Energy
Perran Moon Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the reliability of electricity, which is what we need. We need electricity that will work in the winter when the sun is not shining, or when the wind is not blowing.
The question I would ask is this: why is the Labour party signing up to those high prices and locking all our constituents in for 20 years? It is because the Secretary of State is in the pocket of the wind developers. These are the highest prices for wind power that we have seen in a decade. [Interruption.] Ministers might shake their heads, but that is just a fact. It is much higher than the price of electricity right now, so why would they be buying more than ever before at the highest prices in a generation and fixing those prices for 20 years? I say this to Labour Members: if their constituents are saying to them—which I am sure they are—that their bills are too high now, what will they say to them in January, when it will be the Labour party that locks them all into even higher prices for longer?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Member remind the House which party was in power when we reached cripplingly high energy prices that led to the cost of living crisis that we have today?
Claire Coutinho
I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was Energy Secretary, bills came down by £500. Under this Secretary of State, they have gone up by £200. What he needs to explain to his constituents is why signing up to higher prices on inflation-linked contracts for 20 years will fulfil the promise he made to those constituents to cut their bills by £300. I wish he could explain that.
It is worth Labour Members listening to this. From the Tony Blair Institute to the most respected energy economist, Sir Dieter Helm, everybody has pointed out this risk to them. It has not come to them without warning, the fact that they are signing up to prices much more expensive than gas for decades. They are on the wrong side of this debate and they are on the wrong side of consumers. Come January, when the results are published, everybody will be able to see that. And they will ask them: were you warned? Did you do your job in Parliament and speak up for me and my bills? Here is the problem. Their whole position is not driven by what is best for consumers; it is driven by ideology. Nowhere is that clearer than in their war on the North sea. When Scottish Renewables says that Labour’s policy on oil and gas is damaging the transition, surely even Labour Members must realise that they are on the wrong path.
Martin McCluskey
We have committed and remain committed to the reduction in energy bills laid out by the Secretary of State. The Scottish National party can oppose GB Energy as much as it wants, but the company will deliver good, high-quality jobs in Scotland. On what the hon. Gentleman said about the Secretary of State, I should say that jobs are being and will be created by GB Energy right across the supply chain.
Perran Moon
Robert Gordon University estimates that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills with medium or high transferability to the offshore renewables sector, making them well positioned for the transition. If the SNP does not want those jobs in Scotland, can the Minister please send them to Cornwall?
Martin McCluskey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will carry on arguing for jobs across the UK, but particularly in Scotland and not all in Cornwall.
I will make some progress on my speech. Even in the face of rapid progress across the country, some, including many on the Opposition Benches, still cling to the status quo of stagnation and decline. Those who suggest that we should simply generate more electricity and generate more electricity with gas, leaving billpayers across Britain—
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate, because this is such an important topic for many of my constituents across South Shropshire. Both individuals and businesses need energy prices to come down—the cost is not sustainable, and it is on the wrong trajectory—and we need to be honest with the British people about the route for achieving that.
The Leader of the Opposition has clearly said that the net zero target is not achievable. We are being honest in this discussion. I believe that over the coming few years, all Members in this House will see that the target is not achievable, and it will be reversed. We are trying to bluff the British people—I think that is the word I would use—and make them believe that if we offset our carbon emissions and bring them down that way, it is okay to import all our energy. We have many more reserves that we can use before we need to bring in any energy from overseas; we can pull the reserves out of our ground and use them. There is a lot more that we can do on that.
Members may say, “We need to look at solar.” Let us look at rare earth metals, which I have spoken about several times in the Chamber. There are 17 rare earth metals, 90% of which are processed in or through China, which literally uses a scorched earth policy to pull them out of the ground.
Perran Moon
The hon. and gallant Member has mentioned rare earth metals. The Government will hopefully come out with their critical minerals strategy before the end of the year. We have vast resources of critical minerals in the United Kingdom; why did the previous Government not invest, so that we are not reliant on China?
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member raises a very interesting point. China looked at this issue 30 years ago; when I went over to Australia about five years ago, the Australians were looking at it, and the US was looking at it, too. Every country outside of China has left this way too late. Putting in place a critical minerals strategy now is way too late, but we still need one in place. We need to look at this issue. All the magnets that we use in this country, including for MRI scans, require rare earth metals. That strategy should be in place today. We got that wrong—I am happy to admit that we did not get our rare earth metals strategy right—and it is costing us. Everybody is waking up to the need for that strategy, but we cannot say, “Let’s just pull those metals in from China; we are very happy for them to offset our carbon emissions over there.”
I also want to look at energy from a defence perspective. We need energy to ensure that we have strong defence. Recently, the Government committed to the NATO standard, which is to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence and 1.5% of GDP on defence-related areas. We should focus on article 3 of NATO—internal defence—and that 1.5% of defence-related spending should be focused on a couple of things, namely energy security and food security. I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and discussions are ongoing about how that money should be used. If our tanks do not have any fuel to get where they need to go, they cannot fight; that is before we even look at ammunition and things like that. Rather than saying, “We have to go faster on renewables,” we should be having the bigger discussion about national resilience and energy security. The world is the most unstable it has been since the second world war. We need something in place now, and we need to move to what is sustainable. Defence is key to that.
