The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart) For
much of the past 50 years, since the oil crises of the 1970s, we
have taken cheap, plentiful energy for granted. Indeed, one of the
catalysts for Britain’s economic transformation over that period
has been affordable, abundant energy powering our homes,
infrastructure, businesses and industry. Yet today, this
cornerstone of our prosperity is under threat. Putin’s illegal war
in Ukraine and decades of...Request free
trial
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero ()
For much of the past 50 years, since the oil crises of the 1970s,
we have taken cheap, plentiful energy for granted. Indeed, one of
the catalysts for Britain’s economic transformation over that
period has been affordable, abundant energy powering our homes,
infrastructure, businesses and industry. Yet today, this
cornerstone of our prosperity is under threat. Putin’s illegal
war in Ukraine and decades of overreliance on imported fossil
fuels have combined to push up energy prices. Even though we have
very little exposure to Russian gas, we have suffered the
consequences of volatile international energy markets. That is
why the Government have stepped in this winter to pay around half
of the typical household energy bill, and I am pleased to say
that that support was extended in the Chancellor’s recent
Budget.
The much bigger challenge long term is to bolster our energy
resilience as a nation, so that a tyrant like Putin can never
again hit the pockets of every family and business in Britain. We
must diversify, decarbonise and domesticate our energy supplies
to secure the cheap, clean power that Britain needs to prosper in
the future. That is why last month the Prime Minister created the
Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to give these two
closely entwined objectives—energy security and net zero—the full
and dedicated attention within Government that they clearly
merit. It was a statement of intent to put energy security among
the Government’s top priorities. By doing so, we will bring
wholesale electricity prices down to among the cheapest in Europe
by 2035, drastically reduce carbon emissions and deliver the
long-term boost that our economy needs, using Britain’s unique
talents and assets to drive the energy transition.
Following the Department’s launch just 50 days ago, I am pleased
to announce how the Government will be powering up Britain,
including through our energy security plan, which sets out the
steps we are taking to become more energy independent by powering
Britain from Britain, and through our net zero growth plan, which
builds on the measures laid out in the net zero strategy to keep
us on track to achieve our carbon budgets. That plan meets our
statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008 to
respond to the Climate Change Committee’s annual progress report
from 2022, and sets out a package of proposals and policies that
will enable carbon budgets to be met, to ensure that Britain
remains the leader among the fastest decarbonising nations in the
world.
Before starting on the announcements, I thank my right hon.
Friend the Member for Kingswood () for his excellent work in
this area, investigating how to deliver net zero in a way that is
both pro-growth and pro-business. In January, he submitted his
detailed report and recommendations to Government. I can confirm
that we are partly or fully acting on 23 recommendations of the
independent review of net zero report’s 25 recommendations for
2025. On behalf of the whole House, I thank my right hon. Friend
again for his work.
Let me start on the announcements, if I may. As part of powering
up Britain, the Government are launching Great British Nuclear,
to put clean nuclear power at the heart of Britain’s energy
security and spearhead a busy programme of new nuclear projects,
starting with a competitive down-selection this year to choose
the best small modular reactor technologies. We are launching the
floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, providing
up to £160 million to kick-start funding in port infrastructure
so that we can move forward with that exciting new technology,
and we are publishing plans for investing in carbon capture and
storage, a key area for cleaning up energy and one in which
Britain can lead the world.
To drive our hydrogen ambitions, we are announcing a shortlist
and funding for the first round of electrolytic hydrogen
allocation, with a second round to come, and setting out our
longer-term hydrogen plans. We are providing an extra £1 billion
for energy efficiency upgrades through the new great British
insulation scheme, and we are investing to speed up the market
for heat pump installation to decarbonise home heating and
leverage up to £300 million of overall funding, including private
funding.
This country is already ahead of the game when it comes to
decarbonising its economy. We are a global leader in offshore
wind power and currently have the world’s largest operational
offshore wind farm project, named after a town in my
constituency: Hornsea 2. We also have the second, third and
fourth largest offshore wind farm projects, but the measures we
are unveiling today will accelerate our transition, rolling out
existing technologies and bringing transformative new
technologies to market.
