Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Jones Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The steel industry has been in decline, and we intend to turn this around. That is why we are developing a steel strategy, investing up to £2.5 billion and working at pace. The steel sector in South Yorkshire and across the UK has been neglected for too long, and we intend to change that.
Dr Tidball
Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency is a world-leading plant, with specialist capability to produce cleaner and stronger high-grade steel for our aerospace industry. The plant supports hundreds of jobs and has an exceptional on-site skills training centre, with links to local universities. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the future strategic significance of Stocksbridge Speciality Steels and its fundamental importance to our national steel industry?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for championing her constituency and its industries. She makes a very good point, and I recently met her to talk about this. This week, I met Community trade union representatives from the steel sector in her area as well. I am always happy to meet again to see what we can do.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the Minister knows, it is not just South Yorkshire that is facing difficult decisions about the steel industry. I thank her for our recent meeting about the future of Scunthorpe. Is she able to add anything on when we might expect an announcement? As she will appreciate, particularly at this time of year, there is growing anxiety among the workforce.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and for his interest in his constituents and their jobs in the steel industry. As he says, we have met to talk about this, and I have nothing new to add today, other than that we continue with our conversations with British Steel. We are working as fast as we can. Obviously, it is ultimately up to British Steel to decide what it wants to do and take forward, but we stand ready to support and work with it.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission and, in her Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced a package of reforms to drive growth and investment across the UK. I have lost count of the number of times I have had conversations with businesses where they talked about how our appetite for risk is not in the right place, and we are looking to reform that. Here in DBT, we are driving change through our new industrial strategy working across Departments, which we will publish in the spring.
Callum Anderson
High-growth companies across Buckingham and Bletchley rely on foreign direct investment for their growth and innovation. Will the Minister set out the steps her Department and the Minister for Investment are taking to ensure that the Office for Investment can attract more foreign private investment to help the high- potential industries in which Britain excels?
Sarah Jones
We have an expanded Office for Investment, which brings together the Department for Business and Trade, No. 10 and the Treasury. Our Investment Minister is working at pace travelling around the world to bring in investment. I met her and the Office for Investment this week, and we are in constant dialogue about how we can bring more foreign direct investment into the country, building on the £63 billion announced at the investment summit, and how we can kick-start the economy after 14 years of failure.
Mr Charters
The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned growth over 40 times in her superb Mansion House speech. York, Leeds and beyond will benefit from that. How will my hon. Friend ensure that the industrial strategy delivers for financial services so that we can achieve the growth this country desperately needs?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the UK’s world-leading financial services sector. Through the Treasury, we are developing a 10-year financial services strategy and, of course, financial services is one of the pillars of our industry strategy, which we will publish in the spring. We cannot take the UK’s status as a global financial centre for granted. In a highly competitive world, we need to earn that status and work to keep it, and that is what we intend to do.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
Businesses in Northern Ireland, like businesses across the UK, are crying out for stability, open trade and an environment in which we can break down barriers to growth and investment, and that is what the Government are working across the board to deliver. My Department has a team in Belfast to help stay close to businesses in Northern Ireland and to understand what they need. Of course, we also work closely with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department for the Economy and other key partners. I have spoken with Northern Ireland businesses during my short time in office, and I am encouraged by their passion and resilience.
Tonia Antoniazzi
Northern Ireland businesses, large and small, received just 0.6% of what the Government spent with UK defence companies between 2018 and 2023, compared with 25% in the south-east of England. As my Committee heard when we visited Northern Ireland last week, Spirit AeroSystems, which works on high-value defence and other aerospace contracts, faces an uncertain future, as half of its 3,600-strong workforce in Belfast wait to find out whether their jobs are safe following Boeing’s buy-out of the company and the subsequent takeover by Airbus of only 50% of the work at its site in the city. We all know what happens to supply chains, communities and individuals in these circumstances, so what discussions are Ministers having with Cabinet colleagues, with Airbus, and with other interested parties to safeguard those jobs at Spirit now and to increase Government spend with Northern Ireland defence companies in the future? [Interruption.] Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Sarah Jones
We love a long question, and it was a good one. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, one that we are all of course concerned about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the global chief executive officer of Airbus last week, and I have met representatives of Airbus, Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems and talked about this issue. We care about those jobs and about the future of our defence industry in the UK—it is incredibly important to us for many reasons—so we are doing what we can to make sure there is a good outcome.
Mr Speaker
This will be a good example of a short question. I call Jim Shannon.
Sarah Jones
The agrifood sector is incredibly important —I meet representatives of the sector, and I will do all I can. As always, I am very keen to talk to the hon. Gentleman about what more we as a Government can do to support the sector.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 October 2024. The Government believe that the answers to the challenges of energy security, affordability and sustainability point not in different directions but in the same direction: towards clean power. Investing in clean power at speed and scale can help to tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. It is the only route to protect bill payers and ensure energy security. That is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of this Government’s five central missions.
Although renewable energy is at the heart of our plan to deliver clean power, we also know that we must bring forward low-carbon generation sources, providing added security for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. This includes flexible supply sources that can scale up or down instantaneously to meet peak demand. Some flexibility can be provided by short-duration technologies such as batteries, which can help to balance the system within each day, but we will also need long-duration technologies, which can run for extended periods of low renewable production.
To meet the challenge, the Government are investing in low-carbon flexible technologies such as carbon capture and storage at existing power stations, hydrogen, and long-duration electricity storage. This flexibility is critical to maintaining a constant supply of electricity in the UK, keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses. However, as new low-carbon technologies scale up, we will continue to need reliable, mature technologies, including gas, to provide energy security.
Gas is expected to be used less in our future energy system, taking a backseat, and only to maintain security of supply. Although gas will continue to play an important role in the system, it is only right that we should expect any new or substantially refurbished combustion plants to be built net zero-ready. This is why we are updating the existing regime and introducing the new decarbonisation readiness requirements.
Before I turn in detail to the decarbonisation requirements, let me set out the current regime. Since 2009, all new-build combustion power plants in Great Britain with capacity over 300 MW have been subject to the carbon capture readiness requirements. Those regulations require plant operators to demonstrate that it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit carbon capture and storage technology. Due to the 300 MW threshold, the policy has seen limited application since 2009. It has also contributed to a costly market distortion by incentivising the building of smaller, less efficient plants, and inadvertently creating an unacceptable loophole that has resulted in a significant number being built at 299 MW to avoid the carbon capture readiness requirements.
The policy landscape has changed significantly since the carbon capture readiness requirements were introduced. Plant operators now have an alternative pathway to decarbonise through hydrogen-fired generation, and there has been the introduction of the UK’s legal obligation to meet carbon budgets and to reach net zero by 2050.
In March 2023, the previous Government published a final consultation on the decarbonisation readiness proposals, alongside the publication of two technical studies for hydrogen and for carbon capture and storage. The consultation received positive feedback from industry and we published a response in mid-October, giving the go-ahead to proposals set out in the consultation.
Let me turn to the detail of the regulations. This statutory instrument will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 by inserting new schedule 25C. This will remove the 300 MW minimum capacity threshold, removing any existing market distortion and supporting rapid decarbonisation by setting out that nearly all new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants must have a credible plan to decarbonise.
The regulations will also move the requirements from the planning consent process, where they currently sit for carbon capture readiness, to environmental permitting. This will ensure that the responsibility for regulating the requirements falls to the Environment Agency rather than to local planning authorities and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Unlike local planning authorities, the Environment Agency is already involved in the assessment of carbon capture readiness and has the technical expertise to assess the requirements. As I mentioned a moment ago, this will also include hydrogen readiness.
The new requirements will now enable combustion plants to demonstrate decarbonisation readiness through conversion to hydrogen firing as well as carbon capture. In doing so, the instrument introduces hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture readiness assessments, which are proportionate to the developing nature of hydrogen to power and of carbon capture and storage. It will also expand the generation technologies in scope of the requirements to include biomass, energy from waste, and combined heat and power plants, ensuring that a higher number of carbon-intensive plants are now captured.
The updated requirements are intended to strike a balance, ensuring that new-build plants are ready to take full advantage of future decarbonisation opportunities —and that the refurbishment of old sites is conducted to take advantage of those opportunities too—while acknowledging the emerging state of hydrogen and carbon capture technologies and their enabling infrastructure. We expect that the requirements will be strengthened over time as the generation technology improves and clarity on enabling infrastructure availability increases.
To ensure that we continually assess the impact of the policy and the case for strengthening the requirements, we have included a statutory requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the policy in periods of not exceeding five years.
In summary, the regulations will ensure that the gas capacity that we need for the security of supply is future-proofed and that there is a credible plan to transition to low-carbon operation. In doing so, they will help towards our aim to become a clean energy superpower and deliver net zero by 2050. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, for his support. I think we are all on the same page on the regulations, but I will make a couple of comments in response to his questions.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the impact on businesses, particularly smaller ones; of course, we are all mindful of that. The regulations require four things, including that relevant businesses look at the kind of space they have and whether it is technically possible for the transition to be made. They also have to report whether they have considered hydrogen or carbon capture, and whether it is economically feasible. The latter two points are entirely self-reported, so the process should not be difficult.
The Environment Agency is looking at ways to roll up the different requirements and regulations to see whether businesses could fill in a single application rather than multiple ones. We can provide more information on that at a later point; I have had a meeting with officials to talk about the issue. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and it is one of which we are certainly mindful.
