The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(Grant Shapps) With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement
on energy security. Over half the gas we use in this country is
imported. A third of all our energy comes from other countries.
Each click of the thermostat and every flick of the kettle sends
our money abroad. We are lucky that we have access to secure
supplies and strong alliances, but while the price of energy is
dictated by the whims...Request free
trial
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on energy
security.
Over half the gas we use in this country is imported. A third of
all our energy comes from other countries. Each click of the
thermostat and every flick of the kettle sends our money abroad.
We are lucky that we have access to secure supplies and strong
alliances, but while the price of energy is dictated by the whims
of international energy markets, it will be hard to release
ourselves from the grip of high bills ushered in by Putin’s
brutal invasion of Ukraine.
The solution is energy sovereignty. We have the ability to
generate our own energy here in the UK. We need only look at our
renewables to know we are already doing this rather well, but it
is time for us to do more: to bring energy home; to clean it up;
to reduce our reliance on dirty, expensive fossil fuels; and to
create a thriving, secure and affordable energy network. We will
use the might of our many brilliant engineers, experts and
innovators to build a system fit for the future.
As I mentioned in questions earlier, yesterday I was in Suffolk
where, thanks to Government investment, the development of the
Sizewell C nuclear plant has been given the green light. It will
generate not only cleaner, cheaper, low-carbon electricity for
the equivalent of 6 million homes, but 10,000 jobs during
construction and thousands more in the supply chain. This is the
first direct stake a Government have taken in a nuclear project
since 1987, and it is the first step on the ladder to long-term
energy independence. This has been long awaited, and to boost the
nuclear industry further we will work fast to scope and set up
Great British Nuclear. With GBN we are aiming to build a pipeline
of new nuclear projects beyond Sizewell C where they offer clear
value for money, and we will make announcements on this early in
the new year.
It is not just nuclear of course: in order to strengthen our
energy sovereignty we must look to our natural resources. This
island is, as students of Shakespeare will know, a “fortress
built by Nature”, and we are utilising that which nature has
bestowed upon us—the howling winds of our coastlines, the
crashing waves of our sea, and the radiant sun across our land—to
create green, clean, cheap energy at home for us.
Those industries are booming, providing jobs and growth up and
down the country. In fact, earlier this month, the country hit a
truly historic moment, when our onshore and offshore wind farms
provided more than half the UK’s electricity. Furthermore, the
National Grid reported that on that day all our renewable energy
combined provided 70% of the country’s overall electricity needs.
However, we need low-carbon back-up for those days when the wind
is not blowing and the sun is dimmed, which is why I have put the
Energy Bill back on track. It will fire up our nascent hydrogen
and carbon capture industries by providing new business models
and liberating private investment. The Bill will hammer into
place the high-tech solutions we need to produce our own
energy.
Even after record Government support for household and business
bills, the British people need us to take bold action, and the
war in Ukraine, combined with sky-high energy prices, has put a
spotlight on the importance of energy efficiency. Our ambition is
to reduce energy demand by 15% by 2030. That will be backed by £6
billion in cash between ’25 and ’28, coming on top of the £6.6
billion we have already spent during this Parliament.
The majority of British houses are, thanks to their Victorian
builds, rather draughty. Our energy performance certificates did
not really bother the estate builders of the 19th century, which
is why our ECO+ scheme will help households install insulation,
saving them hundreds of pounds off their bills each year—money
they can spend elsewhere to grow the economy.
Energy sovereignty is now within our grasp. Clean, affordable
energy for households and businesses is not a pipe dream; it is a
project we have now embarked upon. Building new energy networks
will create jobs; producing our own renewable energy will keep
bills low; and as businesses and households are relieved of the
pressure of crippling bills, the economy can flourish and grow.
Energy is coming home.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister.
1.10pm
(Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and can I take
the opportunity to welcome him to his new role? We support new
nuclear, and I welcome the announcement on Sizewell. The Climate
Change Committee tells us that nuclear should play a role as part
of the balanced pathway to net zero. In his reply, could he tell
us the timetable for Sizewell’s final investment decision and
when we expect it to be up and running? I also welcome the return
of the delayed Energy Bill, which should never have been paused
by the Government.