We are truly on the verge of a new industrial revolution, but
just like the first industrial revolution, investment will be key
to our success, delivering not just energy security and ambitious
reductions in carbon but the jobs, exports and productivity gains
of the future. With that in mind, we are publishing today a new
green finance strategy, which sets out a range of measures to
mobilise private investment into net zero. That will support the
UK in maintaining its position as a world-leading centre for
green finance, and it sets us on a pathway to becoming the
world’s first net zero-aligned financial centre.
It is imperative that we do not just focus on reducing emissions
at home. The UK will work with international partners through the
green transition to share the benefits of an improved environment
that is good for business, because all economies need to take
decisive steps to reduce their emissions. Indeed, increased
investment in net zero technologies globally will unlock
innovation and drive costs down, as well as create opportunities
for green UK exports—in carbon capture and hydrogen, for
example.
As such, today we are publishing two additional documents. The
first is the 2030 strategic framework for international climate
and nature action, which outlines our vision to halve global
emissions, halt and reverse nature loss, and build resilience to
climate impacts this decade. The second is the international
climate finance strategy, which details our commitment to £11.6
billion of international climate finance up to 2025-26, after we
pledged to double it. Both reinforce our climate leadership
during what is a critical decade for delivery, showing that
Britain is credible and committed to meeting its promises.
It is no exaggeration to say that Britain’s prospects as a
nation, our ability to compete as an economy, and our capacity to
decarbonise and tackle climate change all depend on energy
security. Now, with a dedicated Department to deliver that vital
objective, we will not only wean ourselves off fossil fuel
imports but deliver cheaper, cleaner energy from domestic
renewables and nuclear, protecting British households from
turbulent international energy markets and creating hundreds of
thousands of green jobs to level up Britain in the process.
Making Britain an energy secure, net zero nation is one of the
greatest opportunities of our time. Today, we have shown how we
will grasp that opportunity for the benefit of everyone in this
country for generations to come.
12.45pm
(Doncaster North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but let me tell him that
although there may have been thousands of pages published this
morning, this is not the green day that the Government promised,
but a groundhog day of reannouncements, reheated policy and no
new investment. The documents are most notable for their glaring
omissions: there is no removal of the onshore wind ban that is
costing families hundreds of pounds on bills a year. There is no
new money for energy efficiency to insulate homes and cut bills,
just a reannouncement of a feeble offer made last year. There is
no net zero mandate for Ofgem, as recommended by the right hon.
Member for Kingswood ()—to whom I too pay
tribute—and as demanded by industry. There is no proper response
to the Inflation Reduction Act, even as the rest of the world
speeds ahead.
The biggest indictment of all, buried in the fine print and not
mentioned by the Minister, is the admission that the policies
announced today do not deliver the promise, solemnly made in
front of the world at COP26 in Glasgow barely a year ago, to meet
the UK’s 2030 climate target. The Government waited until noon,
five hours after all the other documents were published, to
release the carbon budget delivery plan—which is more like the
failure to deliver the carbon budget plan. This is what it
says:
“We have quantified emissions savings to deliver…92% of the
NDC.”
A target for less than seven years’ time, and now almost 10%
off—what an indictment of all the verbiage we have heard today.
All the policies and all the hot air do not meet the promise that
the Government made on the world stage under the presidency of
the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir ), to whom I also pay tribute.
That means higher bills, energy insecurity, fewer jobs and
climate failure.
Let me ask the Minister five questions. First, if the Government
really wanted a sprint for clean power, they would go for onshore
wind. They even promised to lift the ban last December, but the
proposals in their consultation have been written off by industry
as doing
“almost nothing to lift the draconian ban”.
The previous Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for North
East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—hardly an eco-warrior—promised to
bring the planning regime for onshore wind into line with other
infrastructure. Why will the Minister not take that step?
Secondly, there is no new investment in hydrogen. Germany is
investing €9 billion in hydrogen, compared with £240 million from
the UK. Does the Minister recognise the failure of ambition?
Thirdly, it is good that the Government have finally allocated
some resources to CCS, although I am old enough to remember the
£1 billion CCS competition announced in 2008, 15 years ago, which
they cancelled. However, they still appear to have no clue where
the up to £20 billion of support is coming from, and it was not
in the Budget documents. Can the Minister clear that up?