The regulations only apply in England. The Scottish and Welsh authorities have different rules and policies, although of course we have been talking to the nations about the change.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Hydrogen to Power Business Model: Consultation Response
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the publication of the hydrogen to power market intervention consultation response on 9 December 2024. This response commits to delivering a hydrogen to power business model to support the accelerated deployment of hydrogen to power as low-carbon long-duration flexible electricity generating capacity.
Making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the Prime Minister’s five missions. Unabated gas currently provides the majority of flexibility in Great Britain and so the deployment of hydrogen to power—the conversion of low-carbon hydrogen to produce low-carbon electricity—will play an important part in displacing unabated gas generation from the power system, to support the clean power mission, and the Government’s legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
Low-carbon hydrogen can make our energy system more flexible, resilient, and independent. When connected with large-scale storage, hydrogen to power can provide electricity to cover longer periods of lower renewable output, while also creating a decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas power plants. The hydrogen to power business model will de-risk investment in hydrogen to power by mitigating the deployment barriers we identified, through a dispatchable power agreement-style business model, helping to support the unlocking of investment in hydrogen to power and improving the pipeline of projects.
The response document commits to:
Delivering a Hydrogen to Power Business Model based on a Dispatchable Power Agreement-style mechanism to support the deployment of hydrogen to power.
Publishing a Hydrogen to Power Business Model market engagement document in 2025 outlining further detail on the proposed design of the Hydrogen to Power Business Model and plans for launching the first allocation round.
Establishing a hydrogen to power industry expert working group. This will provide a key forum for Hydrogen to Power Business Model design and strategic policy considerations.
Enabling hydrogen to power to participate in the Capacity Market as soon as practical.
This publication is an important step towards supporting the deployment of hydrogen to power, a key low-carbon flexible technology, and therefore facilitating a clean power system. It will build on the positive stakeholder feedback received through the consultation and provide industry with clarity on Government’s position on the technology and the next steps for implementing the market intervention.
[HCWS288]
Critical Minerals: Domestic Production
Sarah Jones Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and a pleasure to speak in such an important debate. I congratulate Parliament’s official tin champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), on securing this debate. I thank him for the conversations we have already had about tin in particular and critical minerals more broadly; it is a joy to have someone with such enthusiasm, passion and knowledge joining us in Parliament.
My hon. Friend has already done much in his time in Parliament to support critical minerals—tin, in particular —in his area, and he is an active member of the all-party parliamentary group, to which he brings genuine passion. I look forward to visiting his constituency in the spring or the early part of 2025 to talk more about what can be done in his area. His speech summed up the challenges and opportunities very well. He spoke about what more we can do, and how that will impact on economic deprivation and help our country’s security. He pointed to many interventions that he thinks the Government should be looking at, which I will come to later. We are developing a strategy that will cover a lot of the issues.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland and the engagement that the UK Government should be having with colleagues there. He is right that a UK strategy could not be developed without engaging our partners—and I can absolutely give him that reassurance. He talked about mining in Northern Ireland, and about salt. I recommend that he reads a book called “Material World: A Substantial Story of Our Past and Future” by Ed Conway, if he has not already done so; it includes a whole chapter on salt and how important it is for the world, which is fascinating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked sensibly about the south-west and the opportunities that can come from critical minerals. He talked about the Camborne School of Mines, and about what more we can do on skills. I will come to that later.
The spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), made a thoughtful speech, a lot of which I agreed with. I think he will be pleased with what we have done. He referenced, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the previous Government’s strategy. That strategy was brought in by Kwasi Kwarteng—remember him?—who a couple of months later became the ill-fated Chancellor of the Exchequer; he probably looks back on that strategy with some wistfulness about what he managed to achieve.
What I would say about the previous Government’s strategy is that it included a lot of, “We would like to do more of this”, “We want to do a little bit more of that”, and “We would like to encourage this”, but it did not set any particular targets, or have any deliverables or accountability. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Committee criticised it for its lack of ambition and progress; I think that speaks for itself.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk made a slightly bizarre speech, in which he referenced the 18 critical minerals. There was an announcement last week, which has been referenced by several Members, that there are no longer 18 but 34 critical minerals. I know it is difficult being in opposition—there is a lot less support than there is in government—but I would expect the shadow Minister to be up to date on these things.
The shadow Minister also raised the electric vehicle mandates. To be clear, the previous Government pushed back the ultimate target from 2030 to 2035, but did not push back any of the stage posts by which car manufacturers had to reach that target. He said that this Government have tied themselves in knots, but the reality is that we have inherited those knots; they are the problems that we are now dealing with. We are having to consult on and look again at some of the issues, because the car manufacturers are crying out for support.
Everybody who has spoken talked about how important critical minerals are for the industries of tomorrow and how much more we will need them in the future. Whether it is in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence or digital technologies, we know that we will need more. Last week, the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre published its latest list of critical minerals, increasing the number from 18 to 34 and adding the likes of nickel, aluminium and titanium to the UK’s criticality list. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth was very pleased that tin is now on the list as well. I thank the British Geological Survey, which runs this process, for the task it undertook, and for its vital work looking at the volume and variety of materials and minerals needed for our economic growth and clean energy ambitions.
Economic growth is the absolute driving force of this Government, which is why we have published our industrial strategy Green Paper and will publish the final industrial strategy in the spring. It will bring stability and a long-term plan, and will break down all barriers to growth, including skills, technology and R&D. It will be the blueprint for growth in our most important sectors. If growth is the vehicle that gets us to a pro-innovation, pro-worker, pro-jobs economy, then critical minerals is the fuel at the heart of that strategy.
I am pleased to confirm that the Department for Business and Trade will publish a critical minerals strategy next year, which will support the industries of tomorrow, explicitly target UK strengths, articulate the impacts on people’s lives, deliver for businesses and create new jobs across the country. The strategy will be ambitious. I want it to set targets. It will cover domestic production, the circular economy, the UK’s future demand, international partnerships, and responsible and transparent supply chains. In partnership with our stakeholders, we will consider the best way to track progress to ensure that we can be held to account for delivering on our promises.
Starting with domestic production, I know that in Cornwall and Devon we have several promising lithium, tungsten and tin mines seeking to restart commercial production, which we have talked about at length. Since coming to power, we have seen progress made across multiple projects, including Imerys British Lithium, Tungsten West and Cornish Metals. Already we have seen interest from overseas, with like-minded allies partnering with UK projects, as represented by Rio Tinto’s strategic partnership with Green Lithium, the low-carbon lithium refinery in Teesside.
One key tool is the national wealth fund, which we announced within days of coming to office. The national wealth fund recognises the importance of a secure supply of critical minerals and has a clear mandate to support them, as evidenced by its £24 million investment in Cornish Lithium.
Andrew George
I am grateful to the Minister; it is enormously helpful to hear her respond to these matters. She will have picked up the question I raised earlier about the national wealth fund and the fact that smaller projects, particularly those at the critical exploration stage, feel that they cannot take advantage of it. Is the Minister prepared to investigate that further?
Sarah Jones
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention. Yes, I have been making a list of issues to look at as we go through the strategy; that is certainly one, and there are several more.
With our new strategy, we want to see more success stories right across the UK, from Cornwall to County Durham and beyond. Indeed, as I have said, the new strategy will represent all four nations of the UK. In Wales, the Royal Mint can now recycle electronic waste to recover critical minerals. In Northern Ireland, Ionic Technologies delivered a successful feasibility study for its rare earth oxides facility in Belfast. In Scotland, we have seen a resurgence in mineral exploration for nickel, lithium, manganese and more.
As has been said, the UK boasts some of the largest lithium reserves in Europe. Industry forecasts reveal that by 2030 the UK may be able to produce 50,000 tonnes of lithium every year for 20 years. To put that into perspective, that would meet over half of the UK’s demand for electric vehicle batteries. Beyond lithium, the UK possesses the world’s largest platinum group metal refinery in the form of Johnson Matthey in Royston, as well as the only western source of rare earth alloys in the form of Less Common Metals in Cheshire. I hope that paints the picture of the growth potential for critical minerals. Unlocking this potential will require policy support as well as private investment, which is why our strategy will seek to attract billions of pounds in international investment.
We all know that we cannot refine or mine our way into meeting the huge quantities of minerals that not only the UK, but the whole world, requires. That is why the strategy will place greater emphasis on making the most out of the minerals that surround us—in other words, recycling critical minerals for industrial batteries and wind turbines. Analysts say that EV battery recycling alone could provide almost half the required battery minerals by 2040. We have set up a critical minerals ministerial group, which is jointly chaired by me and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our new critical minerals strategy will drive ambitious reform to promote recycling and the retention of critical minerals within the UK economy.
In the meantime, I am delighted that the recycling of battery minerals is now in scope of the automotive transformation fund. It is great to see innovative businesses like Altilium benefiting from that funding by working to bring critical minerals recovery from lithium-ion black mass to the UK. Beyond battery minerals, the UK is building on its world-leading R&D strengths. In September, Innovate UK awarded £3.5 million to nine UK projects, working to increase the security of supply of rare earth elements as part of the climates fund.
Our strategy will be underpinned by data, mapping out UK industry demand for critical minerals. DBT is partnering with the Critical Minerals Association, the Materials Processing Institute and Frazer-Nash Consultancy to evaluate the opportunity for increased recycling and midstream processes to take place on these shores. We will also make use of the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre and its forthcoming foresight studies detailing demand in key technologies.