I have mentioned food security. Outside of Much Wenlock in my constituency, which has just been voted the happiest place to live in Shropshire—it is a lovely place to live—there are 600 acres of prime agricultural land that can grow food, and a beautiful view that is one of the best in the country. There is an application to replace it with 600 acres of solar panels. I have not found one person in the constituency who wants to turn that land into a site for solar energy; it is only the landowner who wants to. If we put solar panels all over it, as part of the roll-out of solar at speed—the Minister has mentioned that the Government are going quicker—we will be doing so with no regard for local people and what they want for their communities. This is really detrimental; the discussion about net zero is getting killed because local communities are being overridden.
I have talked about the speed of solar, and about defence and food security, but we also need to look at homes that are off the grid. In South Shropshire, only 42% of homes are on gas mains; many are off the grid. I think the average across the country is about 73%. Some of the Government’s plans that the Minister has set out are not working for a lot of off-grid communities. There are a lot of old homes in South Shropshire, many of them built pre-1945, that are too expensive to retrofit.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is time for some home truths. The Conservative Government oversaw such a disastrous energy policy that it led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations. It started so well, and they just bottled it: they blocked wind power projects, failed to invest in nuclear, failed to invest in the grid, and were clueless when it came to solar, tidal and geothermal. Once again, it falls to this Government to clear up the mess left by the Conservative party, and we will not take any lectures from them on how to build a just transition to deliver long-term, sustainable, domestically produced energy to reduce bills.
Cornwall became a post-industrial land way before virtually any other part of the country, and anyone who visits Cornwall cannot miss the mines and wheelhouses that evocatively blend into our beautiful landscape. The Cornish Celtic tiger was tamed, but it is set to roar once again thanks to this Government’s commitment to critical minerals and the renewable transition. The hon. and gallant Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned critical minerals, and our resources of tin, which is used in virtually every electrical device, lithium, which is used in EV batteries, and tungsten will provide domestically sourced resources to accelerate our transition to renewables while creating thousands of jobs and, as he said, reducing our reliance on Chinese imports.
It is beyond me why that took so long, but it has now taken 15 months of a Labour Government to see the benefits in Cornwall. Why the previous Government did not invest in Cornwall I have no idea, but driving down the A30, we can see that our landscape has new beautiful features, with wind turbines creating sustainable energy for local people. We have vast opportunities in wind, solar, geothermal and tidal, and Cornwall’s opportunities play a strategically prominent role in transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Member is making the argument for exploiting our home resources so we do not have to import such resources from elsewhere, but that is exactly the argument when it comes to North sea oil, is it not?
Perran Moon
No, absolutely not. I am talking about why the Conservative Government did not make the investment in critical minerals that this Labour Government identified straightaway. It was there, and has been there for decades—for centuries, in fact—and it has been ignored, so we are now reliant on Chinese imports.
Bill Esterson
One of the challenges in bringing down energy costs is the up-front cost of the equipment people need to take advantage of cheaper electricity. My hon. Friend knows a lot about electric vehicles because he used to work in the sector, and he knows that the salary sacrifice scheme was the biggest single way of getting electric vehicles on to the road. Does he agree with me that the Government should look at a similar scheme for solar, battery, insulation and potentially heat pumps as a great way of enabling consumers to benefit from cheaper electricity?
Perran Moon
I declare an interest, as the UK’s largest ground source heat pump company is based in my own constituency. I am a big advocate of ground source heat pumps, and I am hopeful that the Government will come forward with plans, particularly for social housing, to support that sector. My hon. Friend makes very valid points.
The opportunities in Cornwall would be scuppered without the likes of the round 7 allocation, and thousands of green job opportunities would be quashed. Opposition parties need to wake up. This Government are committed to transitioning away from fossil fuels, because to do so means that we will break free from the shackles of the wholesale gas price. We can control supply, and in doing so we will reduce domestic and business energy bills, rather than continually being exposed to the whims of the likes of Mr Putin. I know that some Members—maybe they are not here at the moment—quite admire Mr Putin, but this Labour Government, and, I suspect, those who are paying through the nose for Putin’s whims and the previous Government’s failure to invest, do not.
Talking of ideology, I must ask this question: what is it about the oil and gas-backed, climate change denying opposition parties that make them feel so threatened by the green energy transition?
Perran Moon
I will not give way because of time, and I know that other Members are still to speak.
Opposition Members’ constituents will not thank them for blocking access to sustainable, low-cost energy, and Ministers know that we on this side of the House fully understand and support the transition, with interventions such as the warm home discount, which I do applaud. I urge Ministers to continue to ignore the siren calls and to pursue the path to long-term, cheap renewable energy, lowering bills and regenerating areas such as Cornwall that were long abandoned by the Conservatives. The previous Government lost the plot on energy, but this Government are taking back control of our energy industry.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is vital that we challenge the bankrupt energy record of the UK Government—a record of failure that continues to punish Scottish workers, strip our national wealth and plunge families into fuel poverty.