Fourthly, on the response to the Inflation Reduction Act, British
businesses are crying out for action now, yet the Minister’s own
documents published today show that the UK is investing less than
France and less than Germany, and once the Inflation Reduction
Act kicks in, we will be investing less than the USA. Is that not
a clear admission that we are falling behind? Finally, can the
Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that as I said, the
Government’s 2030 target announced at COP26 will not be met by
these policies, and can he tell us how the UK can possibly claim
the mantle of delivering on climate leadership when it is way off
track to deliver the promise it made at the COP we hosted?
At the same time, the Government pursue their “every last drop”
strategy on oil and gas. Let me tell the House what that means:
it means funnelling £11.4 billion to the oil and gas companies
making record profits, and ignoring what 700 leading scientists
told the Government yesterday, which is that new exploration will
not cut bills, will not deliver energy security and will severely
undermine UK climate leadership. [Interruption.] I think the hon.
Member for South Suffolk () should listen to the
scientists.
We know what a proper plan looks like: in 2030, zero carbon
power; insulating 19 million cold, draughty homes in a decade; GB
Energy to invest in all forms of low-carbon generation; and a
national wealth fund investing in everything from clean steel to
ports and electric vehicles to win the global race for Britain.
[Interruption.] Yes, and nuclear power, too. This may be the
fifth energy relaunch in two and a half years, but it is more of
the same from this Government. They can relaunch their policies
as many times as they like, but they fail and fail again.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, but Members on
the Government Benches will have been listening with a certain
degree of incredulity, because we remember that in 2010 he left
the people of this country in the worst housing stock in Europe.
They were cold, their bills were unmanageable and just 14% of
houses were properly insulated. Now it is half, and we need to go
further and faster, which is why we have the energy efficiency
taskforce. It is why we have announced £6.5 billion in this
Parliament, and it is why we are announcing today our new
initiative on insulation. It is why there is another £6 billion
to be spent between 2025 and 2028. The Labour party failed
absolutely on the most basic thing: looking after people in their
homes so they could pay their bills.
That is not all, however, because on renewables the Labour party
now talks about this transformation by 2030, which no one other
than the Labour party—it is not involved, I fear, in an entirely
open, transparent, and possibly even honest exercise—believes can
be delivered by 2030. What was Labour’s record on power? In 2010,
7% of our electricity came from renewables. If Labour in
government had unleashed renewables the way we did, families this
last winter would not have needed the Government to step in,
because we would not have been so reliant on gas. It was Labour’s
failure. It was 7% of electricity then, but it is nearly half
today. This Government have transformed our performance, while
the Labour party failed in power.
What are Labour’s ideas going forward? What do they consist of?
While we have unlocked £200 billion of investment since we came
into power, the Labour party, led by the hard left, with whom the
right hon. Gentleman has always had more than a passing
association, want through its GB Energy to nationalise an
industry in which we have brought in global investment. Instead
of unlocking renewables, Labour will, if it gets back into power,
do exactly what it did in power last time: fail to deliver
renewables, reverse the green transformation, fail to meet our
carbon budget targets and let down Britain and every family, who
will be back in cold, freezing homes with overly expensive bills
to boot. That is what the Labour party offers.
We are internationally competitive. It is great that other
countries, such as America with the Inflation Reduction Act, are
seeking to catch up with us on things such as offshore wind. We
support that. On onshore wind, which the right hon. Gentleman
mentioned, as I have said, we are committed to reviewing it and
ensuring that we can take it forward in a way that runs with the
support and consent of local people.
In response to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of
his words, three quarters of the power of this country today
comes from fossil fuels, and we are the most decarbonised country
in the G7. The right hon. Gentleman, the Labour party and the
Scottish National party do not have a plan to stop using fossil
fuels. What they have a plan for—this is unbelievable—is to make
sure that we do not produce our own, that we import energy from
abroad at the cost of billions and billions, that we make
ourselves less energy secure, that we lose the 120,000 jobs, most
of which are in Scotland, in the oil and gas industry and that we
lose their capability to help deliver the hydrogen and carbon
capture and storage industries upon which our decarbonisation
path depends. The Labour party failed when it was in power. Its
analysis of what it needs to do now is failing, too, and the
British people will not be fooled.