Even with increased domestic production in the UK, the reality is that we will still need diverse and resilient international supply chains to drive industrial growth, and we have debated this morning the impact of a small number of countries providing the vast majority of our supply. We will deepen our international collaboration through a more targeted approach, working with big trading partners, like-minded mining nations and producer countries. We also intend to work through multilateral initiatives, including the Minerals Security Partnership, to secure the critical minerals needed to realise our growth mission. In that context, I welcome the fact that UK Export Finance has had an expanded mandate since the Budget to finance overseas critical minerals projects that secure supply for the UK’s high-growth export industries. We must be mindful of the importance of responsible mining. Apart from anything else, a responsible supply chain is a much more resilient one, and that must be embedded into everything we do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth and I are both speaking today and tomorrow at Europe’s largest conference on critical minerals, which is taking place right here in London. That is no surprise, because the UK is the global hub for mining finance. The UK’s markets are some of the strongest and deepest globally, and the Government are committed to building on those strong foundations to ensure that they continue to deliver for firms and investors, supporting growth, including through our reforms to the UK listing rules. We will continue to work with our friends and partners in industry to ensure that the city plays a leading role in promoting investment into clean critical minerals projects at home.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for his speech. He chairs the all-party parliamentary group and brings a huge wealth of knowledge to this place. In particular, he focused on skills, and on the importance of Skills England and ensuring that all the strategies are joined up. The industrial strategy, Skills England and our critical minerals strategy all need to feed into the same outcome: to secure jobs and growth for our communities and our people.
In conclusion, the Government are serious about the opportunities that critical minerals will bring to our country; they will fuel the next 10 years of innovation, clean growth and economic renewal. I look forward to working closely with industry—which I am already engaging with and talking to—and academia, as we develop our strategy and make our ambitions a reality.
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Today, I am pleased to have laid a departmental minute setting out the details of a series of contingent liabilities associated with the carbon capture usage and storage track-1 clusters. Carbon capture usage and storage is a critical component of the UK meeting its 2050 net zero commitment particularly via ensuring energy and supply chain security and enabling hard-to-abate sectors to decarbonise. Contingent liability Maximum exposure (£m) across both track-1 clusters Reasonable worst-case (£m) across both track-1 clusters 1 The Supplementary Compensation Agreement 9,034 400 2 The Revenue Support Agreement 9,804 5,739 3 Stranded Asset (discontinuation) 9,715 5,739 4 Decommissioning Shortfall 590 100-333 5 The Discontinuation of Capture Project contracts 5,302 2,055
The taking of these liabilities directly will address issues which have hampered previous attempts at a carbon capture usage and storage programme, in particular investor confidence and the risk of CO2 store leakage. This support and the rapid launch of the programme fulfils the Government’s aim to make the UK a global leader in carbon capture usage and storage, and ultimately creating a self-sustaining sector which supports not only UK business but also provides international opportunities.
Treasury approval has been granted and subject to satisfaction of conditions, we anticipate arrangements will begin to be implemented by the end of this month.
Context and rationale
Carbon capture usage and storage is the only feasible method for decarbonising many hard-to-abate sectors such as cement production, and is currently the most cost-effective method of decarbonising others, such as dispatchable power. While there is growing interest worldwide, a programme of this nature is first of a kind and consequently there are multiple market barriers which inhibit the development of a carbon capture usage and storage market in the UK.
Government support is necessary to address these challenges and enable carbon capture usage and storage deployment at scale. HMG is reducing investor risk in these technologies by bearing some of the initial risk inherent in developing a carbon capture usage and storage market, as well as the cross-chain risk existing across the participants in the network.
While the liabilities are in principle for the entire project duration, it is expected that in practice Government exposure will decrease as users come on to the system, insurers become more comfortable with the “first-of-a-kind” risks, and the depth of the market increases.
Details of the contingent liabilities
There are five contingent liabilities associated with the various track 1 contracts related to the following arrangements:
1. The supplemental compensation agreement is a long-term mechanism within the Government support package, which enables the management of leakage risks at the geological store during operations and the post closure period.
2. The revenue support agreement addresses demand-risks by providing for payments to CO2 transport and storage companies if their allowed revenue is not covered by user fees.
3. The discontinuation agreement provides a right for the SoS to discontinue support to the transport and storage companies and entitles investors to be compensated for their investment.
4. The decommissioning shortfall agreement covers potential decommissioning fund shortfall which might arise if decommissioning is required before the fund has been fully built-up.
5. The discontinuation of capture project contracts allows for payment of compensation to capture projects for any losses due to a qualifying change in law or prolonged CO2 transport and storage unavailability.
Exposure
The table below sets out the HMG’s maximum exposure for each of the programme-associated contingent liabilities. These concern the five projects that were part of the October announcement: two transport and storage networks, Net Zero Teesside, Protos, and EET Hydrogen. We will notify Parliament of additional contingent liabilities when other projects reach financial close. It is important to note that while the table represents the maximum possible exposure, the probabilised exposures and likely crystallisations are far lower. There are robust risk management frameworks in place. Our assessments indicate that there no liabilities that are likely to be realised and the vast majority are very remote.
The contingent liabilities are necessary as it provides confidence in this first of a kind sector. Carbon capture, usage and storage will enable us to accelerate to net zero while maintaining energy security and delivering growth to our industrial heartlands.
[HCWS211]
Road Fuel Market
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on securing this debate, making such an excellent contribution and championing the needs of consumers, both in his constituency and across the UK, where so many people have the same struggles.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important matter of the road fuel market. This Government are committed to fixing the foundations of the economy, delivering change by protecting working people and rebuilding Britain. It cannot be the case that fuel retailers register record profits and do not pass on savings when the burden is being unduly felt by hard-working families and businesses. That is why I am so grateful for my hon. Friend’s story about Aimee. Her story is one that I suspect is familiar to many other MPs from their constituencies. We are committed to supporting people with the cost of living and the cost of fuel.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, for so many, vehicles are more than just a means of transport; they are a lifeline. They play an integral role in connecting working people, families, communities and businesses, especially in rural areas. In the case of young people, including Aimee, their car is a means to forge a career and earning meaningful, well-paid work. This Government are committed to delivering for drivers, but also providing a range of transport options to make it possible that people such as Aimee should not have to worry about how they get to work.
That is why this Government made the decision at last week’s Budget to freeze fuel duty for a further year, which I know my hon. Friend has welcomed. I commend his dedication to campaigning against high fuel prices and for families, working people and small businesses to get a fairer deal on fuel across his constituency and Scotland. It is imperative that we have a well-functioning, transparent and competitive road fuel market. We want to ensure that drivers can get a fair price for their fuel, and that fuel retailers remain transparent and do not overcharge. We expect all fuel retailers to pass on any savings at the pump.
As my hon. Friend set out, the Competition and Markets Authority published its road fuel market study in July 2023, and it found that competition across the retail market had weakened. The CMA found problems in relation to three aspects of the retail market: national, local and motorway.
At a national level, the CMA found that retail margins had risen significantly since 2019, with the supermarket retailers following a similar trend of increased margins on fuel. The historic price leaders in the market—primarily Asda, but also Morrisons to some extent—had taken a less aggressive approach to pricing and had significantly increased their margins over recent years. The rest of the fuel retailers took a passive approach and followed that trend.
At a local level, the CMA found significant price differences between local areas, with lower prices at a forecourt typically associated with having a supermarket competitor nearby. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that and recently raised it with the Leader of the House at business questions, as he has done today in this debate by sharing Aimee’s experience.
On motorway pricing, the CMA found that drivers without access to fuel cards, which account for 20% to 25% of fuel sales on motorways, were paying significantly more to fill up at a motorway service area than they would elsewhere, due to limited competitive pressure.
As a result of those factors, the CMA found that drivers have been paying more than would otherwise have been the case. It is estimated that the financial impact of the 3% increase in average supermarket fuel margin from 2019 to 2022 resulted in a combined additional cost of around £900 million for customers of the four supermarket fuel retailers in 2022 alone. That is equivalent to approximately £75 million a month for this period.
While fuel prices are now a lot lower than at the all-time peak in July 2022, weakened competition persists. The CMA’s latest monitoring update in July this year estimated that the increase in retailers’ fuel margins compared with 2019 resulted in increased fuel costs for drivers in 2023 of over £1.6 billion. Weak competition is still failing consumers; that is hugely concerning. The price of petrol and diesel is an important issue. When prices are high, the impacts are felt by everyone. We expect all fuel retailers to pass on any savings at the pump.
As my hon. Friend said, to address these issues, the CMA made recommendations for the Government to implement an open data scheme for fuel prices, requiring retailers to share their prices on a real-time basis and allow drivers to be better informed on prices and easily compare prices, and to launch an ongoing monitoring function for the retail market to assess how well competition is working. The Government accepted those recommendations.
On the CMA’s first recommendation, as part of the Budget last week, we confirmed that we will implement a statutory open data scheme called fuel finder. It will require all retail petrol filling stations in the UK to report prices and when a fuel becomes unavailable within 30 minutes of a change. The data will be shared openly and freely to third parties so that it can be incorporated into their price comparison websites or apps, sat-navs and other consumer-facing products that consumers can use. Fuel finder will empower drivers to compare prices more easily and make more informed decisions on where to buy their petrol and diesel. That will increase pressure on fuel retailers to compete strongly to attract consumers by lowering their prices or improving their services at the forecourt.
