Marine Renewables: Government Support

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why further support is needed. In many ways, though, that also shows the pace of deployment to deliver these projects in the next few years. Looking at the Government’s overall renewable energy targets, it is really important that they back many sectors, particularly tidal stream.

I agree with the key asks mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, including continuing the ring-fenced pots, reforming CfDs to continue to incentivise supply chain development, the 1 GW target for 2035 and, importantly, section 36 consent reform. I ask the Minister to work with the Scottish Government on that, because the regulations are reserved to Westminster.

I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who chairs the marine energy APPG and does a lot of good work with it. It was good to hear him rightly commend the Scottish Government for our commitment to support in the 2022-23 programme for government and, although he did not say it, initiatives such as the Wave Energy Scotland technology programme, which committed £50 million for development of these technologies. It is not often that I say this in a debate, but I welcome and support the hon. Gentleman’s call for further investment in England, because that will help develop the supply chain right across the UK. Importantly, I agree with what he said about the need to support companies such as Nova Innovation to stay in Scotland and the UK.

[Richard Graham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his comments. Will he pursue with Marine Scotland the anomalies in the speed of its processes, which seem to be holding up marine energy projects? For example, I understand that EMEC’s Billia Croo section 36 consent has only been sent on a year after it was ready to go for ministerial approval, and that the scoping opinion for EMEC’s 50 MW Fall of Warness consent application was completed in August, but the Marine Scotland team has still not forwarded the responses four months later. Does he agree that it is time for Marine Scotland to speed things up?

[Alan Brown]

I need to move on. However, if there are any blockages, I am happy to support streamlining. I know that Marine Scotland has massively increased its resource to try to speed things up in terms of its assessment and processing. However, if more needs to be done to streamline things, I support that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I have said, the section 36 regulations are reserved to Westminster. However, I am happy to support any streamlining of the process to ensure we get deployment.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on her contribution. She rightly highlighted that these technologies encourage redevelopment and regeneration. Energy Island is a fantastic development that will move from fossil fuels to renewable energy. I support the call for an innovation report for CfDs and the call for the ability to group multiple technologies together, because that would facilitate the development of green hydrogen as well.

As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a fantastic contribution to the debate. He talked particularly about the developments for Strangford lough in his constituency. I liked what he said about helping to support the working poor in a drive for wages.

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that when it comes to nuclear, there is a lack of competition to bring costs down. I support her call for community energy. That has happened in Orkney through hydrogen development and the roll-out of electric vehicles; party of that community energy comes from marine energy.

Ban on Fracking for Shale Gas Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

As the licensing of fracking and the planning process are devolved, I was not initially planning to participate in the debate, but given that the Government have effectively made it a motion of confidence in them, it is only right that we do so and outline the thoughts of the Scottish National party. No matter what the official Government line is, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), made it clear that the Tory Government are making this a vote of confidence in them. I oppose fracking, and the SNP Government have ruled out fracking in Scotland, producing an effective ban on it, so I agree fully with the motion in that respect. It is not for us to impose our views on what happens in England, but we will vote for the motion to show that we have no confidence in this utter, utter shambles of a Tory Government.

We have heard interventions on the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), from Tory MPs who say that they are opposed to fracking and want to represent the views of their constituents who oppose fracking, but that they will vote for the Government amendment and against the motion. That makes no sense. If they have any backbone, I urge them to vote for a ban on fracking.

[Richard Graham]

SNP Members are huge champions of local democracy, so does the hon. Member accept that if a local council were to support the idea of fracking, that does represent local consent? Does he agree that the support of the local council should be the crucial issue involved?

[Alan Brown]

That brings me to the point that I was going to make. If this is all about local democracy and democracy itself, why are the hon. Member’s Government making his MPs vote in a way that they say they do not want to vote? How can we trust them to implement some form of local democracy when MPs are getting forced to vote for the Government amendment against their will?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

I have news for the hon. Member: if she votes for the amendment, she will be voting for the principle of fracking, no matter how she dresses it up.

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman says that anyone who votes for the Government amendment is voting for fracking. That is not correct. As he knows and you know, a vote for the Government amendment is a vote for the Secretary of State to bring back a definition of local consent for this House to vote on before any fracking can conceivably move forward. Can you, from the Chair, advise the hon. Gentleman of the truth of the matter?