(Kingswood) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for his kind words about the net zero
review, and indeed the Government’s full response so soon after
the review was submitted? I hope that the UK’s net zero pathway
is now in a better place as a result of the recommendations. I
should say that they are not my recommendations, but those of all
the sectors I went to speak to and thousands of individuals,
businesses and companies that want to get on with delivering
decarbonisation, because they see the economic opportunity for
the UK.
Does the Minister agree that we now need to slay this myth that
somehow net zero will make us colder and poorer? Net zero will
make us warmer and richer, and it is the economic opportunity of
the decade, if not this century, to create a new economy, just as
other countries such as the United States have recognised. Will
he also accept that rather than talk down what the US has done,
we need to work with our allies and democratic partners in
creating a new special relationship around green energy?
Lastly, just to reflect on the comments made by the right hon.
Member for Doncaster North (), net zero is not just
about 2050. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. We do
not have 28 years; we have seven years to deliver on the most
ambitious nationally determined contribution of a 68% emissions
reduction. If the UK achieves that, it is an economic prize that
every single country across the world will look to us on how to
achieve, and it will deliver further growth. There are economic
consequences to not meeting that 2030 target, just as there will
be severe economic consequences to not delivering net zero. I
hope the Minister will urge both this party and any other climate
delayers, who become the new deniers, that ultimately net zero is
the future for the UK.
I thank my right hon. Friend and again pay tribute to him for all
his work. This is the economic opportunity. If we look at a map
of Europe, we can see the opportunity around the British Isles,
and we will capture that energy. We are also blessed with around
a third of all carbon storage in Europe. We can operationalise
that to decarbonise the UK and provide a service to Europe, and
we will do so. It will lead to the reindustrialisation of the
north-west, north-east, Wales and Scotland. The opportunities are
immense, and colleagues have been fighting hard.
On the NDC, we have set that ambitious world-leading 2030 target,
and we are committed to delivering our commitments, including the
2030 NDC. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster
North is a little out of touch. Countries are not due to start
reporting to the United Nations framework convention on climate
change on progress towards meeting NDCs until 2024, but we have
quantified proposals and policies already to cover 92%, and we
will go further. Just as we have done with our carbon budgets, we
will exceed, not fall short. It was the Labour party that fell
short on insulation and renewables; this party has a record of
delivery, and our policies are supplemented by others that we
have not quantified yet as we work hard to roll out these things.
We will meet that 2030 target. We will continue our leadership
role as arguably the only major economy in the world that is on
that net zero pathway to 2050.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
I think the greenest aspect of these announcements is the level
of recycling in them without the actual funding to back them up.
Starting with nuclear, there is no successful European
pressurised water reactor project anywhere in the world. Hinkley
has almost doubled in price to £33 billion, so we know that
Sizewell C will cost something like £35 billion. That is a huge,
scandalous waste of money that could be better utilised
elsewhere. On SMRs, there is not even an approved design with the
regulator yet. At £2 billion a pop, SMRs are not cheap either,
and it is a myth that they will lower energy bills and provide
security. Nuclear is the only energy technology to get more
expensive rather than cheaper over the years.
We need more storage. I keep asking about pumped storage hydro.
Please will the Government agree a carbon floor mechanism so that
SSE can get on with Coire Glas and Drax can get on with the
Cruachan extension? While the United States has the Inflation
Reduction Act, when we look at the budget for allocation round 5,
funding has been cut by a third from £285 million to £205
million, while we have inflationary pressures of 30%. The reality
is that it will not deliver what we need it to deliver. Has the
Minister looked at the lessons from the Spanish auction, which
failed miserably and did not deliver on allocations?
The Minister knows that we need a greater ringfenced pot for
tidal. At the moment, tidal stream energy has a 80% to 90% UK
supply chain. If the Government do not increase the ringfenced
budget, we risk offshoring manufacturing again. If he is talking
about being powered by Britain, he needs to increase that funding
for tidal stream so that we are building the UK supply chain.