The current policy being prosecuted from Westminster is not a sustainable plan. It is quite simply ripping jobs from the north-east of Scotland with nothing to replace them. Scotland is an energy-rich nation, abundant in both oil and gas, with world-leading renewable potential.
Perran Moon
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 90% of the jobs in the oil and gas sector are easily transferable to the renewables sector?
Graham Leadbitter
Yes, the jobs are transferable, but the work they can be transferred to needs to exist. It does not exist at the current time. The downturn in the North sea from a crippling fiscal regime is absolutely destroying those jobs and the skills that we need to get to that clean energy potential.
The SNP is clear in its support for a just transition for Scotland’s oil and gas sector, recognising the maturity of the North sea basin and aligning with our climate change commitments. However, we must be absolutely clear that a just transition does not mean simply stopping all future oil and gas activity overnight, as that approach threatens energy security and destroys the very skills we need to transfer to net zero.
We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to approach decisions for North sea oil and gas projects on a rigorously evidence-led, case-by-case basis, with climate compatibility and energy security as key considerations. Instead, we have seen a fiscal and licensing regime that is actively destroying the highly skilled jobs required to deliver clean energy security.
The energy profits levy is a crippling tax on Scotland’s energy and we must see its end in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the consequences laid bare: Harbour Energy confirms a cumulative headcount reduction of approximately 600 roles since the EPL was introduced in 2022, blaming the “punitive domestic fiscal regime”. Meanwhile, a landmark report found that one in four north-east firms has slashed jobs due to the tax. The decline in North sea oil and gas jobs currently outstrips the number of jobs created by the scale-up of the clean energy industry.
The loss of highly skilled offshore workers with transferable skills without the jobs to transfer to makes a mockery of the just transition. The Chancellor has the opportunity to fix this in two weeks. The question is: will she?
Furthermore, where is the support for the alternative? Labour promised that its flagship GB Energy project would bring down bills and create 1,000 new jobs in the north-east of Scotland, yet only 13 out of 69 employees at GB Energy are based in Aberdeen, while 31 are employed in London. Now we have heard the astonishing admission that creating 1,000 jobs was never the intention.
Let us turn to the soaring cost of living and the broken promises made to Scottish households. The Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300 before the election, but the reality is that since the Government took office, bills have soared. Independent analysis shows that average energy bills could rise by £287 on their watch. To meet their original pledge, the Labour Government would need to cut bills by nearly £600. The situation facing Scots is completely absurd: we are an energy-rich country where bills are going up while energy jobs are going down. We produce enormous amounts of electricity, yet Scots pay among the highest energy bills anywhere in Europe.
Finally, we must address the UK Government’s ideological obsession with nuclear energy, which threatens Scotland’s transition to renewables. Scotland already has an abundance of clean, renewable energy—enough to power our country several times over. We do not need expensive nuclear power, yet Scots are being forced to pay for a nuclear power station they do not want and will not benefit from—and at great risk to our economy. I am speaking, of course, about the nuclear tax being imposed on Scottish households to fund the construction of Sizewell C in Suffolk. The plant is not expected to generate electricity until the mid-2030s at the earliest.
Furthermore, the long-term legacy of nuclear power is routinely ignored by Ministers. The true cost of the geological disposal facility for nuclear waste is now estimated to be up to £69 billion at current prices. The body responsible for the GDF project has described it as “unachievable”. This is an eye-wateringly large amount of money.
Whether it is the reckless fiscal regime destroying jobs in the North sea, the broken promises leaving families facing sky-high bills, or the imposition of a toxic nuclear tax to fund white elephants in England, Westminster’s energy policy—dictated to us by both Labour and the Tories—has been a complete failure. It is no wonder that more and more Scots are concluding that the only way to escape this repeated mismanagement and the only route to cheaper bills is through a fresh start with independence. It is time to put Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands.
Remote Coastal Communities
Perran Moon Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have secured this debate on Government support for remote coastal communities. My constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle is one such area, and there is growing evidence that such constituencies face distinct and underestimated challenges. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), to her new position.
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 8.7 million people—15% of the population—lived in coastal settlements in England and Wales in 2021. These communities deserve strong representation in Parliament because, just as the human body often shuts down extremities at times of extreme shock, our remote coastal communities tend to feel the chill of economic neglect first, experiencing public service withdrawal, under-investment and eroded socioeconomic opportunities. To illustrate, a report by Onward found that coastal neighbourhoods are 42% more likely to be in the lowest decile for income deprivation than inland areas, and half as likely to be in the best.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s fair funding review is right to take into account the sparsity and rurality of coastal areas and visitor numbers into the new calculations? For example, a hotel in Cornwall in the winter can cost £53, but in the summer it can cost £100, and county councils spend twice as much on home-to-school transport as London boroughs, proving how much more it costs to provide those services in rural areas.