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

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

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments because they lead in to the Bill and what we are debating today, which is largely about finance and the optimum way to ensure that a new, large nuclear power station is constructed, following the success of Hinkley Point C. Indeed, obviously, the ideal thing would be to move the team seamlessly from one project to another. In all of this, it is worth paying tribute to the hugely successful operational nuclear headquarters for the whole country at EDF Energy’s offices in Gloucestershire in my constituency. One thing I hope the Minister will touch on today is how important a part they will play in the future development of our nuclear capacity, whether in further large stations such as the one at Wylfa, talked up—rightly and so effectively—by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), or in any other part of the United Kingdom, as well as in the small modular reactors that have been mentioned by several Members as a key way of generating more nuclear power, and probably faster, to answer the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood).

[Alan Brown]

I issue the challenge again to the hon. Gentleman to speak to the amendments. For example, can he explain why, if he is pro-nuclear, he will vote against amendment 9, which is about providing transparency on cost? Why does he oppose amendment 7, which would compel the Secretary of State to report on the operation of the new nuclear stations in the future, including outages and their condition and operability?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman has tabled several amendments, including amendments 6, 8, 9 and 7. Largely speaking, my perception is that they are designed to tie down the Government in as much detail as possible, avoiding the uncomfortable truth for the Scottish National party that the whole process of regulated asset base funding, which the SNP opposes, has already been used very successfully for infrastructure projects around the country, not least the separation of ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro Electric in 2005. It has also been used for the Thames tideway tunnel and Heathrow terminal 5. I do not recall those projects ever being criticised for the concept and detail of the regulated asset base funding, which is precisely what we are discussing for Sizewell C.

[Alan Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Graham]

I am happy to carry on taking interventions if time allows.

[Alan Brown]

The RAB model has been used successfully for some infrastructure projects, but as outlined earlier it has not been very successful in the United States when applied to nuclear power stations. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a successful application of the RAB model to a nuclear power station?

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

2nd reading
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about nuclear being clean—oh, wait, apart from the radioactive waste that we still do not know what to do with. We will ignore that point, but he has a valid point about the need for clear environmental considerations with respect to where we site any marine project. That should be part of a robust, up-front planning process, working with the likes of Marine Scotland. There are regulatory bodies that have oversight of these projects, so it is important that they be involved in the planning process. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is still a huge future for wave and tidal.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman highlights the value of marine energy in Scotland and elsewhere; he and I are absolutely on the same page on that. Does he agree that one thing it would be very helpful for the Minister to take away is the need to clarify the precise size of the pot that will be available specifically for marine energy in the next contracts for difference auction round, CFD AR4? There is a danger that unless there is a specific pot, the marine energy providers will be rather crowded out by other forms of renewable energy.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree. I was happy to co-sign the cross-party letter from the all-party parliamentary group on marine energy, which I fully support. I hope that the Minister is listening, because this is a matter that we agree on across parties.

Looking at other technologies that we should be spending money on, I compliment the UK Government on seeing the opportunities that floating offshore wind can bring, but let us start deploying it much more quickly and investing more money, because that is where the real future is. Clearly, the further out to sea the turbines are, the greater the reliability of wind and subsequent generation.

There needs to be much greater investment in carbon capture and storage. The Government need to reverse their disgraceful decision not to have a Scottish cluster as part of their track 1 CCS projects. A Scottish cluster would also deliver hydrogen production, which is vital on the pathway to net zero.

We heard earlier, as we always do, the argument that nuclear is required for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, but as I have tried to point out to the Minister, there is an existing technology that can address that issue: pumped storage hydro, a renewable energy source that utilises surplus grid energy to fill the reservoirs and can then dispatch electricity when required. Pumped storage hydro is the perfect foil for intermittent renewables, rather than big, inflexible nuclear power stations that invariably pump energy to the grid when it is not required. An Imperial College report suggests that there could be system savings of £700 million a year from using pumped storage hydro technology instead of nuclear.

SSE has all the necessary permissions in place, right now, to progress a new pumped storage hydro scheme at Coire Glas in the Highlands. It is progressing the design at its financial risk, and all that it needs is agreement with the Government and a minimum floor price for electricity—not a strike rate and not direct funding, just a minimum guarantee on the sale price of electricity. Then the development can reach the construction stage, and can be commissioned in the same timeframe as Hinkley. I ask the Government to reconsider, and to get round the table with SSE and other developers.

Jet Zero Council

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate and leading it so admirably. I apologise in advance: I have a funny feeling I will repeat a lot of what he said, but that shows agreement. He hoped for cross-party support, and I think that will be the outcome of today’s debate.