On CCS, Acorn was not even mentioned in the statement. It was
promised to us in 2014, and now it is not even mentioned. Is
there going to be a definitive funding allocation for Acorn and
are there going to be timescales for that funding, or is it a
further betrayal when the Government are taking in £60-odd
billion in additional oil and gas revenues? The reality is clear:
Scotland has the energy, but Westminster keeps the powers.
The hon. Gentleman’s party of course opposes nuclear, despite the
opportunity it provides to this country, and it means that
Scotland does not benefit as it should. He talked about pumped
hydro, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss that
further.
We are the world leader in tidal energy, although we would be
hard pushed to understand that from the hon. Gentleman. We have
put a ringfenced number on that, and budgets can be changed. The
budgets were set on the basis of those projects that were ready
and were coming forward. As that changes through this year, as I
very much hope it will, we have the flexibility to change those
budgets upwards appropriately. Like him, I believe that tidal has
a great future, and I love the fact that we are the global
leader. There are many jobs in Scotland and around the rest of
the country from it.
On carbon capture and storage, this is a major announcement
today. I am delighted about the eight projects for carbon capture
that have come forward as part of track 1. Today, we have
launched track 2, and we have said in the papers, as the hon.
Gentleman will be delighted to hear, that we think the Scottish
cluster—and Acorn—and Viking in the Humber are the two best
placed at the moment to go ahead, although there will be a
competition and we are opening that now. We will be having an
extension of track 1, we will be having track 2 and we are
cracking on with it. I very much look forward to seeing what the
Scottish cluster has to offer, because I know it is particularly
well prepared, and that is why it was not a reserve, but the
reserve in our track 1 process.
Sir (Reading West) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me. Could I start by
saying that I welcome the announcements that have been made? I
think this does move us forward on the road to decarbonising our
economy. I want to thank the Minister and particularly his
officials for all of the work that has gone into this and the
thousands of pages that have now been published. He made a really
important point when he talked about how
“investment will be key to our success”.
I could not agree more. I agree with him that, over the last 10
or 12 years, we have managed to attract tens of billions of
pounds of private sector investment, but we have to deal with the
world as we find it now. The reality is that the US, the EU and
other nations are speeding up and attracting billions and
billions of private sector investment right now. Why are we
waiting until the autumn to respond to that? Do we not need to
speed up and respond now to the Inflation Reduction Act and
measures by other nations?
I thank my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for his
role as COP President and all the leadership he has given in this
area. He is absolutely right to highlight the investment
competition, but as I think The Economist mentioned last week,
the US approach, with its direct subsidy regime, is not as
effective—not as cost-effective—as the UK regime. I am confident
in our system, and we are rolling this forward. We have attracted
£50 billion of green investment from 2021 to 2022.
[Interruption.] Since 2010—when the right hon. Member for
Doncaster North, who does not stop chuntering, left power,
fortunately—we have had 50% more expenditure per share of GDP in
this country than in the US, and we are opening up today the
policies to ensure that that continues. My right hon. Friend will
be delighted to learn that the CBI has said:
“The package of measures announced by the government represents a
gear shift to boost energy security, reduce household bills and
re-establish the UK’s credentials as a leader in green
technologies.”
That is the CBI speaking for British business, and I believe that
the policies today will deliver implementation, which is our main
aim as we go forward.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
After more than eight years championing carbon capture and
storage, I welcome today’s positive news, even the repeated bits,
but particularly the projects for Teesside. That said, the
Government’s ambition falls short of the industry’s, and the
Department’s website shows that projects for CF Fertilisers,
Alfanar and Kellas Midstream have not made it. Why is that, and
what impact will the decision to ditch the Humber projects, in
the Minister’s own backyard, have on the innovative,
collaborative and excellent Humber-Tees carbon capture,
utilisation and storage project?
I think there was some recognition of good news in there from the
hon. Gentleman. He and, unfortunately, all the Labour MPs in his
area seem endlessly to talk down Teesside, as it goes from
success to success under its excellent Mayor. Today is fantastic
news for Teesside, and as I have said, this is just the
beginning. We are starting projects now, we are accelerating
track 2 and we are promising an extension this year to track 1.