As for the rest of the statement, I am bound to ask: is that it?
Alongside nuclear, we need a sprint for cheap, clean, home-grown
renewables, and I have to say to the Secretary of State that,
given the chaos, confusion and embarrassment of the Government on
onshore wind, I find it extraordinary that he did not clear that
up in the House today. Let me remind the House of some facts. The
ban on onshore wind in England that they put in place in 2015 has
raised bills for every family in this country by £150 each, and
keeping the ban in place up to 2030 would mean customers paying
£16 billion more on bills compared with a target of doubling
onshore wind. Let us be clear: opposing onshore wind waves the
white flag on our energy security and raises bills for
families.
The only reason we are debating this issue is not that the public
do not support onshore wind—they do, by 78%, according to the
Department’s own polling—but that dinosaurs on the Government
Benches oppose clean energy, and and every leader since has
indulged them. The problem is that the Secretary of State, who
prides himself on being a truly modern man, is part of the
fossilised tendency. He was part of the lobbying effort against
lifting the ban in April. He said onshore wind was an “eyesore”
and created “problems of noise”, and he urged the then Prime
Minister to “largely” reject it. I may have had some issues with
his predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset
(Mr Rees-Mogg), but the Secretary of State’s position is making
the Victorian of the Tory party look positively on trend, because
the right hon. Member for North East Somerset after all called
for the consenting regime for onshore wind to be brought into
line with other infrastructure. Can the Secretary of State clear
up once and for all what his position is on onshore wind? Will he
now act in the national interest, properly end the ban and
finally bring the consenting regime in line with other
infrastructure?
On solar, it is the same problem. The Prime Minister spent the
summer saying he wanted to block solar, echoed by the Environment
Secretary in the last couple of weeks. Blocking solar risks
preventing the equivalent of 10 nuclear power stations-worth of
power being built, so will the Secretary of State rule out the
plans of the previous Environment Secretary to further block
solar power on land?
On energy efficiency, frankly this Government should be ashamed
of their record, with the green deal fiasco, the green homes
grant fiasco and energy efficiency installations running 20 times
lower than under the previous Labour Government. Can the
Secretary of State tell us from his announcement, which I am
afraid contains no new resources, in what year the 19 million
cold, draughty homes below energy performance certificate band C
would be brought up to that level of decency under his plan? We
would do it in a decade. Can he confirm that, at the current
rates of installation, under this Government it would not happen
till the next century?
We have seen five Energy Secretaries since 2019. To overcome the
bills crisis we face and to tackle the climate crisis, we need
ambition, consistency and going all in on the green energy
sprint. I am afraid we have not had these things from this
Government. All we have had is inconsistency, dithering and a
Government looking over their shoulder at their own Back
Benchers. The Secretary of State has a lot of work to do to
convince the country that that is going to change, and if he does
not, it means that this Government will land us with higher bills
and more energy insecurity, and will fail to take the leadership
we need in tackling the climate crisis.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber
earlier for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions,
but I did point to a quote from him back in 2010, when he said it
was “pie in the sky” that the then new Conservative Government
would get to 40% renewables by 2020. What happened? By 2020 we
had got to 43.1% renewables. That is our record of delivery when
it comes to renewables, so I do not think we need to take too
many lectures from the Labour party, or from the party that five
minutes ago did not support new nuclear power. It failed to
commission any of it during its time in office—13 years, was
it?—but now that we are getting on with it, all of a sudden it
seems to have swapped sides.
On wind power, both offshore and onshore, I do not think the
right hon. Gentleman recognises the fact that the strike prices
in the contracts for difference are now lower for any version of
power production at all when it comes to offshore wind. These
turbines are now so large that they cannot even be constructed
onshore. They are so big that the turbines cannot be carried by
road; they have to put offshore.
How big are they?
How big are they? It is convenient that the World cup is on
because the right hon. Gentleman will be able to envisage this.