The hon. Gentleman correctly set out how important aviation is overall to the UK in terms of the £52 billion it brings to the economy. At the same time, we have to recognise, and reconcile with that fact, the challenge of achieving net zero, despite an increase in demand going forward. Interestingly, that concurs with the findings of Climate Assembly UK, which recently reported. As citizens, they accept that there will be a continued increase in the use of aircraft, but there need to be changes, in terms of some of the solutions outlined today, in order to get the balance right and achieve net zero. I note that they do not think that there should be quite as big an increase in world aviation as is projected.

As the hon. Gentleman set out, we obviously need to find new solutions, with sustainable aviation fuels being integral to that—I will return to that issue. He also highlighted the hydrogen fuel system getting developed in his area—in Bedford. I wish that well. I also agree with his calls for additional Government investment, particularly the £25 million that he says is needed to get the Whittle laboratory under construction next year. It will be good to hear what the Minister says on that.

I also agree with the call for an airline scrappage scheme. That would obviously generate turnover of aircraft in order to get new cleaner, greener aircraft, and it could generate another spin-off—the work that would be involved in decommissioning the aircraft that were scrapped. The Prestwick aerospace cluster, which is adjacent to my constituency, is looking to move into that market, so if the Government helped to incentivise the market with an aircraft decommissioning or scrappage scheme, that would certainly be really welcome. I would also like to suggest a bit of worker rep on the council. I hope that that is something the Government could look at.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) gave us a wee bit of a history lesson on the original jet engine and spoke about the development of the electric jet engine. Obviously, we want to see that developed. Also mentioned was the importance, when a big company such as Airbus is involved, of a UK-wide supply chain and all the spin-off jobs that come from that. That is really important, and it is crucial that we remember that.

Next up was the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She said of her comments that hon. Members might pose the question, “How does this relate to jet zero?” And I must admit that, initially during her contribution, I did wonder. But I accept the argument: we do have to sort out the here and now because there is an aviation crisis that needs to be resolved. She correctly highlighted the injustice that has been perpetrated by BA and similar redundancies from easyJet. Unfortunately, the Government response has not been robust enough. I would remind people in the Chamber to support the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), the fire and rehire Bill, which would stop companies such as BA treating their employees like cattle, disposing of them and rehiring them on lower conditions.

I commend the hon. Lady’s work as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation. I agree that there needs to be international collaboration on the use of sustainable aviation fuels, and it is important that we get jobs located where they are required and where currently local economies might be struggling. The proposals for where the sustainable aviation fuels may be located back that up. It would create much-needed jobs where they are actually required.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) also does good work, as chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group. He, too, highlighted the importance of the challenge that we have going forward on climate change. It was good to hear about the work being undertaken with Faradair in terms of hybrid and electric planes. Again, we hope that that leads the way, but he correctly highlighted Norway, which, yet again—it leads the way on so many things—has a commitment for short-haul flights to be fully electric by 2040. It is worth noting that Norway leads the way in relation to electric vehicles, the use of renewable energy in terms of hydro, and its sovereign wealth fund, created from its oil funds. We really need to look at Norway for lessons and copy it instead of just always talking about the UK being world leading. It is a fact that other people do this.

I agree with the suggestion about revisiting air passenger duty and reflecting the efficiency of aircraft emissions. I think the Government need to look at that. Another elephant in the room, it seems to me, is the fact that kerosene, which is used mainly for aviation, is still zero duty rated. That is unsustainable going forward for trying to incentivise the use of sustainable aviation fuels. We need to look at the tax system in the round to incentivise use of clean green fuels and generate an income for reinvestment in that sector.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), as always, stood up for regional airports, including his own. I add my voice to the call for the support of regional airports; that is vital. The hon. Gentleman made the good point that the initial short-haul flights will be between regional airports; we need to remember that. I do not quite share his belief in the Prime Minister’s vision, but hopefully I will be proved wrong and we will see that delivered in the future.

No debate would be complete without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speaking at length about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and goading me about “better together”. It is great to see him back in his place, sticking up for the aerospace industry in his constituency and again highlighting the importance of sustainable aviation fuels and the ask of industry from the Government. It is good to hear how much faith the hon. Gentleman has in the Minister. Hopefully, the Minister will repay that faith in his summing up and confirm the money that the Government are going to invest.

Aviation, as we heard, is a vital sector for connectivity, outbound and inbound tourism, and even exports of goods. For those reasons, it is vital that the industry is supported. Tonight, I will be launching a petition on support for the travel industry, because the Government really need to step up to the mark there.