We are doing it. The hon. Gentleman, of whom I am a friend and
admirer, should stop talking down the success of his area, get
behind the development and look at how we have moved from the
dire situation in 2010 to the world leadership position we hold
today.
(Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
There is much to be welcomed in the Minister’s statement, but
excluding Drax from the track 1 CCS projects will come as a
surprise to many and a blow to the company’s employees in my
constituency and the wider region. I do not think there are any
projects in the Humber region that have got through on track 1.
The management at Drax will now have to urgently consider what to
do with their UK operations, especially when we consider the
challenging economics of biomass operations post March 2027.
Could the Minister clear something up for me? The Yorkshire Post
reported last August that the Prime Minister backed Drax’s
BECCS—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage—plans. Can my
right hon. Friend confirm that The Yorkshire Post reporting was
accurate, and if so, why has the Government’s position now
changed?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for being such
an active campaigner for Drax and probably the foremost champion
of power BECCS in this place. He is absolutely right that power
BECCS and Drax are critically important to this country and the
future of our net zero strategy. There are no power BECCS
projects going ahead in the first phase of the track 1 process
due to infrastructure constraints. We remain committed to our
ambitious CCUS targets, which include 5 million tonnes of
greenhouse gas removals by 2030, and power BECCS has a key role
to play in that. That is why we have put so much emphasis on
track 1 expansion and track 2, both of which will get further
CCUS projects operationalised by 2030. To respond to the specific
point my right hon. Friend made, the Department totally
understands that we need to work with Drax on a bridging option
between 2027 and 2030, and the Secretary of State has charged our
officials with working with Drax on what those options look
like.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
Just a week ago, the UN Secretary-General said we needed a
“quantum leap” when it comes to climate action. This Government
have laboured and, frankly, brought forth a mouse. There is no
new funding, no street-by-street home insulation plan, no
mandatory rooftop solar and no unblocking of onshore wind.
Instead, Ministers are gambling with technologies that are slow
and costly at best, and unproven at worst. While some CCS might
have a role for carbon-intensive industry, will the Minister
accept that—given its very high cost, high life-cycle emissions
and appalling record of delivery, and since it cannot achieve
energy security because fossil fuels will simply be sold on
global markets at global prices—CCS cannot be used as an excuse
for licensing new oil and gas in the middle of a climate
emergency?
I thank the hon. Lady for her question.[Interruption.] I think I
was disappearing like a mouse underneath the Dispatch Box there.
We of course made major announcements in the Budget. What today
is all about is giving the detail of how we are going to unlock
that. She raises the question of carbon capture and storage.
There is not a way for us to get to net zero without using carbon
capture and storage. I remember that it was said by the Labour
Government in 2003, if I recall correctly, that it was urgent.
Here we are, 20 years later, but I am delighted to
say—[Interruption.] I am delighted to say that, having had to
come into government with nobody insulated and practically no
renewables, and a note on a piece of paper saying there was no
money left, we are coming forward with proposals to put that
right.
(Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I had the great pleasure of opening the Siemens wind turbine
blade factory in Hull, very close to my right hon. Friend’s
constituency, which is living proof that net zero, low-cost
energy, energy security and jobs and prosperity can go hand in
hand. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the export
opportunities for the next generation of offshore wind—floating
offshore wind—working with countries including Japan? On nuclear,
will he consider accelerating the national planning statement so
that developers of small modular reactors do not have to wait
until 2025 to plan deployment? And on hydrogen, will the road map
include a target date for phasing out polluting grey hydrogen, as
recommended in a recent Science and Technology Committee
report?
I share my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the export
opportunities that lie ahead of us. By leaning in ahead of
others, as we have done and are doing, we can develop
technologies and solutions which can then be exported all around
the world, to the good of those other countries and ourselves. It
is great to see us brokering support for just energy transition
partnerships with the likes of Indonesia and Vietnam, who are
great partners for us going forward. We are setting out today our
vision for hydrogen and our commissioning of electrolytic
hydrogen projects as part of our effort to transform the
situation and move to a position where we have no unabated
hydrogen as soon as that can possibly be delivered.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
I am not sure what the Minister had for breakfast but it is
probably best avoided because his aggressive and belligerent
approach has undermined much of the good cross-party consensus
that there is on this important issue. No one can look at the
home insulation schemes of the last decade and imagine they are
anything other than a painful failure, so for cities such as mine
that have historical housing and need an insulation scheme, how
will the new schemes be different from the failures of the last
few years?