Single turbines are seven football pitches in scope, as they
turn. They are not buildable onshore, which is one of the reasons
why the cheapest way to build them offshore to produce energy
offshore is to build these mammoth turbines, which go together in
groups of 200 or even up to 300. However, I am sure he knows all
of this and that, rather than discussing the actual solutions, he
likes to throw up the chaff.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned onshore, I just want
to note that the energy White Paper and the net zero strategy
have both said exactly the same as we have been saying this week,
which is that onshore can happen where it has local consent. I do
not know why this local consent principle is so difficult for him
to understand. There it is: we are delivering on the renewables,
on the nuclear, on the energy independence and sovereignty that
this country needs, and there is nothing from the Labour
party.
(Wokingham) (Con)
Over the last 48 hours, wind has generated as little as 1% of our
electricity, and it was at 2% when I checked this morning, while
of course most of the homes we represent use gas for heating.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that we need to get on with
issuing more production licences for domestic oil and gas, which
cuts the carbon dioxide involved and will enable us to keep the
lights on, which we cannot do when the wind does not blow?
My right hon. Friend is characteristically correct that we cannot
always rely on a single form of electricity generation. As the
French have found out, we cannot always rely on nuclear. I think
France has 71 nuclear power stations in its fleet, but about half
of them are down at the moment, so it cannot rely only on
nuclear. I was discussing this very fact with my opposite number
yesterday. I know that my right hon. Friend welcomes the £700
million development approval cash that we have put into the first
new nuclear since the 1980s, and he is absolutely right that we
need a broad spread of different energy forms to ensure that we
can provide the cheap power we require at all times.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
The reality is that this statement is just a padding out of the
press release that BEIS put out earlier. I do welcome the energy
company obligation funding for energy efficiency, but I think we
need to be clear that this is not Government money; it is money
funded from our energy bills and paid for by all bill payers. One
issue with ECO4 is that it cannot be combined with other grants,
whereas ECO3 did allow that money to be combined with other
grants to bring down the costs of external insulation, for
example. That is something the Secretary of State could consider
to make schemes more affordable for people. The reality with EPC
bandings is that there are more homes currently rated D to G than
A to C, so much more direct investment is needed in energy
efficiency to rectify that.
The Secretary of State talked about energy security, so does that
mean that the Government have finally bought out China General
Nuclear from the Sizewell C consortium? Talking about
sovereignty, will he confirm that uranium imports are going to be
needed to keep Sizewell C going? Is it still the intention to
take a 20% stake, and does that mean funding capital of £6
billion or £7 billion towards Sizewell C, because there is still
no clarity in today’s statement? On the myth about nuclear
baseload, by the time Hinkley Point C comes on stream, seven of
the eight existing nuclear power stations will have stopped
operating, which proves there is no need for nuclear baseload
whatsoever.
On wider energy policy, the Scottish carbon capture and storage
cluster was the most advanced project, but it was still only
classed as a reserve. Will the Government urgently review this
classification, and make the Scottish CCS cluster a track 1
cluster to allow that investment to be released and for that
project to go ahead? Pump storage hydro, as I have raised several
times, could deliver about 3 GW of power by 2030. All that is
needed is an electricity pricing mechanism—a cap and floor
mechanism—so will the Government urgently review that and start
these discussions?
Finally, we know about the oil and gas investment allowance. If
we are going to have continued record investment in renewables,
there should be a renewables investment allowance to encourage
that, particularly for green hydrogen.
Yes, I can confirm that China has now been bought out of the deal
on Sizewell. The money yesterday ensured that it is no longer
involved in the development.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the future funding for Sizewell.
He may be familiar with the new “regulatory asset base” approach
to funding, which is built along similar lines to the contracts
for difference that have been used so successfully for offshore
wind power. That is how we will look to bring income to the
project. I should also say that CfDs will now take place on an
annualised basis, which will give those including Scottish
clusters the opportunity to bid in as well.
I am always curious about the SNP’s approach to energy. As far as
I can work out, it does not like the oil and gas industry—even
though the industry employs thousands of its constituents—and it
absolutely hates nuclear. I am not quite sure what it wants to do
on non-windy days.