On a positive note, I welcome the setting up of the Jet Zero Council. We want to see the green recovery in general and the UK Government have an opportunity to lead the way in sustainable aviation. It is fine to be a world leader in terms of the legislation for 2050 net zero, but we need the corresponding action and investment to back that up. As others have said, the UK Government have missed out in the past in offshore and onshore wind, where there was not the drive or the vision in the Government investment to make the UK world leading in that. The manufacturing and other aspects went elsewhere. As such, we need to step up to the plate in terms of net zero aviation.

As for being world leading, the Scottish Government set net zero legislation before Westminster, with an earlier date of 2045 for net zero, and they are the first Government in the world to include international shipping and aviation within the net zero targets. They have also committed to decarbonising aviation by 2050. Can the Minister advise whether the UK Government will follow the SNP’s lead in Scotland and the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, which is to include international aviation emissions within their net zero targets?

The UK is hosting COP26 in Glasgow next year, which is a tremendous opportunity to lead the world in a number of initiatives and commitments. The UK Government’s “Decarbonising Transport: Setting the Challenge” document stated:

“Internationally, we are committed to negotiating in ICAO for a long-term emissions reduction goal for international aviation that is consistent with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, ideally by ICAO’s 41st Assembly in 2022.”

Can the Minister advise what progress has been made regarding those negotiations and whether there are any commitments that can be included within the nationally determined contributions for COP26? That certainly would set a tremendous example.

As we have heard, one of the key aims of the Jet Zero Council is the delivery of sustainable aviation fuels plans. Again, that is a chance to be world leading, but action is needed fast, especially as we have heard that Norway has mandated airlines to reduce the amount of standard aviation fuel that they use. France and Germany are driving and leading sustainable aviation fuel collaboration, so the UK needs to move fast.

Other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for Strangford and for South West Bedfordshire, highlighted the need for the Government to provide the £500 million asked for, which would deliver the private investment to see sustainable aviation fuel plants up and running in the UK. In terms of the Government-backed loan guarantees, I suggest that if the Government can find £20 billion for Hinkley power station, and potentially another £40 billion for two more power stations, the £500 million over a period of five years is quite a small ask. I look forward to the Minister’s confirming that in his summing up.

When we look further, we have renewable transport fuel obligations to further incentivise the use of sustain- able aviation fuel. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire also touched on airspace modernisation. That in itself will facilitate a reduction in emissions, by allowing more efficient flightpaths, but the modernisation programme is currently at risk because it is being delivered by NATS, which relies on income from airlines. Reduced numbers of flights mean reduced income for NATS, and that puts the modernisation programme at risk. Direct support from Government is something else that the Minister needs to consider.

[Richard Graham]

On nuclear power, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the crucial things about the electrification of short-haul flights is that we will need more electricity? In that context it is important to replace our nuclear power stations, to generate that electricity.

[Alan Brown]

Yes, I agree it is important. They need to be replaced because half the existing nuclear power stations will be phased out in the next four years. However, they do not need to be replaced by nuclear; they should be replaced by renewable energy, so I absolutely do not agree on that point.

We also heard about Airbus being a Jet Zero member, and how it is developing the ZEROe hydrogen aircraft. We look forward to hydrogen aircraft being up and running. I draw Members’ attention to a post-briefing note that highlights the fact that hydrogen emits twice as much water vapour as existing jet fuel. That is a potential issue, and perhaps the Jet Zero Council could look at that, in collaboration with the Government. The need for wider sector support from the Government, by doubling of Aerospace Technology Institute funding to £330 million a year, is also rightly identified. What assessments have the Government made of those asks?

There seems to be cross-party support for Jet Zero and the aim to get net zero aviation by 2050, but there are clear asks for the Government, and I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm those financial commitments that have been asked for around the tables.

3.36 pm

State Pension Age (Women)

Debate between Richard Graham and Alan Brown

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

rose—

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

rose—

[Richard Graham]

A lot of people want to speak, so let me carry on for the moment.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South was right to quote the previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, as saying that not everyone knew about this. He has accepted that, as I think we all recognise. None the less, the argument that no transitional arrangements were made—arrangements that Opposition Members are calling for—is wrong. A significant transitional arrangement and concession was made in 2011 that affected 250,000 people and cost the Government—the taxpayer—£1.3 billion, which was a significant amount of money at the time. That arrangement was made because the then Pensions Minister and the then Government recognised advice from the Department saying that the waiting time for some women born in the 1950s had increased to as much as two years, and they wanted to reduce it to 18 months to benefit those 250,000 people.

What is interesting is that while the motion calls for further transitional arrangements, it does not spell out, nor has any Member who has spoken so far spelt out, exactly what transitional arrangements are being called for. Were the intention—