The hon. Gentleman talked about getting the tone right; perhaps I
responded in the appropriate tone to the way that the right hon.
Member for Doncaster North () addressed me. When I
consider that he was a Minister in the Government who so
spectacularly failed, it is all the more likely that I might be a
little spikey. [Interruption.] If he stops barracking for a
moment, I will respond to the hon. Member for Cambridge (), who asked about
insulation over the last 10 or so years: we have gone from 14% of
homes effectively insulated to half of all homes, and we have set
up the energy efficiency taskforce. We are driving forward and
putting a budget in place precisely to take this forward and
improve it further. With our support for heat pumps, we are
looking to green our houses and lower costs for families, as well
as meeting the climate challenge, on which the last Government
singularly failed and I am pleased to say that this Government
are making progress.
(Wokingham) (Con)
Who will pay for CCS as it does not generate any direct revenue
from retail customers?
To decarbonise industry, we will need CCS and hydrogen. We are
socialising the funding requirements across the piece to ensure
that we deliver what is necessary to meet our carbon targets, at
the lowest possible cost to consumers. This year we are also
consulting on measures to prevent carbon leakage, ensure that we
do not drive UK industry abroad, which I know my right hon.
Friend is concerned about, and instead maintain our
competitiveness as we move towards net zero.
(Bath) (LD)
If the Government were so serious about climate action why did
they need to be dragged into court and told by the High Court
that their existing plans are not sufficient? Now we have a new
strategy, but there is not very much new in it and still a de
facto ban on onshore wind. Will the Minister commit to cancel the
planned expansion of fossil fuel subsidies and instead commit to
a significant increase in onshore wind?
I am afraid the hon. Lady may want to correct the record because
she misled the House. The courts did not say our policies were
insufficient; they said they wished to have more detail on them.
We are responding to that technical point today, providing
further detail. [Interruption.] Absolutely, it was not a
reflection on the quality of those policies. We have met all our
carbon budgets to date and have set out today the way we will
meet our carbon budget 6, and, even though it is far ahead, we
have already set out policies to cover 97% of it. As I have also
said, we are looking to make sure that we come forward with more
opportunities for onshore wind, but with the consent of local
communities.
Sir (Maldon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and strongly
welcome the Government’s commitment to a new generation of
nuclear power stations, which are going to play an essential part
in delivering both energy security and net zero. Can he confirm
that, while a new Chinese-designed reactor may no longer be in
prospect, Bradwell-on-Sea in my constituency remains a designated
site for new nuclear investment?
The current nuclear policy statement identified Bradwell as a
site for nuclear electricity, as my right hon. Friend rightly
says, until the end of 2025. That statement continues to have
effect for any nuclear infrastructure deployable before the end
of that year, and of course with the launch today of Great
British Nuclear, its first job is to look at the process for
down-selecting technologies for small modular reactors, but it
will also be involved in a renewed siting policy that will look
at both gigawatt and SMR-scale nuclear projects.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Minister talks up energy security but fails to prioritise
onshore wind, the best value renewable energy. By when will the
Government remove the ban on onshore wind?
I have set out our position on onshore wind. The great thing
about the CfD system we have set up is that it has helped to
reveal costs. Ground-mounted solar might actually prove to be the
lowest cost generator, but thanks to the system this Government
have set up, we have competition between the various types of
energy, and we are continuing with that. Having led the world on
offshore wind and transformed the parlous situation we inherited,
with just 7% of electricity coming from renewables in 2010, I am
delighted to say that wind, both onshore and offshore, has a
brilliant future under this Conservative Government.
Sir (Rossendale and Darwen)
(Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of
Members’ Financial Interests.
I am sure the Minister will have read reports this morning that
his Department intends to bring forward a code that will
initially be voluntary but will then become mandatory saying that
mortgage lenders should ensure that their loan book only includes
properties that have an energy performance certificate of C or
above. Does the Minister accept that for those who live in an
older property, a doer-upper, a national park or a listed
property, the net effect of this policy is that they will have
zero chance of a mortgage?