Perran Moon
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, although I think the Government should go further in relation to visitor numbers, because the current proposals look only at day trippers. I will come on to that issue a little later in my speech.
We know that place matters. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation found that one third of pay differences between labour markets stem from the places themselves, not the people who live there. That should be a wake-up call for all of us. There are several interrelated pressures driving this deprivation that are not adequately currently reflected in Government assessments of need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. As I said when I spoke to him earlier, there have been many debates on coastal erosion and remote coastal communities. In my constituency of Strangford, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the problem of coastal erosion was financed from Westminster some years ago, but that has now fallen by the wayside. The issues are not just about coastal erosion, but about social erosion—the closure of the pub, the post office and the shop, and reduced public transport, if it even exists. Ever mindful that the drive to change that must come from Westminster, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more money put into community budgets to address greater social isolation?
Perran Moon
I agree. That is why, on the back of this debate, I am calling on the Government to develop a specific remote coastal strategy.
First, there are the pressures of geographical remoteness itself. Physical isolation and sparse populations drive up the cost and complexity of delivering public services. In Cornwall, our landscape of small, scattered settlements and constrained transport links means that service provision is inherently far more expensive; those costs are not captured by labour and property indices alone.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On transport links, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final repair in phase 5 of the Dawlish rail resilience programme is vital to remote coastal communities in both Devon and Cornwall?
Perran Moon
I agree. The Dawlish line is very important in relation to Cornwall, and it needs to be a consideration for relevant Ministers.
Members may not realise that, sitting here, we are closer to Middlesbrough than to Camborne in my constituency, but remoteness is not just about distance; it is a barrier to access, opportunity and resilience.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
When I visit teachers in Torbay secondary schools, I reflect on how there is often a bay mentality and a lack of aspiration for youngsters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that often in our local coastal communities there is a lack of aspiration compared with many metropolitan areas, where there is greater richness of culture and opportunity for our young people?
Perran Moon
I entirely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.
The second pressure is seasonal demand from tourism. While the visitor economy has long held strategic value for coastal communities, the seasonal influx of tourists places immense strain on already creaking public services, such as waste collection, highways, beach safety and emergency response, which face significant seasonal surges. Those fluctuations are not captured in standard funding models, yet they have real budgetary impact. Tourism can bring prosperity, but also pressure. In Cornwall, summer means more traffic, more waste and more emergency calls, and significantly higher costs than those associated with the resident population alone.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
My constituency is a lot closer to here than the constituency of my hon. Friend—it is just a bit further down the Thames. We have a strong tourist economy, but due to the housing pressures across the country these days, the housing and accommodation on the Isle of Sheppey hides a masked community living in holiday accommodation all year round, particularly in caravans. That is not picked up in the Government data at either a national or local level. I am interested to hear from my hon. Friend whether that is a problem for him as well; in my community, it means that we have high levels of deprivation that simply are not being accounted for in the current Government spending plans or formulae. I welcome the Government’s revision to the spending formulae, which will help my constituency, but we could go further.
Perran Moon
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Again, I will come on to that a little later in my speech.
On higher costs, the pressure that is felt most acutely by residents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, as I hear on the doorstep or in constituency surgeries, is housing. Coastal housing markets, shaped by seasonal appeal, have a high proportion of second homes and short-term holiday lets, which significantly reduces supply and drives prices beyond the means of local people, while many of those homes sit empty for months. I appreciate the decisions that this Government have made on stamp duty to dampen demand for second homes, but I was horrified to hear last week that the Reform party suggests that the excessive purchase of second homes in Cornwall is not a problem. I am disappointed that Reform Members are not here now.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In my constituency, high levels of second home ownership, short-term holiday lets and holiday homes reduce the housing supply for local families and force them away from their important support systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need stronger support for generally affordable housing delivery in coastal areas such as ours, backed by sufficient infrastructure?
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is something I will talk about in a moment. There is a particular pressure in Cornwall, but there is also pressure in other remote coastal areas relating to second home ownership and Airbnbs—sorry, I should say short-term lets. According to 2024 data from Lighthouse, Cornwall had the largest supply of short-term lets in the country. The figure was around 24,000 properties, which is up by 30% since 2019. I have long supported a compulsory registration scheme for short-term lets—one that includes fire safety regulations—and I look forward to the Government’s forthcoming housing strategy.
Cornwall suffers from a chronic lack of affordable homes—I appreciate that it shares that problem with other remote coastal locations. With the second highest housing target in the country and over 23,000 people on the housing waiting list, the scale of need is clear, but our remote geography, infrastructure limitations and construction skills shortages make conventional housing delivery extremely challenging.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. He is focusing on tourism and housing, but in my coastal constituency, there are many businesses—particularly in the fishing industry—that could benefit from investment to deliver economic growth. In May, the Government launched the fishing and coastal growth fund, worth £360 million over 12 years. Does the hon. Member agree that in her response to this debate, the Minister should update the House on the progress of that funding, and that those funds should be allocated proportionately to reflect the size of Scotland’s fishing industry?