(Workington) (Con)
Cumberland has sites ready to go for new nuclear. It has
expertise, interest and development companies for both small
modular reactors and large-scale nuclear. Will the Secretary of
State work with me and my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland
() and for Carlisle () to bring Rolls-Royce SMR
and UK European pressurised reactors 5 and 6 to Moorside?
I know that Cumberland has a tremendous amount of expertise and a
lot more to offer. When Great British Nuclear launches in the new
year, it will help to bring not just traditional Sizewell-style
nuclear assets to this country, but the small modular reactors
from Rolls-Royce and potentially other competitors.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Committee.
(Bristol North West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his role. May I push him
slightly further on the financing of Sizewell C? My understanding
is that the Government are committed to spending 20% of the cost,
and EDF 20% of the cost. That leaves 60% to be financed from the
private sector, which I think means that up to £20 billion of
financing still needs to be sourced. What will the Government do
if they cannot find that from the private sector?
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. As
he will know as Chair of the Select Committee, we have been
working on the Sizewell deal for quite some time and we got to
the Government investment decision stage yesterday. Of course, we
have been talking to potential financiers along with EDF and the
French Government. We are confident about the level of interest,
but I have no doubt that I will come to his Select Committee,
along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Climate, to
discuss that in more detail soon.
(Poole) (Con)
I welcome the announcements on nuclear and specifically on
Sizewell C. The Rolls-Royce scheme for modular nuclear seems very
exciting, but we do need to get on with it. Does the Secretary of
State have a view as to what year we will be starting the first
project?
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that when I was at
Sizewell yesterday, I was with leaders from EDF and the French
Government—indeed, the French ambassador was there. Later in the
day I spoke to my opposite number about ensuring that we can
speed up co-operation on nuclear, as well as on things such as
wind, and even on our interconnectors. I was going to say that
the point of Great British Nuclear is to really put the acid
under this, but I am sure that there is a much better nuclear
comparison. It is really about ensuring that we get on with
producing our new nuclear fleet a lot faster than has happened in
the last few decades.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, even with the
additional money made available for home insulation, his
officials have told him that the money falls short by tens of
billions?
It is worth the House knowing that we have already put in £6.6
billion. We have announced another £6 billion, which will be
spent in the period from 2025 to 2028. The £1 billion that I
announced yesterday will cover hundreds of thousands of homes. Of
course, it is typical of the Labour party to think that the only
way in which this can ever be funded is by the taxpayer and that
there are no other routes to market. Lots of homes will be
improved by, for example, regulations on build, ensuring that the
overall increase in improvements in EPCs comes not just through
spending taxpayers’ cash.
(Hitchin and Harpenden)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to welcome my constituency neighbour to his
place as Secretary of State. He and the House will understand the
importance of critical minerals to energy security. Could he
outline his approach for the UK securing critical mineral supply
to ensure that, over the longer term, we have energy security,
particularly on things like lithium-ion batteries?
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. Critical
minerals are so important in securing the entire supply chain.
Earlier I mentioned green lithium up in Teesside, which is part
of that supply chain. The UK can have the first green lithium
production in Europe because of Brexit and our ability, for
example, to use more flexible rules that the Europeans cannot
access at the moment to produce it, so that is a very good win.
He is right about the strategy, and we have a strategy for the
most important critical minerals.
(Bath) (LD)
On energy efficiency, will the Government introduce an inspection
scheme for all rented accommodation to stop landlords from
letting out properties that do not meet energy efficiency
minimums?
Private landlords are already under an obligation to ensure that
their properties reach certain standards. However, as the hon.
Member may well know, the Government are consulting on raising
that standard in line with the improvements that we would expect
over a period of time, and we have already signalled that that
would be likely to be to an EPC rating of C.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the risk to our
country’s energy security this winter from possible disruption to
the vital Norwegian gas pipeline, which will supply our country
with approximately half of its gas needs this winter? Will he
confirm that contingency plans are in place?