The Government are committed to implementing fuel finder as quickly as possible. We will begin procurement for the fuel finder aggregator in early-2025. The Data (Use and Access) Bill that the Government have introduced will provide the legislative basis to set up fuel finder. Subject to parliamentary timings, we aim to launch fuel finder by the end of 2025.
On the CMA’s second recommendation, it will receive statutory information-gathering powers through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to undertake the permanent monitoring function. We are aiming to commence those provisions by January 2025. The CMA will be able to assess and monitor the state of competition in the retail market, both nationally and locally, provide ongoing scrutiny of prices and advise the Government if further intervention is needed to protect consumers.
The transition from fossil fuel to zero carbon vehicles is likely to lead to further risks of weakening competition in the remaining fossil fuel-based road fuels market. The transition is likely to be felt particularly by less well-off consumers and those living in rural areas. The CMA will be able to monitor the market through the transition and benefit consumers by ensuring that the market continues to function properly.
The CMA will therefore publish an annual report on the state of competition in the sector, three shorter updates on prices, costs and margins, and information on price trends across the UK and over time. Taken together, fuel finder and the CMA monitoring function will reinforce each other in providing a new source of competitive pressure in favour of greater competition in the road fuel retail sector.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
One of the interesting things brought to my attention by residents in Harrogate and Knaresborough is that while we are quite rural, being on the periphery of North Yorkshire, there is an aspect about being an area with tourists, along with higher housing and other costs more generally. When we are talking about trying to reduce fuel prices, can the Minister give any further information on what consideration will be given to regional and inter-regional inequalities in pricing?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we need to start monitoring the situation properly. When we all have access to that real-time data and can understand exactly what is happening—the CMA can be monitoring that and reporting to the Government—the Government can say, “Actually there is a more systemic problem here that we need to tackle. We need to make more interventions.” The Government stand ready to look to do those things, but the first stage of having the data available so that we understand properly what is going on will help us to do that.
Fuel prices are inevitably uncertain and sensitive to wider global factors, but our published impact assessment estimates that increasing transparency and encouraging competition between petrol filling stations could result in fuel cost savings for drivers totalling £7.7 billion over 10 years. That amounts to savings of 1p to 6p per litre at the pump. I am sure that my hon. Friend and others will agree that that would be welcome.
In addition, at the Budget the Chancellor announced that the Government are extending the temporary 5p cut to fuel duty rates for a further 12 months, until 22 March 2026. Alongside that, the Government will not increase 2026 rates in line with the retail price index, or RPI. Taken together, that is a tax cut worth £3 billion in 2025-26. The freeze in fuel duty will save the average car driver £59 in 2025-26. These actions have been welcomed by stakeholders such as the RAC and the AA.
Let me assure the House and my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to delivering for drivers. Our ultimate goal is to increase the levels of transparency for consumers and encourage fuel retailers to become more competitive. That way, consumers will send the clearest signal to them that they will not pay extortionate prices when given a range of options to choose from. We are confident that these measures will help facilitate a competitive road fuels retail market, increase price transparency and protect consumer interests. I thank hon. Friend again for securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Jones Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
We have made significant progress in developing a new industrial strategy and I am delighted to report to the House that we published a Green Paper on 14 October, setting out our plans for a modern industrial strategy. We have set our sights higher than the previous Government, we have thrown off their ideological shackles and we have worked in partnership with business and our colleagues across the nations and regions to set us on a path to a credible 10-year plan, delivering the certainty, drive and ambition that businesses need to invest in the UK.
Joe Morris
For 14 years, businesses in rural communities such as my constituency were ignored and neglected by the Conservatives in government. Will the Minister elaborate on how the industrial strategy will allow rural communities to share in the proceeds of growth?
Sarah Jones
The difference between a Labour Government and a Conservative Government is that we believe that growth needs to be felt in our communities, not just measured on a spreadsheet. I know that my hon. Friend is working hard in his constituency and is already campaigning on issues such as banking services, which are so important for our rural communities. He is right: the industrial strategy needs to be designed and implemented in lockstep with local leaders, mayors and devolved leaders across the country, alongside our wider plans for housing and skills, which of course will be part of the picture. I look forward to working with him on identifying the barriers to growth in rural communities so that we can break them down.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The development of marine renewable energy is getting close to commercial deployment. If we are able to get it across the line, it will bring with it a supply chain that we can build and hold in this country, with a view to exports across the world. That would surely be a great result for any industrial strategy. What will the Government do to ensure that their industrial strategy helps marine renewables reach full commercial deployment?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes a really good point, and I would be happy to have a proper conversation with him about it. Marine renewables are a huge opportunity for us. We can build the supply chains across the country and, of course, Scotland is uniquely placed to take advantage of that. I would love to have a conversation about it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
When it comes to an industrial strategy, in the Labour Government’s first few months they have effectively shut down UK virgin steelmaking capacity, with no commitments to primary steel in yesterday’s Budget of broken promises. Unlike the United States and the European Union, the Government have failed to protect our car manufacturers against Chinese state aid. They have massively increased the costs to the very drivers of industry—real businesses—of employing people. Should the Government not call it their deindustrialisation strategy?
Sarah Jones
The challenge we have is that we have inherited the worst living standards growth during a Parliament in modern history. We have inherited huge challenges that we have to overcome, but we are looking to the long-term with our industrial strategy—[Interruption.]
Sarah Jones
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has been paying attention, but we are developing a steel strategy, which the previous Government failed to do, with £2.5 billion of funding. We put a boost of £2 billion into our car industry only yesterday in the Budget, alongside £1 billion for the automotive sector and money for life sciences. We are developing an industrial strategy for the long term for the first time and we will not follow the Conservative party, which let our industries suffer and get to the crisis point that we are now having to deal with.
Greg Smith
The Minister mentions the car industry. Yesterday, after the Budget of broken promises, talking about the industrial strategy, Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said:
“Delivering that strategy depends on the UK being globally competitive. Additional National Insurance Contributions will put massive pressure on the automotive supply chain which is predominantly SMEs.”
He described the lack of substantive measures to support the new car market as “hugely disappointing”, concluding that,
“the cost will soon be felt in reduced UK investment, economic growth and jobs.”
With such dire warnings so early on, is this not more evidence that Labour just does not get business and that its industrial strategy is in tatters before it has even begun?
Sarah Jones
For a Government who do not get business, it is surprising, is it not, that we got £63 billion of investment through the international investment summit—twice what the previous Government managed after two years of planning it? The Government are working very closely with the automotive industry. We know that the global situation is very difficult and I talk to Mike Hawes very often, which is why we put £2 billion of funding into the Budget yesterday. It is also why we are working very closely with the sector to create the conditions we need to transition to electric vehicles and to protect our industry in a way that the previous Government, frankly, failed to do.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
We held, as we have said, an international investment summit on 14 October, 100 days after we formed the new Government. We secured £63 billion of investment, which is twice the level of the previous Government’s investment summit. The investment will create high-quality, high-skilled, well-paid jobs across the country, and represents a huge vote of confidence in this new Government.
Bill Esterson
As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, the Labour party is now the party of business without any question. Does she agree that the measures committed to in yesterday’s Budget on clean energy, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen—which were backed up, by the way, with a commitment from a Canadian investor of another £1.8 billion in offshore wind—show how much this Government are in tune with the business community? We are attracting investment and building on the investment summit, and we will deliver jobs for our constituents and our communities up and down the country.
Sarah Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I also agree with the former Chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, in his article yesterday. I quote:
“Conservatives, like myself, should be honest”
and
“Reeves is cleaning up our mess”.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD) [R]
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
In little more than 100 days in government, this Department and its Secretary of State, who is flying to Doha today, have set about delivering on the promises made in our manifesto. We have turned up the dial on growth and published our Green Paper on the modern industrial strategy, which will channel support to key sectors, work across our nations and regions with the private sector, and deliver the conditions for investment and good jobs. We have delivered a huge vote of confidence in the UK by securing £63 billion of investment at our international investment summit, boosted by investment ploughing into our aerospace, automotive and life sciences sectors, as announced in yesterday’s Budget. We have also kept our promises by publishing the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation. We are a pro-innovation, pro-worker and pro-wealth creation Government, and are investing all our time in growing the economy for the long term and turning round 14 years of failure.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
A four-day week with no loss of pay has proven to have benefits for employers and employees alike, and a recent report by the Autonomy Institute and Alda suggests that it can have a hugely positive impact on the economy. The report concludes that Iceland’s economy has outperformed most of Europe since adopting a shorter working week, and now has one of the lowest unemployment rates. With even more UK businesses beginning a four-day week trial on Monday as part of the 4 Day Week Campaign’s autumn pilot, what assessment has the Department made of the Icelandic report and of the potential impact that a four-day week could have on UK businesses and our economy?