Perran Moon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that in the fullness of time, we will receive more details on that funding, which will be very important for the fishing industry—we are certainly very keen to ensure we see the benefit of it within Cornwall. It has to be practical, and it has to be applied where it is most appropriate.
The issue of homes is an important one. When homes become investments rather than homes for local people, communities lose their heart and young people lose their future. As such, the next pressure I want to highlight is educational isolation and the lack of opportunity facing young people in remote coastal locations, which has been mentioned. Research from Plymouth Marjon University shows that schools in such locations struggle in vital areas, including school staff recruitment and retention, support and external investment. Poor transport links, rural roads and seasonal traffic make travel difficult, limiting opportunities for both pupils and teachers and deterring potential recruits.
Our young people are presented with Hobson’s choice: move inland to find work opportunities, or face an uncertain future with limited prospects of a home of their own. That migration reinforces geographic inequality. In a recent report on the issue, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:
“Reducing economic disparities…requires bringing opportunity to people—not just raising skills, but building places where skills are rewarded.”
Its report specifically highlights that coastal areas tend to lose out, with migration reducing average earnings by over 5% in parts of Cornwall. Young people face the “half-compass effect”, with the sea on one side, poor transport on the other, and limited access to employers.
A direct consequence of that lack of youth opportunity can be seen in the age profile of remote coastal communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median age in coastal built-up areas is 42—three years older than in non-coastal areas—and 25% of residents over 16 are retired, compared with 20.6% inland.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is Labour’s south by south-west to my north by north-west. It is good to have our communities connected to a Government who make change for rural areas and coastal communities. My constituency has much in common with his; it faces the same challenges of connectivity, demographics and housing, and it also has the same potential with fisheries, the people themselves, the culture, the language and the renewables resource, which all of the community should have a share in. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more devolution? My constituency has been badly treated by devolution: we faced the ferry fiasco that has cost half a billion pounds; we have faced the farce of highly protected marine areas being imposed on us by devolved Government that would have closed down our entire fishery; and because of depopulation, we face the fiasco of reduced funding—being punished for people moving away. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more power in these peripheral areas so that we can run our own affairs?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent points about remote coastal areas and the challenges we face. Obviously, he faces a particular challenge that we do not face in Cornwall, as he also has to put up with an SNP Government.
Since many residents live outside built-up areas, the true figure on age might be even higher. Cornwall has seen sustained population growth, largely driven by the migration of older people drawn to its geographical appeal as a place to retire. This older migration population means increased health and care needs. Data from the Institute of Cornish Studies shows that 43% of households moving to Cornwall from elsewhere are economically inactive, placing huge further strains on public services. Funding formulas rarely account for that reality. We have more demand for carers, more long-term health conditions, and more demand on health and social care systems. In remote areas like Cornwall, care is harder to reach and far more expensive to deliver.
With our ageing population come the health inequalities that deeply affect remote coastal communities. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report on health and wellbeing in coastal communities identifies a coastal excess of disease driven by deprivation, age profile and behaviours such as obesity, smoking and alcohol use. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy were all lower in coastal areas. The report made it clear that in coastal communities, these factors converge to the detriment of local people, who face income insecurity, low-paid seasonal work and limited educational capital. The 10-year health plan does acknowledge the challenges faced by coastal communities, particularly in its shift from hospital to community care, but more needs to be done.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Does he agree with me about the extra pressures on people living in remote rural coastal communities, such as Ilfracombe in Devon? The life expectancy there is 10 years lower than in other parts of Devon. The integrated care board needs to be funded for the costs of supporting the local minor injuries unit at Ilfracombe hospital, especially during tourist times, when the population of my area doubles.
Perran Moon
I am just glad that we have a Labour Government who are taking the national health service far more seriously than the previous Government did.
My deepest concern is that deprivation is not adequately reflected in standardised measurements, particularly the indices of multiple deprivation, as the Government’s primary tool for assessing need. Research from Plymouth Marjon University due to be published on 26 September introduces the concept of “pretty poverty”—deprivation masked by Cornwall’s postcard beauty. The six key findings of the report show that the indices of multiple deprivation do not give enough weight to transport dependency, housing displacement, employment precarity, healthcare withdrawal, educational isolation and community resilience. Although the measurement has strengths, without reforming it we risk missing the deep structural issues facing remote coastal communities.
In June, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the Government launched the fair funding review, acknowledging that outdated models have short-changed places like Cornwall. It includes a long overdue remoteness adjustment, previously dropped in 2018, and recognition of some of the costs associated with tourism. However, in Cornwall, the ending of the shared prosperity fund, which had been used to develop economic prosperity— announced on the same day that millions of pounds were made available for mayoral combined authorities in the north and midlands—was a bitter pill to swallow. The indices of multiple deprivation do not see the full picture, and when measurement fails, funding fails. I am pleased to see that a new iteration of the indices will be released later this year, and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been brought into the process to consider rural affairs, but the specific needs of remote coastal communities must be considered as well.