I am pleased to report that, notwithstanding things like
terrorism or developments in the war in Ukraine, we have
confidence about both our supply and European supply this winter.
The weather has been better than might have been expected and gas
supplies are full. I should also point out that the rough storage
supply has been brought back online, which has increased our own
storage by about 50%. I think that in all expected, imagined
circumstances, we will be okay this winter.
(Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
This morning the Secretary of State and my Opposition Front-Bench
colleagues have spent a long time tilting at windmills. Does he
agree that when it comes to getting the right energy and keeping
people warm this winter, all of us need to have more courage?
Energy from waste could fulfil 20% of our energy needs. Good
energy from waste schemes can heat the whole of a town or city,
such as Sheffield. Is it not about time that we took energy from
waste really seriously?
The reality of energy supply is that anyone who thinks there is a
single silver bullet—I am not accusing the hon. Member of that at
all—is typically wrong. Almost any energy source or supply has
its vulnerabilities and its shortcomings. Certainly, energy from
waste has its place—we are active in that space—as does ensuring
that, for example, we are using energy as efficiently as
possible. That is why we announced yesterday that there will be
an £18 million campaign about doing straightforward things such
as ensuring that the boiler flow is set correctly on people’s
boilers.
(North Devon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we pursue energy
sovereignty, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea can play a
vital part? Will he confirm when we can expect an announcement on
the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme
funding? To maximise the benefits to the communities around the
Celtic sea, we need good port infrastructure to drive the project
forward.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Floating offshore wind is an
interesting development, and we are actively looking at it and
working on it with a whole load of industry partners. She can
expect some exciting information in this area in the future.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
As a student of 16th-century literature, I enjoyed the Secretary
of State’s Shakespearian rhetoric, but I am frankly staggered
that he can possibly think that Sizewell C is cheaper—cheaper
than what? It is massively costly. The RAB funding model
basically means that consumers end up paying twice: once towards
the cost of construction to lower the cost of borrowing, and
again for more costly energy. The Secretary of State will know
that no nuclear power station in the world has been built to time
and to budget. He has asked what we do on windy days: may I
suggest more interconnectors, far more solar—including
ground-based solar—flexible energy demand systems, onshore wind,
energy storage, tidals, and the mass energy efficiency and
insulation programme that this Government are still failing to
deliver?
One would think the Green party would welcome 43% of our power
being renewable, done under a Conservative Government. On
Sizewell C, she asks what it is cheaper than; I will tell her—it
is cheaper than being subject to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
(New Forest East) (Con)
It took an international conflict to lessen and hopefully
eliminate Europe’s dependency on a potential enemy, Russia. Can
the Minister confirm that we will have no future dependency on
China for our nuclear power stations?
I can certainly confirm that in the case of Sizewell C; as I
mentioned, we are making sure that the Chinese element of that is
no longer involved. We do not have a principled objection, apart
from where issues of national security are concerned: clearly,
energy provision is very much in our sights.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Renewable energy
is nine times cheaper than gas, and onshore wind is incredibly
cheap and incredibly green, so we need to be clear: the Tory ban
on onshore wind has kept bills unnecessarily high, and has also
undermined energy security. Is it not time that the ban was fully
scrapped and the interests of people struggling with their bills
were put ahead of the political interests of nimby Tory Back
Benchers?
It is good that the electorate know what they will be getting if
they vote for the Labour party. With us, they will be getting
local consent: if people locally are happy to see such power
production, they will get it. With them, they will get it
willy-nilly.
I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one fact: the cost
projections on new forms of energy supply show that offshore wind
is the cheapest available in the next likely bidding round.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s focus on securing energy
security domestically, but does he agree that that must happen
alongside food security, not over the top of it? We have vast
swathes of land being taken for solar farms, while warehouse and
factory owners cannot install solar because the grid cannot take
the power. What is being done to ensure that rooftop solar can
happen?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about rooftop solar; I have
had it on my own house for the past 11 years, and once it is
there, it just carries on producing power. We need to expand
that, both domestically and on factory roofs. I will be looking
at things like permitted development rights, which enable those
panels to go up on top of roofs. There are currently limits to
the size of the panels that can be put in place, and I think they
are a fruitful source of additional power.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. According to what
he has said, Sheffield must be getting some things right: we have
been doing energy from waste for over 30 years, since I was
council leader, and ITM Power, the leading green hydrogen
company, is in my constituency.