Sarah Jones
The Government have no plans to undertake any trials on a four-day week for five days of pay. It is for employers and employees to reach agreements that fit their specific circumstances, but we want to get the balance right and make sure that we work with employers and employees. That is why the Employment Rights Bill will support both parties to reach agreements, where they are feasible.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman oversaw the worst Parliament for living standards in modern history. We did not choose that inheritance, and we have made choices. Would he rather we did not compensate for the infected blood scandal? Would he rather we did not compensate the Horizon victims, for whom there was no money in the Budget, on his watch? Would he rather we did not invest in the health service? Would he rather we did not increase the minimum wage? Would he rather we did not support carers? Would he rather we made the choices that he made, such as cutting national insurance for workers when there was no budget for that? This Government are fixing the foundations, so that we can have a bright future for all our country.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Government’s choice was to hit businesses, and that is because there is not an ounce of business experience among them. Labour’s death taxes will hit farms and businesses. Families with a typical farm will have to find hundreds of thousands of pounds or see their farms broken up and sold. The Environment Secretary said 10 months ago that he had no intentions of putting death taxes on businesses. That was a broken promise, was it not?
Sarah Jones
I will not take any lectures from the Opposition, who said “eff business”. Conservative Members have some cheek to come at us when we are clearing up the £22 billion black hole that we inherited, and setting in train stability. I spent quite a lot of yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, talking to and having meetings with businesses about the Budget and its implications. We talked about the potential for growth, long-term stability, and changes that this Labour Government are making.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Although yesterday’s announcements may dampen businesses’ expansion plans, many businesses in my constituency and elsewhere find it difficult to expand because of national grid connections. What are Ministers doing to engage with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and National Grid to ensure that connections are available?
Sarah Jones
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks what we are doing to engage with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, because I sit across that Department and the Department for Business and Trade. The entire point of my role is to make sure that we join up the two Departments, so that we can crack some of these problems. The grid is No. 1 on our list.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that local communities see the benefits of landmark investments. I am pleased that Blackstone is investing £110 million in a fund to support local skills training and transport infrastructure. I am happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend about what more can be done.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Farming and agricultural businesses employ thousands of people in my constituency, and they make a huge contribution to the local economy. Can the Minister set out exactly how yesterday’s Budget will help them to develop and grow?
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
Sarah Jones
Yes, I will work with my hon. Friend. We are delighted with the £1 billion investment secured to transform the Shotton mill site. I think that a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in Wales can work together to deliver great things.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Some 29% of jobs in Eastbourne, the sunniest town in the UK, are connected to the hospitality sector, but many businesses in that sector have expressed concerns about yesterday’s Budget, which UK Hospitality has described as the “latest blow for hospitality”. Will the Minister meet me and local hospitality businesses to discuss those concerns? I declare an interest as the patron of the Eastbourne Hospitality Association.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
We have an anomalous situation in Spelthorne whereby people can use an oyster card to pay for six different red buses, but not the train. That is crippling small businesses and people going into London. Will Ministers in the Department use their combined might to lobby on my behalf and get me a meeting with the Minister for Rail, so that we can get Spelthorne into the correct zone?
Sarah Jones
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s ability to shoehorn in a question on a subject that is not in the Department for Business and Trade’s remit, but we are of course happy to help with his endeavours to talk to Ministers in the Department for Transport.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
We should all welcome the work of both Governments that resulted in the announcement of £63 billion of inward investment into the UK. However, since then, as a number of Members have pointed out, we have had significant new regulation in the labour market and massive new taxes on businesses. If any of those investors now change their minds, will the Secretary of State come to the House and inform us, please?
Sarah Jones
We will of course keep the House updated on the results of the investment summit, but the £63 billion, as I said earlier, was a massive show of confidence in this new Government.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for the work that they have put in to secure a future for the Harland & Wolff yard at Arnish in my constituency, and indeed at Methil, Appledore and Belfast. I understand that talks are commercially sensitive, but, as workers are anxious about their future, can the Minister update us on how the talks are going?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for the work that he is doing to represent his community. We are working extensively with all parties to find an outcome for Harland & Wolff that delivers shipbuilding and manufacturing in Belfast, Scotland and Appledore in Devon. I cannot comment further, as he says, due to commercial sensitivities, but we are working extensively with everyone to get the right deal.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The International Court of Justice judgment from 19 July this year ruled that it is the duty of third-party states not to aid or assist Israel’s “unlawful occupation” of Palestinian territory. In the light of this, will the Minister tell us whether the Department for Business and Trade has obtained legal advice, or whether it is in the process of doing so, on the legality of the UK’s existing trade relations with Israel, and if it has, will he share it with the House, please?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government could further develop an industrial strategy to bring up to 10,000 jobs in the offshore wind supply chain over the next 10 years?
Sarah Jones
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend often and regularly, as we do, to talk about these matters. Of course, the offshore wind supply chain is incredibly important. We have two big announcements to that end, which she mentioned, in relation to Orsted and Greenvolt, and there is much more that we can do through the industrial strategy to keep that area growing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What discussions have there been with Invest NI in relation to supporting small Northern Ireland businesses in the digital evolution, to help them adapt and make improvements with digital technology to ensure the smooth running of their businesses?
Sarah Jones
Yes, indeed. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, on this Front Bench, there are Members, including me, who do have private sector experience, and who have run businesses. Of course we have had very strong relationships with businesses, both in the run-up to the election and now, and we will continue to build on those strong relationships for the benefit of all the people across our country.
Steel Industry
Sarah Jones Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the steel industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I want you to imagine that you are standing at a railway station in deepest rural India. You look down at the tracks on the ground and you see those immortal words “Sheffield Steel 1895”. That happened to me six and a half years ago. It sent a complete shiver down my spine—a shiver of pride in what we have given to the world, what we have created, what we have achieved. For 130 years, those railway tracks have been there, yet fast-forward to today and we face what I believe is a potential catastrophe.
Let us just take stock of where we are. I think we are potentially within six to 12 months of having zero general steel-making capacity in the United Kingdom. Just think about that. I fear that the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, owned by British Steel, part of the Chinese group Jingye, are very likely to close, and that would be an absolute disaster. Steelmaking, manufacturing, in the United Kingdom has halved in the last 10 years or so. We would be left as a complete rump. Think about it: we would be the only G20 nation without a blast furnace except Saudi Arabia and the only G20 nation with no general steel-making capacity whatever. I think there is a lesson in that.
Perhaps it is not so smart to lose all our steel-making capacity at a time when 71% of all steel manufactured around the world is made in blast furnaces. Even if all the electric arc furnaces that have been announced are built, which of course they will not be, we will only get to a balance, in 2050, of about 50-50. The majority of all new steel-making capacity around the world being built as we speak comes from blast furnaces. There is a reason for that. And here in the UK, imports of steel from the likes of China, India and Vietnam are soaring. Hang on—I thought we were supposed to be world leaders in steel, but 66% of all steelmaking around the world happens in nations that either have no net zero targets or have targets that are general and way beyond 2050.
Now that the truth has been told to us, which is that electricity prices in the United Kingdom are the highest in the developed world—in the House of Commons the other week, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade admitted to me that there was an issue with industrial electricity prices—my real fear is that the electric arc furnaces that have been promised down at Port Talbot, and potentially promised in Scunthorpe if the blast furnaces there close, will not actually be viable. If something is not viable and we are asking a firm to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in it, they will not build it—and that is before National Grid informs us, “Oh, in Scunthorpe we can’t get you a grid connection for the electricity that you need to run an electric arc furnace.” You genuinely could not make some of this stuff up. Because our electricity prices are so high, these electric arc furnaces are quite likely to be less viable than is the case when it comes to concerns about the viability of blast furnaces.
Five and a half years ago, I gave a press conference in Scunthorpe. I said back then that the Conservative Government should not sell British Steel to the Chinese. They ignored my advice—not for the first time and probably not the last—but we are where we are. We face catastrophe, for three critical reasons. The first is that steel is a strategic national interest. After food and water, steel is the third most important component of a modern civilisation. Without steel, we would have no internet, no cars, no buildings, no infrastructure—nothing. We would be back to mud huts; I do not call that progress. It is strategically important to be able to make the strongest steel. There are genuine concerns that if we have no blast furnaces, we will not be able to make primary steel. Some say that with new technology and direct reduced iron, the strength of steel produced in electric arc furnaces may, give or take, equal what can be produced in blast furnaces, but we cannot take the risk. We must have that capacity.
Hon. Members may say, “Well, why not have a bit of each?” My late grandmother, when faced with a choice of desserts, would say, “I’ll have a bit of each.” There is nothing wrong with that, but we cannot have nothing. For someone who likes desserts, there is nothing worse than having no dessert at all.
Four years ago, in the middle of 2020, we nearly ran out of paracetamol, which is pretty important. Why? Because it is all made in India. We make no paracetamol in the United Kingdom and the sun was not shining in mid-2020, as we all remember. It is all very well those who believe in free markets and globalisation to the detriment of everything saying, “Well, you can just buy it from elsewhere,” but what happens if the sun is not shining? What happens if there is some terrible event in the world and we cannot buy steel elsewhere? That exposes us, because steel is strategically important, so we must be able to produce it here in the UK.
The second reason why I think a potential catastrophe is facing us is the economic interest. There is a thing called the multiplier effect: if we make and manufacture things here in the United Kingdom with our own jobs and money, the wealth we create circulates around the economy. I call it bubble-up economics: when we create and make things, it bubbles up from the lowest point, and the money circulates around the economy. That is hugely powerful at a time when everyone is desperately talking about the need for growth. We will not get growth if we export all our jobs and money. We might buy the good that arrives here, but we do not benefit from the multiplier effect, and therefore we lose the power of growth.