Time and again, evidence shows that remote coastal communities are often conflated with rural areas, overlooked in key metrics and treated as peripheral. Decisions about these communities must be based on accurate, meaningful assessments of deprivation. I urge Ministers to commit themselves to reviewing the forthcoming research from Plymouth Marjon University, because although it focuses on Cornwall, the issues that it raises are likely to apply across most other remote coastal areas. I also ask this Minister to commit herself to a dedicated remote coastal strategy to deal with these issues holistically. Our remote coastal areas have so much economic potential, but up until now Government policy has seemed to favour investment in urban mayoral authority areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to go further, and appoint a Minister for coastal communities?
Perran Moon
I am not sure that such a Minister is what we need. What we need is absolute focus and a cross-departmental Government strategy for remote coastal areas. In these areas, we feel acutely the focus on urban areas and, in particular, mayoral combined authorities. Without sustained investment in remote coastal areas, in housing, transport, skills and economic development, our collective economic potential will remain untapped.
Oral Answers to Questions
Perran Moon Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
It sounds like I am being educated about floating solar. I am happy to share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for it; if he has proposals about how we can take it forward, I am all ears.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
In France, Germany, Croatia and elsewhere on mainland Europe, geothermal energy is being taken very seriously. I was disappointed that geothermal energy got little mention in the industrial strategy, particularly as there is estimated to be 30 GW of energy in the Cornish granite batholith. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we clear the barriers to unleash the potential of the Cornish granite batholith?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend always raises the huge potential of Cornwall in this House and in the energy space. He is right to talk about the potential for geothermal; we are hugely excited about the opportunities that it presents. I am very happy to meet him and others to discuss further how we can take it forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Perran Moon Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
We said we would cut energy bills by up to £300 by 2030, and that remains our commitment.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Penn-bloodh lowen, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy as a means of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, but I am concerned that far less attention has been given to another low-carbon, low marginal cost, firm baseload power source—deep geothermal. By some estimates, there are over 30 GW of geothermal energy potential in the Cornish granite batholith alone. What are the Government doing to assess and unlock this untapped geothermal potential?
Michael Shanks
As always, my hon. Friend is a great champion for his local area and its different energy sources. I am very happy to meet him, as geothermal has huge opportunities. I think some of it has yet to come to market, but we look at all opportunities for delivering clean power.
Solar Farms
Perran Moon Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The climate crisis grows more urgent, and our children’s future is under threat. Solar energy will play a crucial role in the mission to produce secure, affordable energy in this country. Since the general election, the Government have consented to more solar power projects than were consented to over the entirety of the past 14 years. Great British Energy is investing £200 million in new rooftop solar energy panels, including for the roof of the newly built Leighton hospital near my constituency, and in renewable energy schemes for schools, hospitals and communities. That will take hundreds of millions of pounds off public sector energy bills.
New building standards will ensure that all new build houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. The standards are expected to encourage the installation of solar panels, and I welcome that. It is critical that we exclude slave labour from the supply chain for solar panels, both on moral grounds and to enable alternative producers to compete on a fair playing field. Much of the global supply of solar-grade polysilicon —a key component of solar panels—is manufactured in Xinjiang, China, where over 1 million Uyghur Muslims are imprisoned in a vast network of forced labour camps. This week, I met people from Open Doors to learn more about its work tackling religious persecution around the world. It said in its 2022 report that
“In Xinjiang you are always watched; a computer decides your fate, against which there is no appeal.”
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that despite our deep concern about solar panel production in China, there was virtually zero investment in the UK’s solar production during the Conservatives’ time in office? Since we came to power—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We really must have short interventions, or I will not be able to get every Member in.
Perran Moon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) referred to the Heckington Fen solar project in her speech today, and claimed that it was approved by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not take that decision. He recused himself from it, and that was made abundantly clear—publicly—following the decision. We have a duty in this House to be accurate and not to question another Member’s integrity. What the hon. Member said is categorically incorrect, and I therefore respectfully ask that she withdraw her comment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point. He will know that it is not a point of order, but a point of debate that perhaps would have been better dealt with in the debate itself by means of an intervention. However, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) wishes to respond, she may.
Great British Energy Bill
Perran Moon ExcerptsWednesday 14th May 2025
(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Great British Energy Act 2025 View all Great British Energy Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
Michael Shanks
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. I will start with the intervention made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), which set the tone. He said that there is an important cross-party consensus on this issue, and I think that that has come through in all the contributions we have heard. Hopefully, that gives us a mandate to push further on this issue than any of our parties has done until this point. That is my genuine intent, and the hon. Gentleman’s point is very helpful.
I always welcome my exchanges with the shadow Minister, as he well knows. I thought for a moment that there was an opportunity at this very late stage for him to change his way and support investment in his own constituency through Great British Energy, but he has once again decided to use this opportunity to say to his constituents that he does not want investment and jobs. We will of course remind his constituents of that.
Michael Shanks
Cornwall is ever present in these debates. Nevertheless, however much the shadow Minister’s teeth were gritted, I do welcome his support for the approach we are taking today.