Regarding nuclear, is it not important that we ensure a UK supply
chain, which has not always happened? Rolls-Royce and SMRs are
therefore really important, working with Sheffield Forgemasters,
but Madhvani International is also prepared to put billions of
pounds of development capital into developing Hitachi-based
SMRs—which are already regulated in North America—working with
Forgemasters and other Sheffield companies. I am pleased that the
Secretary of State will meet me tomorrow to discuss the proposal
in more detail, but in principle, I hope that he welcomes it.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s foresightedness in all the schemes
that he mentioned. It is a shame that the last Government to
invest in nuclear power was Margaret Thatcher’s Government, all
the way back in the 1980s; yesterday brought that long drought to
an end. As the energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member
for Beverley and Holderness, has reminded me, we have already
provided £210 million to Rolls-Royce for the small modular
reactor programme. I wish both Sheffield and the rest of the
country well in attracting some of this new technology, and the
supply chain that goes with it, to their constituencies.
(Calder Valley) (Con)
Land-based wind is a good, quick and relatively cheap way for the
Government to achieve more on alternative energy and security of
supply. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the
current partial ban on onshore wind is stifling growth, our march
towards net zero, and our quest for security of supply?
I think a mixed provision of energy is extremely important—I have
talked about solar, offshore and onshore wind, nuclear, and other
sources. The answer is very simple: as has been set out in our
energy review, the 10-point plan and elsewhere, where there is
local consent, we will ensure that onshore wind can be part of
that critical mix. It is a fairly simple principle, which the
whole House should be able to unite behind, that local consent is
important in these matters. That is the situation that exists,
and will continue to exist.
(Arfon) (PC)
The role that community renewable energy production could play is
currently hampered by an unwieldy regulatory process. Will the
Secretary of State bring forward amendments to the Energy Bill to
empower community energy schemes to sell their power directly to
local companies and customers, thereby also neatly slashing
bills?
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We are already doing
everything we can to cut that regulatory burden, and my right
hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness would be happy
to take that conversation forward.
(Worcester) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has mentioned, the last time that a
Government invested in new nuclear in this way was when my late
father was at the Dispatch Box as Energy Minister in 1987. I
remember very well the campaign to “Get more for your monergy”—as
a nine-year-old boy, I even got to wear the T-shirt. To ensure
that our constituents get more for their monergy, does it not
make sense to break the link between gas prices and electricity
prices? When will my right hon. Friend do that?
My hon. Friend’s late father clearly showed great foresight—it is
a shame that it has taken all these years, via a 13-year Labour
Administration, to do nothing at all on nuclear. I like the
T-shirt that my hon. Friend’s father made him wear, and I agree
with him on separating out those prices. At the moment the
highest cost in electricity applies to everything, and we are
actively looking at breaking that complex relationship.
(Warwick and Leamington)
(Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s quote from Shakespeare, but if
the bard were alive today, he would be writing either a comedy
about the Government or a tragedy about their energy strategy. We
have houses in my constituency being built with insufficient
insulation and no solar panels, or solar panels on north-facing
roofs. If onshore wind is indeed the cheapest source of energy
generation currently, how is it that Warwickshire has no onshore
wind turbines?
As I mentioned, the reference price shows that other forms of
energy could be even cheaper. Until now, solar panels were not as
effective on north-facing roofs, for example, but the hon.
Gentleman is absolutely right that the technology is improving
rapidly, with the result that we can install solar panels in more
conditions than would otherwise have been available.
(Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
We need to recognise that developing our renewable mix of energy
to 43% is a significant success—far more successful than other
comparable nations—yet in these current weather circumstances, as
people switch on their electric kettles during tonight’s football
match, wind will only generate 2% of that energy mix. That
underlines the importance of my right hon. Friend’s statement, so
will he provide further detail and timescales regarding when
small and advanced modular reactors will be possible? Wales has
two of the preferred development sites, but does my right hon.