Some will say, “Hang on. Tata lost lots of money over the last 10 years or so. It’s not viable.” Well, let us just take a look at its losses, shall we? Leave aside the one-in-100-year event of 2020, cumulatively, in the overall scheme of things—relative to the multiplier effect—its losses frankly amount to a decent round of drinks. Let us call it £100 million a year, give or take. Compare that to the size of the economy and the importance of the multiplier effect.
I would suggest to the House that it is vital that we keep steel manufacturing going in a sizeable way in the United Kingdom. Not to do so would cause a self-inflicted wound, driven by the main two political parties’ obsession with net zero. That is the reality. Net zero, and the increase in renewable energy capacity, is directly linked to the increase in our electricity prices, and to the fact that we are becoming ever more uncompetitive. The Tories started it, and now under the new net zero zealot-in-chief—the new Secretary of State for Energy—it is being accelerated.
We are promised that the bills will come down, but I was at an event last week with someone who is advising the World Economic Forum and the G20 nations about renewable projects, and he admitted—in a defining moment for me—that without subsidies and Government intervention, renewables cannot be viable. That means, by definition, that they are more expensive and that those who are obsessed with them in this country will not bring the bills down. At some point, there will be a day of reckoning.
The third reason why this is a catastrophe is what I call the community interest. We saw the devastation in the coal-mining communities in the 1980s; when I have been campaigning, I still hear people talk about that. That was absolutely devastating. The oil and gas industry is under huge threat at the moment because of net zero, which is again devastating. There is a huge loss of the multiplier effect, skills are disappearing and families are concerned.
In Port Talbot and Scunthorpe, there are not thousands but tens of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly dependent on this industry, which could disappear within 12 months. It is not just the jobs; it is the families, the partners, the spouses, the wives, the children. That makes hundreds of thousands of people devastated by this. These are seriously well paid jobs: the average value of a steel job is about 50% more than the average salary in the local area.
It is all very well saying that people can retrain, but if someone earning up there retrains and all of a sudden is earning down there, I do not call that progress—I call that going backwards. The truth is that this issue will have a devastating impact on those communities. I feel that the unions have let down their members and betrayed them.
A year ago, I wanted to go and talk to more than a thousand steelworkers in Port Talbot. I met a couple of brave union leaders in secret in a quiet room. I said I wanted to talk to everybody and tell them about the madness of what is going on but, oh no. The union leaders banned me from talking to the steelworkers and telling them the truth.
Here we are today, with thousands of jobs sacrificed on the altar of net zero in Port Talbot, with the risk facing Scunthorpe in front of us. Lots of people say, “Don’t worry, Richard. We’ll be a world leader in this stuff.” Really—a world leader? I suggest that the only things we will be a world leader in are naivety, stupidity and negligence. The truth is that behind our backs, other countries making steel, growing their economies and enjoying cheap energy are laughing at us. They cannot believe how foolish we are. They cannot believe that we are serious about destroying some of our finest manufacturing industries, but they will take it. They are benefiting and we are losing.
This is an absolute disaster. One might ask, “What can we do about it?” I have a plan and most of it is achievable by this Government. The first thing is that the Business Secretary has promised us a new steel strategy next March. I happen to know that that strategy is basically drafted and written, with just a few i’s to dot and t’s to cross. I have been told that that draft is very much there.
Richard Tice
The Minister indicates that I may be wrong. This is urgent and we cannot wait six to 12 months. We cannot run the risk of civil servants saying, “I’m sorry, but we haven’t got it done by March; it will be the summer.” I urge the Minister and her team to say, “Let’s get this out before Christmas.”
My five-point plan is first to take a strategic stake in British Steel to guarantee that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will not close. We cannot run that risk. Otherwise, if the electric arc furnaces are not built, we have nothing—niente, zip. The second part of my plan is to scrap the carbon taxes and the potential carbon border adjustment mechanism.
The third thing is to stop the dumping of cheap imports from nations such as China. That requires, if necessary, appropriate tariffs and protectionism. America is doing it to protect its own steel industry and we should do the same. Unbelievably, according to the House of Commons Library, which helpfully produced a 50-page report yesterday, just two weeks ago, far from increasing tariffs we had to reduce tariffs on imported steel because Port Talbot has closed. Seriously, you couldn’t make this up. It is absolute insanity that we are now reducing tariffs in order to import steel. With the long-term planning that should have happened under the Conservative Government, we could have worked out that if we shut Port Talbot we would be short of rolled steel. What are we going to do about it? That is what has gone on. So that is the third part of my plan.
The fourth part is to buy British. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero wants more and more wind turbines, but as I understand it not a single bit of British steel is used in all those turbines, which all come from overseas. If we want more turbines—some people do; some do not—maybe we should make it a condition that we use British steel to grow our own economy with more jobs and more money. Those four things plus the fifth thing are all deliverable by this Government. That is what I urge the Minister to consider.
The fifth thing is the right thing to do. I accept that it is not going to happen, but if we want cheaper electricity and to be more competitive, the fastest way to do it is to scrap net zero. That would bring down prices. It would stop us wasting tens of billions of pounds and stop blighting our countryside with thousands and thousands of pylons, including in my constituency. The first four components of my five-point plan the Government can and should do to protect our steel industry, which is strategically vital. Not to do so is negligent to the point of criminality.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate, and for making probably the best speech so far of this Parliament—it was absolutely fantastic. Government Members are harping on about the steel strategy. I can assure them that steelworkers will be frightened to death of that strategy, because it will cost jobs and destroy our steel industry and our communities. I fear the steel strategy.
In the 19th century, this great country of ours was the world leader in steel production. Over 40% of the world’s steel was made right here in this country. I do not live a million miles away from Sheffield—15 minutes up the road—and not far away from Scunny. They were great industrial towns that drove our economy and provided hundreds of thousands of jobs, including in the wider community. They built up communities, and it is a shame that the Labour Government seem intent on destroying even more of the few communities that we have left.
Our country was built on coal and steel. Throughout the midlands and the north, we drove the industrial revolution. We used to export steel and coal, and now what are we doing? We have gone backwards. China is making over 1 billion tonnes of steel a year; we are making about 5.6 million tonnes. China, by the way, is a world leader in renewables, yet it is still opening coal-fired power stations to make steel, which it can export all around the world.
If we think about it, we are actually carbon emission nimbys. We are quite happy to import steel and products made from steel that have been made with blast furnaces from 60 or 70 countries around the world, but we say that we cannot do it here. That is hypocrisy of the highest level. I have friends who work in the steel industry and they are seeing a real downturn at the moment —they are struggling. They are struggling to pay the bills and to make their business work. The industry is in terminal decline, I fear.
The collapse of the Port Talbot steelworks means that we are now the only advanced nation in the world that cannot make its own virgin steel. It is absolutely ridiculous. We have Russia at war with Ukraine, and we are living in uncertain times. Over the past few years and during the last Parliament, we saw the problems that we had with energy supply and our dependence on foreign states for it. Now we are doing more of the same with our steel. It is beyond comprehension; it is absolute madness. We are killing off our steel communities just like we did the coalmining communities back in the ’80s—I know because I was there. I saw the impact that it had, and it still has devastating consequences 40 years later. Those communities were killed off and they are still struggling. I live there and I see it day in, day out, yet we are going to get more of the same from this Government.
Look at the coal mine in Cumbria that we want to—and should—open to produce metallurgical coal that will then help in the production of steel, which we could blend and use in blast furnaces in this country. But we seem reluctant to do that. That coal mine would produce millions of tonnes of metallurgical coal and provide 500 to 600 well-paid jobs in an area that needs them, as well as more jobs in the wider community. However, we are quite prepared to import 3 million or 4 million tonnes of coal a year into this country, rather than produce it, use it in this country and hopefully export some as well. It is absolute madness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness spoke about the high electricity charges that will mean high production costs for making steel. Look at Drax power station in North Yorkshire. The electricity prices coming from there are astronomical. That is a power station that burns wood. It used to burn coal from a coal mine just a few miles down the road, but we had this great idea in this country to import wood from trees chopped down in North America. We stick them on to diesel-guzzling cargo ships, send them over the Atlantic and then set fire to them in a power station in North Yorkshire. It is absolute madness, and it will drive up the price of electricity and subsequently drive up the price of steel production. It is beyond madness.
China is getting it right; not only is it a world leader in renewables but it is making steel from blast furnaces. China is right and we should be copying its so-called steel strategy. It seems to have got it right. I agree with the five-point plan proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness but I feel that it will probably fall on deaf ears. The madness will continue. Steelworks will continue to close down and we will continue to lose jobs. We will continue to destroy communities in our great country.
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on securing this important debate, which I am glad that we are having. Let me be clear at the outset: the new Government were elected on a mandate to invest in the UK steel industry and turn around its decline, and that is exactly what we will do.
As Members on both sides of the Chamber have echoed, the UK has always been a proud steelmaking nation; it has a rich heritage stretching back to the industrial revolution. My grandad worked in the tinplate factory fed by the steelworks of Port Talbot, and I think most of us in this place have connections, one way or another, to steel manufacturing. Yet, as has been said, steel has been a neglected industry for many years, with crude steel production declining by more than 50% in the last decade alone. Of course, that decline was brought into sharp focus when it was announced under the last Government that the blast furnaces would be closed at Port Talbot.