We are debating Lords amendment 2B, which, combined with the previous commitments that I have made from the Dispatch Box and that my noble Friend Lord Hunt has made in the other place, demonstrates that this Government are committed to using Great British Energy as a vehicle for taking this issue seriously. As came through in a number of the contributions, though, this is not solely the preserve of Great British Energy; it is much broader, both in the energy system and in the wider economy.
I have committed to doing some things already. I have committed to appointing a senior leader in Great British Energy who will have oversight of tackling forced labour in the supply chain; we have confirmed that Baroness O’Grady will take on that role. Many Members will know that she has significant experience in this space, and she will bring much effort to important deliberations at GB Energy. I have committed to cross-Government departmental meetings, which took place on 7 May as a starting point. I have committed to including an overarching expectation in the statement of strategic priorities, and that will be delivered within six months. We have demonstrated our unwavering commitment to tackling forced labour in supply chains, and we are resolute in our determination to go further.
Oral Answers to Questions
Perran Moon Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The United Kingdom was particularly susceptible to changes in international gas prices during the energy crisis, and bills and prices soared as a result. Under this Government, GB Energy is installing solar panels in hospitals in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, but will the Minister remind us which party presided over the worst cost of living crisis in memory—
Onshore Wind and Solar Generation
Perran Moon Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. As I have always said from the Dispatch Box in this role, there is a balance to be struck here. We need to build nationally important infrastructure, and that does mean much more onshore wind in England to match the significant amount of onshore wind that has been built in Scotland over the past few years, including not far from my constituency. But the balance must be struck with protecting land as well. Even if we build the significant number of projects that are needed, there will still be protections for land in the areas he mentions. The planning system allows for those considerations to be taken into account.
The NSIP regime already includes nuclear and solar. We are saying that the ban on onshore wind introduced by the Conservatives was not a rational decision, so we are bringing it back into this process. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister says that it was absolutely rational, but his party’s former Energy Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said that it was “always mad”. I think we should remember that not everybody in the Conservative party agreed with it, including, I suspect, the shadow Minister himself.
Let me come to the second part of the statutory instrument: the question of solar. Solar has been subject to a 50 MW NSIP threshold since it was originally set out in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50 MW threshold is now causing a market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations have a generating capacity greater than 50 MW and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. That is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact. That has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system artificially capping their capacity just below the 50 MW threshold, leading to a potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The approach set out in the order is a continuation of the Minister’s work to build the clean energy infrastructure that the country needs. I agree that the capacity threshold and the reintroduction of onshore wind generation stations into the definition of nationally significant infrastructure projects will help deliver the triple benefits of decarbonisation, energy security and job creation. However, as the Minister knows, Cornwall is a leader in the roll-out of onshore wind and solar energy. Does he agree that the order will further opportunities for renewable energy growth across Cornwall that would have been ignored by the flat Earth climate change deniers in the Conservative party?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend for the point, although I am disappointed, because while he normally invites me to visit Cornwall, he did not on this occasion. I will not take it personally. Since he was elected to this place, he has done a fantastic job in delivering jobs in his community on the clean power mission, most recently by looking at some of the raw materials that are so essential. He has made great progress on that, so I pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend is of course right about the Conservative party’s scepticism of a policy that it used to support so wholeheartedly, and one that has delivered economic growth right across the country. It has now turned its face against that; I am not sure whether that is flat Earth or not. I am sure that the shadow Minister will regale us with his long list of commitments in this space, but it is clear that the drive to net zero is delivering industrial opportunities, jobs, manufacturing and investment in communities that have suffered for so long under economic decline, as well as delivering on our climate ambitions and energy security. That is the right path for us to be on.
I will return to solar for a second. Raising the NSIP threshold to 100 MW for solar will ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. It should incentivise projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.
Andrew Bowie
Absolutely. I would be keen to see exactly what the Government are proposing on that front. Their plans, which are stripping away the rights of local communities, are doing great damage to communities across this country with shocking disregard—
Perran Moon
If the shadow Minister is so confident about Conservative party policy, will he come back to the House after 1 May and tell us how the Conservatives have performed in those local elections?
Andrew Bowie
I would be delighted to come back and compare notes on how our respective parties have performed in the local elections on 1 May. The choice before the people of England who are going to the polls on 1 May is quite clear. Where they have a Conservative local authority, they get better services and better value for money, as is being demonstrated right now by the comparison between Birmingham and Bromsgrove. There could not be a better illustration of the difference between Conservative party local delivery and Labour party failure. That is what is on the ballot paper on 1 May, and I will debate the arguments around that with the hon. Member any day of the week.
The Labour Government have made no secret of their plans to double onshore wind and treble solar, to be achieved by empowering themselves while disenfranchising local communities. In Lincolnshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, they are silencing local opposition. They risk alienating the British public in their costly rush to a renewables-based system without consultation and with no consent.