Friend further agree that the Welsh Government need to be
supportive of those projects to make them a reality?
My right hon. Friend is right. In Wales and Scotland, the
devolved Administrations need to support new nuclear provision to
provide energy security for their constituents. He talked about
43.1% of our energy coming from renewable power. Opposition
Members said that it could not be done, but it has been done
ahead of time and we will only go further.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers. In BEIS questions
today, he referred to 10,000 highly skilled jobs and securing UK
energy security, with British energy used for British homes. Some
6 million of those homes can be powered by the Sizewell C nuclear
plant. Has the Secretary of State come to an assessment of how
these decisions will have an impact on energy security for the
devolved institutions? What steps will be taken to ensure that
Northern Ireland, which I come from and represent, plays a part
in securing energy independence?
The hon. Gentleman is right that a single nuclear power station
can power 6 million homes, whereas a modular reactor can power
perhaps 1.5 million homes. As a result of interconnectors, that
power—when it is generated in Great Britain—helps Northern
Ireland and all the devolved Administrations around the country.
He is on the right track; that is the kind of energy independence
that I mentioned in my statement.
(Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of analysis from the Climate
Change Committee that states that we will not get to net zero in
this country without carbon capture and storage. I therefore
welcome his commitment to helping to liberate private investment
in carbon capture and storage and other technologies. The
Scottish cluster alone is poised to have billions of
dollars-worth of investment. While he is pondering the
acceleration of that project, will he consider joining me on a
visit to the St Fergus gas terminal in my constituency? It has
not only carbon capture and storage, but blue hydrogen,
sustainable aviation fuel and net zero thermal power generation,
and grid capacity and resilience improvements are being made in
and around it.
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of private
investment in carbon capture, utilisation and storage. The Energy
Bill will look to unlock that private investment.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. Global gas prices
have been at record highs. That has been caused by Putin’s
illegal war in Ukraine and it has been a problem for the whole of
Europe, so I welcome what the Government have done to protect my
constituents from this impact through our energy price guarantee.
Does he agree that the long-term solution to ensure stable and
lower prices is to have diverse sources of British energy
providing the power to our homes and businesses?
My hon. Friend is right. We need energy independence, security
and sovereignty. That is what we are building in co-operation
with our partners, with interconnectors, so that we are never
again subject to the whims of a dictator from the east, as has
happened this year.
(Warrington South) (Con)
I welcome many of my right hon. Friend’s steps to ensure energy
security, particularly in the nuclear sector. He talks a great
deal about Sizewell C; Warrington is the home of the National
Nuclear Laboratory, so the decision will secure many of the 2,500
jobs that nuclear generates in Warrington. The north-west leads
the way in carbon capture and storage and hydrogen technology
with HyNet, so will he outline how hydrogen can play an important
part in large industry energy generation for the future?
My hon. Friend is right about the role of hydrogen. I know from
my time as Secretary of State for Transport how important that
will be, particularly for transport in the much larger category
of goods vehicles, buses, coaches, marine vessels and aviation.
This is not just about the jobs in nuclear, which the Sizewell
decision and Great British Nuclear will help, but about the
development in hydrogen power. In particular, those hubs with
great expertise will be tremendously important, and this
Government fully back them.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
Investment in energy-intensive industries such as ceramics must
also be a key part in reducing our overall energy consumption.
Will my right hon. Friend look at what more can be done to invest
in those key manufacturing sectors not only to reduce that energy
dependence, but to reduce costs and support jobs in places such
as Stoke-on-Trent?
The brilliant industries—particularly ceramics—in my hon.
Friend’s constituency have been badly impacted by Putin’s war.
The energy bill relief scheme has helped, and such things as the
scheme for energy-intensive industries will assist, too.
Ultimately, this comes to the point of today’s statement: energy
independence, with low-cost and affordable energy, is the way
forward not just for domestic users, but businesses such as those
in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
|
