Government priority, and they have to deal with an emergency, but it feels as if the extra time gained from the postponement has not been put to full use. We need more information on the preparations. Certainly we need some kind of decision-making timeline made available that ties in with public health assessments, and plans to ensure that no countries are left out going forward. We really need more progress on the agreement over the nationally determined contributions. It is critical that all spend associated with the preparations is transparent. There can be no more lucrative contracts for friends and cronies.

Leading by example also means having proper domestic policies in place, just as the Scottish Government have. It is a terrible state of affairs that we are still awaiting the heat and building strategy and we are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. It should be noted that the Scottish Government have a 5 GW hydrogen production target, which is the same as the UK’s, so Scotland is showing much more ambition. Again, Scotland has a transport decarbonisation plan in place for a net zero target of 2035, but we are still awaiting the UK Government’s transport decarbonisation plan.

Without these key policies, there is no net zero strategy, and policies without funding commitments are effectively redundant. While there is a 10-point plan with a figure of 600,000 heat pump installations a year, this means nothing without a funded programme to back it up. That programme needs to be aligned with energy-efficient installations and should start targeting off-grid properties. There are 3,000 deaths a year in the UK related to fuel poverty, so the UK Government also need to invest far more directly in energy efficiency and demonstrate a net zero transition that will not push up energy bills and create more fuel poverty.

When it comes to transport, Scotland can demonstrate the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses. The Scottish Government have facilitated orders for electric and hydrogen buses from Alexander Dennis Ltd. Where is the UK Government’s national bus strategy? This is the type of leadership and joined-up thinking that is lacking at the moment.

I would ask the UK Government to be bold, and to abandon nuclear. This is not going to be the technology saviour they demonstrate to the rest of the world. We still cannot deal with nuclear waste, so we really do need to move away from this. Ahead of COP26, they should give sign-off for pumped-storage hydro. Floating offshore wind, green hydrogen, and wave and tidal technologies are the renewable technologies to focus on, so can we confirm ring-fenced contracts for difference pots for those? We should look at innovation in power purchase agreements for smaller marine projects to allow them to get to market.

Those are technologies that the UK and in particular Scotland, as the host country, can show to the world and be part of a coherent plan for an energy strategy. We need to be able to demonstrate it as part of the overall plan to lead other countries and make COP26 a real success. There is a lot of work to do in domestic policy and a lot of work in the negotiations that lie ahead of COP26 to make it a success.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Just for everybody’s information, the wind-ups will start no later than 6.28 pm with Deidre Brock. There will then be shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook at 6.38 pm, the COP26 President at 6.48 pm, and Darren Jones at 6.58 pm.