The race to Clean Power 2030 is being done at the expense of all else. It is being done at the expense of our energy security, our national security and our standards on ethical supply chains. Just last week in this very House, Labour whipped its MPs to vote in favour of allowing Great British Energy to invest in supply chains despite evidence of modern slavery—the Labour party! The week before, the Secretary of State was collaborating with the People’s Republic of China, sacrificing our national security and tacitly admitting that his wrong-headed targets were unachievable without imports made with coal power. Perhaps the Government received advice on how to achieve community consent from President Xi Jinping.
Oral Answers to Questions
Perran Moon Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ed Miliband
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, was present when the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), made a statement on precisely that issue. On the impact on bills, he will be delighted to know that under the new arrangements that this Government agreed, there has been an absolute transformation in the scale of subsidy to Drax; it will be halved. There is also a windfall tax when its profits go above a certain level, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, and there are much higher standards of sustainability. He is right that we should take these issues seriously.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Conservative party abandoned the economy, the NHS, the justice system and immigration, and now it is joining its Reform collaborators and other climate change deniers in the dunce’s corner. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike this Government, who recognise the triple benefit of the 2030 goal—energy security, a transition to renewables, and job creation—the Conservative party has no solutions for 21st century Britain?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend should not be so shy and retiring. He makes a really important point. I listened to the interim shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), on the radio this morning. He made net zero 2050 sound like a target dreamed up by me, but it is not. It was Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who legislated for net zero by 2050. The hon. Member was her Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time—he was supposed to be the man implementing it. She set the target because it was the right thing to do, so that we can have cleaner home-grown energy, get the jobs, and protect future generations.
Geothermal Energy
Perran Moon Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Mullan
I fully support the hon. Member�s efforts to raise this issue. She will know from the local projects in her constituency that we are making a start, but it is not enough, and this needs to be part of the broader plan in a comprehensive way.
When I first learned about deep geothermal technology, I thought it sounded too good to be true: an environmentally friendly, reliable and cost-effective source of heat and power right underneath our feet. But the more I explored it, the more I realised it truly lives up to its promise. Let me briefly explain the technology. Deep geothermal taps into naturally occurring hot water deep underground to produce significant amounts of usable heat and energy. Making use of that is no different from the way in which the Romans built their baths above hot springs; we just run a pipe down instead of relying on the water making its own way to the surface. People sometimes wonder whether the technology is fracking mark 2. Fracking involves the use of high pressure to crack the rocks to create artificial flows. Like Europe, we have access to resources of naturally flowing water that simply need to be tapped.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the United Nations all support deep geothermal in the light of its environmental benefits. A site is typically 1 to 2 acres. It does not take up huge swathes of farmland like solar panels can or involve erecting wind turbines, which some communities think detract from the local landscape.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving us the opportunity to discuss the potential of geothermal and the barriers when it comes to planning. In my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, we have businesses that are at the forefront of both shallow geothermal energy, with ground source heat pumps developed by Kensa, and deep geothermal systems such as those being pioneered by the Geothermal Engineering Ltd deep geothermal power project, which is soon to become operational. Does he agree that industry needs Government support, including planning reform to reduce deployment timescales, and a UK geothermal licensing scheme to calculate the size of the geothermal asset and how that asset is protected in law?
Dr Mullan
I agree with the hon. Member. The Government need an entire strategy for deep geothermal that will hopefully draw attention to those different pieces of the puzzle, including planning and licensing, which are so important. Not too far away from his constituency is the Eden Project, which people see as a byword for environmental credentials in this country. It is pioneering this technology, which is a powerful testimony to its environmental benefits.
Since the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive in 2021�unfortunately just as interest was peaking from industry�deep geothermal, unlike solar and wind in their early beginnings, has been without comprehensive Government support to develop the market. There have been encouraging breakthroughs, as was mentioned, and in 2023 the UK�s first operational deep geothermal plant to open in 37 years went online at the Eden Project. Deep geothermal also made its historic debut in allocation round 5 of contracts for difference, with three projects from Geothermal Engineering Ltd securing approval, totalling 12 MW of capacity. At Langarth garden village, green heat network funding is now supporting the development of a geothermal-powered heat network to turn that resource into local supply. Those successes show that, with the right backing, geothermal can become a key player in our transition to clean, sustainable energy.
However, those ad hoc wins are not providing the sort of comprehensive dedicated approach that we need. As it stands, the UK has fallen far behind other countries that have for some time harnessed the potential of deep geothermal. If we look across Europe, as of 2022 there were 74 projects in France, 31 in the Netherlands, and 190 in Germany. Deep geothermal energy heats more than a quarter of a million homes in Paris, and the French Government aim to increase the number of schemes by 40% by 2030. Munich is pouring in �1 billion through to 2035 to develop deep geothermal and make the city�s heating carbon neutral. In fact, Germany is already producing more than 350 MW annually, and the Government are targeting at least 100 new geothermal projects. Across Europe alone, hot sedimentary aquifers have the potential to provide eight terawatts of heat at 90� C�30 times more than the district heating systems that currently serve 70 million people across the region. The potential is enormous.