This Government do not believe that decline is inevitable. The decline we have seen in recent years has been due to a lack of care from previous Governments, who did the bare minimum only when it was too late. We saw the insolvency of SSI—Sahaviriya Steel Industries—steelworks in Redcar in 2015 and the insolvency of British Steel in Scunthorpe in 2019, and we saw how close Tata came to closing its UK steel operations. That pathway risked jobs and emissions being offshored for the long term and risked making us heavily dependent on steel imports for our vital infrastructure and our energy and manufacturing sectors.
This Government are taking a very different approach. This week, we launched a Green Paper on our industrial strategy. For that to have the greatest impact, we must be clear-eyed about the sectors that offer the highest growth opportunities for the economy and businesses, but steel is a foundational industry for practically every other important industry, from energy to infrastructure. We know that it is a vital component of our economy and our ambitions for growth, which is why we also need a steel strategy to determine the best steps forward to rebuild this hugely important industry.
We need to lay out long-term policies and plans to ensure that the UK steel industry is not left behind as the world decarbonises, so last month the Government announced that we will bring forward a new steel strategy next spring. I hear the House’s impatience for that strategy and I understand it: there has been a long period of decline, and we need to turn that around. Given the £2.5-billion investment that we have committed to the strategy, however, it is right that we talk to experts and to politicians around the country, particularly those who have steel in their areas.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate. If I may, I will read a message that I received from someone I know:
“This Westminster Hall debate in infuriating. Talk is cheap!”
I highlight that because we all seem to agree how important the steel industry is. I acknowledge the past and that not all of that lies squarely on the Minister’s shoulders. I ask her to include in her response the steps that the Government will take to secure that future.
As the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) eloquently put it, there are advantages to the more advanced technologies, but, as clearly laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, there are practical reasons why they may not become reality—and we need to deal with reality. We all seem to accept and agree—
James McMurdock
Apologies. We all agree that this is vital; will the Minister please lay out how it will become practical?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for reading out a message from somebody watching the debate. We all agree that it is time for action and that is exactly what the Government seek.
I will expand on our plans. The steel strategy will be developed and delivered in partnership with the steel sector and the trade unions, of course. It will work in lockstep with the Government’s industrial strategy. Our intention is to increase our UK capabilities, so that we can create a more vibrant, competitive steel sector. That will turn around the situation we inherited, where— I want to emphasise this—under-investment had resulted in dated infrastructure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who knows so much about the steel industry, made the point about the efficiency and economy of the new technologies, and why blast furnaces have struggled to make money for the businesses that own them in this country. British Steel’s blast furnaces were built in 1938 and 1954. Both the blast furnaces at Port Talbot were built in the 1950s. They have become incredibly unproductive because they have not been invested in. The new technologies are simply more productive. If we do not keep up with what the rest of the world is doing, we simply will not be able to compete in the market.
We inherited an industry on the brink. Nevertheless, within 10 weeks of coming into Government, we negotiated a better deal with Tata with better safeguards for workers and more money invested in their future. Our £2.5-billion fund for steel will ensure that we have a steel industry for the future. The Government’s ambition is to ramp up investment, strengthen our supply chains and create more well-paid jobs in the places they are needed.
We talk of primary steel. With the help of experts, we will review the viability of technologies for the production of primary steel, including direct reduced iron.
Greg Smith
The Minister just said that she will review the options. I hope this is a binary yes/no question: is there a ministerial direction in the upcoming steel strategy to include a commitment to virgin steel production in the United Kingdom?
Sarah Jones
I think I was fairly clear. We have been in opposition. We want to produce primary steel in this country; the previous Government got us to a point where that is almost impossible without huge investment. We are supplying £2.5 billion of investment and looking, quite rightly, at the best way to spend that to create a viable steel future for this country. We are looking at direct reduced iron as part of our steel strategy, which the previous Government did not do.
The UK’s ambition is to ramp up investment. Many hon. Members talked of the need to procure British steel in this country, and we are now in a situation where 95% of the steel procured by the UK Government for infrastructure is British, if the necessary type of steel is made in the UK. The issue is that we do not produce all the different and right types of steel, so we need to ensure that we use the Procurement Act 2023 as much as we can to drive economic growth in steel.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on whether the green agenda can drive up jobs—we think that it can. For example, the Korean company SeAH is building a factory in Teesside that will build monopiles, which are the big structures that go into the ocean and anchor wind turbines. It is currently building that structure with 30,000 tonnes of steel from British Steel. We want to get to a point where we are not only building those kinds of factories in this country but using British steel where we can to make the infrastructure.
At the moment, we do not have a factory that makes turbines on the scale that we need for floating offshore wind, but SeAH is building that factory because it has an agreement with RWE, which will be running the turbines that it builds in future. That green job development into wind and renewable energy is driving our ability to build a factory in Teesside to create hundreds of jobs to build those monopiles, and we are using British steel. That is the kind of future that we want to see through the steel strategy; we are looking at those opportunities to bring new steel companies into this country and to find ways to drive up production in this country.
I should address the issues holding us back, as they were mentioned in the debate. China and excess capacity is a huge issue that we should not underplay. China is now the biggest steel producer in the world and its unfair subsidies have led to massive steel over-production, which fuels global overcapacity and drives down prices. That is a global issue with local consequences that makes profitable steel production here in the UK much harder. That key global situation is helping to shape our future steel strategy and we will need to tackle that problem through things like the carbon border adjustment mechanism—CBAM—and ensure that we are working with a level playing field.
Energy prices were mentioned by many Members, and for too long British energy-intensive industries, including the steel sector, have been held back by high electricity costs. Again, I disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness: electricity prices are set by global gas prices and the problem is our dependence on fossil fuels, as well as the fact that we did not mitigate for that situation in this country at all. When all the prices shot up with the war in Ukraine, we were in a worse position than many countries around the world.
The British industry supercharger that the previous Government developed, which the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) mentioned, will bring down electricity costs for the UK’s most energy intensive industries, but we know that we need to go further. It brings down only 60% of costs and there is still a disparity. We believe that, in an unstable world, cheap home-grown green energy is the future. That is what will drive down prices, reduce our exposure to the volatile fossil fuel market, protect bill payers and strengthen our energy independence. Fundamentally, that is what will bring down costs in the long term.
Members also mentioned the challenges of decarbonisation. Tata and British Steel’s plans to invest in electric arc furnaces are driven by market conditions and the desire to reduce their carbon footprint—customers want greener steel. The UK is going to have a CBAM. If we were producing steel in the UK with blast furnaces, we would be massively inhibited because the EU is bringing in a CBAM, so the cost of exporting to the EU would be much higher. We have to deal with the world as we find it, which again is where we disagree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. We cannot look back and try to re-create the past; we have to deal with the world as we find it, which means that we have to move towards those more efficient and greener energies.
The EU, where 78% of our steel exports went in 2023—that is worth pointing out—will bring in its carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2027. We rely on exporting a lot of the steel we produce to the EU, and we would be at a massive disadvantage were we to carry on producing steel from blast furnaces. We have committed to a UK carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will give UK businesses the confidence that, when they invest in decarbonisation and electrification, they will not be at a disadvantage. That is important.
On other issues mentioned by hon. Members, I should touch on Scunthorpe, because that is at the forefront of everyone’s mind. No one wants to see any job losses, and everyone wants to see the steel industry thrive. Through our strategy, that is what we want to do. For commercially confidential reasons, which I am sure hon. Members understand, I cannot talk about our conversations with the owners, but I reassure Members that we are having conversations all the time and that we are working unbelievably hard to get a solution for Scunthorpe and to give the certainty that the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham talked about. I completely understand the issue with the instability of the current situation, but all I can say to him is that we are doing all we can to work with the company on what the future will be.
Martin Vickers
The Minister and I share a desire to see a thriving steel industry. On a couple of occasions in her reply, she mentioned wanting to halt its decline, as well as the production of the steel strategy in the spring. Can she give any sort of assurance that there will be no job losses at Scunthorpe until the strategy is produced? Then we can then work together to plan the way forward.
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to define what commercial companies do. While we are trying to do what we can, I cannot do anything other than say that we are working incredibly hard with the owners to ensure that we get to a point that we want to get to.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned Harland and Wolff, and the same situation is true there. We are working hard to understand the situation and we are hoping for a resolution relatively soon.
Jim Shannon
Will the Minister be generous and kind enough to let us know about the situation now and what she hopes progress will be over the next few weeks, if she does not mind?
Sarah Jones
The process of selling the company is going through. That is a market situation, being dealt with in that way, so Government are not providing funding or anything such as that at this point. We are allowing the process to take its course, but we are obviously talking to all parties to do what we can to ensure that we get the right outcome. I have been talking to politicians from all four of the Harland and Wolff sites, as can be imagined, and there is uncertainty in each of those areas, whether that is in Scotland, Devon or Belfast. We are working hard to ensure the right outcome.
To close my remarks, in steel, not to mention the wider economy, the inheritance of this Government from the previous Government was nothing short of a travesty. We had more than a decade of lurching from crisis to crisis, with no clear plan to safeguard the future of a competitive domestic steel industry. This Government are determined to change that, making the steel industry in this country fit for the future so that it is not left behind in a decarbonised world.
The Government are on the side of Britain’s thousands of steelworkers. We have not talked about the other parts of the country where we also have steel production. Marcegaglia, which is in Sheffield, announced a couple of weeks ago that it is investing £50 million in a new electric arc furnace in Sheffield, so we have incumbents here in the UK that are doing well.
The Government are determined to ensure the future of British steel. We are on the side of Britain’s thousands of steelworkers and we are working closely with our trade unions, experts and others to develop our steel strategy. We believe that steel will forge our future, not just our past, and I look forward to working with all hon. Members in this place to develop a steel strategy that sets us up for the next 10, 15 or 20 years to come.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Sarah Jones Excerpts(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
As always, Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. This statutory instrument, which was laid before the House in draft on 30 July 2024, forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage. CCUS is critical to deliver clean energy and accelerate our net zero journey. As the Government recently announced, CCUS is vital as we enter into a new era of clean energy investment and jobs. By boosting this tried-and-tested technology, the UK has the potential to become a global leader in CCUS, delivering good jobs and economic growth for decades to come.
A critical element of the CCUS mix is the successful deployment of power CCUS—gas-powered electricity generators fitted with carbon capture technology. [Interruption.] It is a bit more complicated than I just tried to indicate, but that is the gist. Power CCUS will complement the roll-out of renewable energy, providing the secure, flexible, non-weather-dependent, low-carbon electricity that is critical for a reliable energy system and for achieving our mission of clean power by 2030.
The Government are committed to incentivising the deployment of power CCUS, and this statutory instrument will enable future payments to power CCUS plants under a business model called the dispatchable power agreement. The DPA is the contract framework to support power CCUS. It has been designed especially to incentivise investment in and the deployment of power CCUS in the UK.
Dispatchable power agreements are a type of contract for difference. Like contracts for difference, they use the electricity supplier obligation to fund support payments. The levy is calculated and managed by the CfD counter-party—the Low Carbon Contracts Company—and collected from electricity suppliers such as Octopus or British Gas, which can pass the costs on to their customers if they choose to do so.
In addition to the existing renewable CfD contract design, the DPA business model will provide an alternative payment based on a power CCUS generator’s availability. This availability payment is based on a generator’s availability in respect of electricity generation and carbon capture, and associated carbon dioxide transport and storage network costs. Under the DPA terms, payments will reduce proportionately to reflect any reduction in a generator’s CO2 capture availability—in other words, its capture rate—or generation.
A payment is made whether a generator dispatches power or not. This ensures that a CCUS power plant will run in response to market signals, ahead of unabated gas plants, but will not surpass cheaper renewables. This arrangement will strengthen our security of supply and ensure that a source of reliable low-carbon energy is available, but only when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
This statutory instrument enables only certain types of payments under the renewable CfD and DPA contracts to be funded by the supplier levy. Any future support offer to a project will be subject to rigorous negotiations with partners. Any decisions to award support will be subject to value for money and subsidy control tests to ensure the best value for money for consumers.
The statutory instrument amends the Contracts for Difference (Electricity Supplier Obligations) Regulations 2014. The changes will allow the payments made under the DPA to be funded by the supplier levy by changing how the supplier levy rate calculation works in the regulations.
First, regulation 4 relates to the way that an electricity supplier’s daily contributions paid to the CfD counter-party are calculated. The statutory instrument amends regulation 4 to change the definition of “generation payments” so that the supplier obligation can be charged for payments relating to the activities of a dispatchable power plant fitted with CCUS technology—I hope everyone is still with me.
The statutory instrument includes amendments to take into account the electricity generation capacity made available by a generating station on a given day; a generating station’s achieved carbon dioxide capture rate or capture capacity on a given day; the CO2 transport and storage capital costs incurred from transporting such captured carbon dioxide; and, if required, the associated carbon dioxide transport and storage network shortfalls, proportionate to a DPA-supported generating station, that arose on that day.
Secondly, regulation 7 of the 2014 regulations sets out how the CfD counterparty estimates the quarterly obligation payment that electricity suppliers will be required to provide to the counterparty. The statutory instrument amends regulation 7 to ensure the consideration of matters related to a DPA-supported generating station, including the carbon dioxide transport and storage network capital costs and, if required, revenue shortfalls, and the amount of carbon captured.
Together, the changes allow a CfD counterparty to estimate and raise funds, and ultimately to pay a DPA-supported CCUS-enabled power plant. The existing payment calculation, based on the amount of electricity generated by renewable CfD-supported generating stations, is retained and unaffected.
In summary, the statutory instrument represents a positive step forward in the delivery of the Government’s ambitious CCUS programme and 2030 clean power mission. It will lay the regulatory groundwork to encourage the deployment of power CCUS and begin to unlock the great economic and jobs opportunities. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Sarah Jones
I have a couple of points to make. The first carbon capture and storage commitment was made in 2009, I think, but cancelled in 2010. It was then set up again at some point in the mid-2010s and cancelled again. The shadow Minister referred to the explanatory notes; the key word there is “intention”. The intention was announced, but whether the actual funding behind it was available is a different point. That is where we disagree, so I say very strongly that the Secretary of State certainly did not mislead the House. I am glad to clear that up.
On track 2, we are working at pace to get things done. The costs of carbon capture are significant, as the shadow Minister knows, and we need to make sure that we spend money in exactly the right way and are as careful as we can be with what is public money. We are working with both projects—indeed, we are working on expansion in the existing track 1 allocations and on track 2—and trying to get to a point at which the cost of carbon capture comes down and we have a market that becomes self-sustaining over time. But that will take some time.
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and hon. Friends and other Members for being here. The statutory instrument before us will incentivise the deployment of power CCUS and make a significant contribution to our CCUS programme and 2030 clean power mission. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Sorry, I should have asked the Liberal Democrat spokesperson whether she wished to contribute.
Draft Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2024
Sarah Jones Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Carbon Dioxide Transport and Storage (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell; it is also a pleasure to be on this side of the Committee Room for the first time.
The regulations were laid before the House on 30 July under the affirmative process. These are technical but important regulations that form part of the implementation of the economic regulation framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage established in the Energy Act 2023. Carbon capture, usage and storage—CCUS, as we call it—is critical to delivering this Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and to accelerating our journey to net zero.
Last week was a historic week, as 142 years of coal-fired electricity generation came to an end. As one era ended, a new one began, as we announced £21.7 billion over 25 years for five carbon capture, usage and storage projects across two clusters. There are two transport and storage clusters: one in HyNet, in the north-west and north Wales, and one in the East Coast Cluster, in the north-east.
Given the potentially monopolistic characteristics of carbon dioxide pipeline, storage and transport infra-structure, it is appropriate to have a framework of economic licensing and regulation to prevent anti-competitive behaviours by infrastructure operators and to ensure protections for users and consumers of the networks. Under this framework, an operator of a carbon dioxide transport and storage network requires a licence, which allows the operator to charge users of the network a fee for delivering and operating the network. The licence will determine the allowed revenue that a transport and storage operator may receive, which should reflect its efficient costs and a reasonable return on its capital investment. The economic regulator, Ofgem, has oversight of charges and will determine whether costs are allowed to be passed on to users, in line with the agreed economic framework.
To ensure that the economic regulation framework operates as it should, Ofgem has powers of enforcement to ensure that licence conditions are adhered to and that there is appropriate redress for any regulatory breaches. Such redress includes the imposition of financial penalties by Ofgem on licence holders for licence contraventions, up to a maximum amount of 10% of company turnover. The regulations provide for how a company’s turnover is to be determined for the purposes of calculating the maximum amount of penalty that can be imposed.
The amount of financial penalty will not automatically be set at the maximum; the maximum penalty of 10% of turnover is a cap, not a target. Any penalty imposed should be at a reasonable and appropriate level, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. Ofgem is required by primary legislation to prepare and publish a statement of policy setting out its approach to enforcement and penalties in the carbon dioxide transport and storage sector. This statement of policy should include the factors and circumstances that would be considered in deciding whether to impose a financial penalty and in determining the amount of any financial penalty. Ofgem has consulted on documents outlining how it will conduct its enforcement activities. The consultation closed in early July; Ofgem issued its consultation response and published the final version of those documents in September.
To conclude, these are technical but important regulations, which provide clarity on what is meant by turnover when determining the amount of a financial penalty not exceeding the cap. The regulations represent an essential part of the economic regulation framework for carbon dioxide transport and storage—a regulatory framework that has been designed to overcome market barriers to deploying CCUS infrastructure in the UK and delivering our mission to accelerate our journey to net zero, while at the same time protecting the interests of users and consumers of this infrastructure. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Sarah Jones
I thank both hon. Members for their comments. On how this is regulated and how it works, I should say that the two transport and storage models that we have agreed to this week are collaborations involving quite large companies—for HyNet it is Eni, and for the East Coast Cluster it is BP, Equinor and Total. They have each set up their own separate companies as a group, and the turnover will be determined according to the revenue made within that, rather than, say, the whole of BP’s revenue, so it will be related to the transport and storage.
If we have any concerns, there will be a process of engagement with the company at the earliest stages. It will not be that something terrible suddenly happens and there will be mitigation; there will be engagement between Ofgem and the transport companies, and there are ways for that to happen, so that we see can problems as they arise.
The 10% financial penalty is a cap, but that is not the full amount; there will be a decision on what the percentage should be—it might be less than 10%, or it might be 10%. The level will be set according to lots of different factors—for example, whether there are mitigations will be one determining factor in deciding how much the costs are. There is a framework within which this will be set, which I hope will reassure the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, although we can happily send more details about that.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.