No policy decision has been made in this area. We have consulted
and gone out and found ideas about the best way of doing this. My
right hon. Friend is right to identify that any system needs to
take account of the particularities of certain property types,
and we will ensure we do that so that we both align with net zero
and align with the reality of existing properties.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
I am pleased the statement mentioned the importance of energy
efficiency schemes, both for their contribution to our net zero
ambitions and the help they can offer households. The New
Economics Foundation estimates that had all homes across England
and Wales been upgraded to EPC rating C over the past decade,
energy bills would on average have been £530 cheaper per
household. I take it that the £1 billion allocated for the great
British insulation scheme is in addition to the £6 billion
committed at the autumn statement for expenditure post-2025. Is
the Minister considering ways of bringing forward some of this
spending so that even greater progress can be made?
We would be in a very different and much better situation if,
instead of inheriting such a tiny—derisory—number of properly
insulated homes when we came into power, we had had the 50% we
are at today. With the energy efficiency taskforce and my
colleague , we are bringing industry
and other stakeholders together, working with the Welsh
Government and others to make sure that we have all the right
policies, because the best form of energy is energy we do not
use: it is demand that we can remove and destroy. That is the
cheapest, and it can help us be a lean and efficient economy, and
with fewer people in fuel poverty.
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
Anglesey is known as energy island. We have wind, wave, solar,
tidal, hydrogen and, hopefully, new nuclear at Wylfa, and we have
projects like Morlais, Minesto, bp Mona, the Holyhead hydrogen
hub and Lightsource bp, so I welcome the statement to power up
Britain. Will the Minister confirm to me and my Ynys Môn
constituents, particularly those in Cemlyn, Cemaes and Amlwch,
that the UK Government are committed to new nuclear at Wylfa, and
will he accept my invitation to visit Wylfa, one of the best new
nuclear sites in the UK?
My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot make policy
commitments to Wylfa on the hoof. What I can tell her is that it
has already been assessed as one of the best nuclear sites in the
UK and that if the energy focus, determination and sheer drive of
the Member of Parliament has anything to do with it, Wylfa has a
very positive and strong nuclear future ahead of it. I look
forward to working with her. I am sure that if he has not visited
already, the new Minister for Nuclear and Networks—the first time
this country has ever had a Minister with “nuclear” in their
title—the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net
Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and
Kincardine (), will visit her in her
constituency.
(Leeds East) (Lab)
The way to deliver energy security, tackle the climate crisis and
lower bills as quickly as possible is through renewables, yet the
Government are hooked on ever more oil and gas production, and on
handing massive subsidies to polluting companies. Over 700
scientists have written to the Prime Minister to ask him to grant
no new oil and gas licences, a call backed by the United Nations
Secretary-General. Is it not time that the Minister used his
powers to prevent the development of the Rosebank oilfield?
We are accelerating renewables as quickly as we possibly can. As
I say, we have transformed the dire situation we inherited and we
are moving as fast as we can on that, but we are going to need,
and be dependent on, oil and gas for decades to come. Under net
zero, we will still be using a quarter of the gas we use today.
The hon. Gentleman is saying to his constituents, “Let’s pay
billions to foreign, sometimes hostile, states, rather than
producing our own.” That is economic madness. The gas we bring in
on tankers has two and a half times the emissions of our
domestically produced gas. On what planet would any rational and
reasonable constituency MP want to propose that, unless they had
some strange affinity with somewhere like Russia?
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
The Minister is exactly right that we are on the cusp of a new
industrial revolution. Floating offshore wind will be a key part
of that picture, so I welcome the confirmation he has given today
of the £160 million FLOMIS—floating offshore wind manufacturing
investment scheme—port infrastructure package. Will he confirm
when he is likely to start awarding that funding? Does he agree
with me that it needs to be used in a really targeted way to
unlock private sector investment and ensure we capture first
mover advantage with floating offshore wind? Will he visit the
port of Milford Haven to see the really exciting things happening
in the energy sector there?
I thank my right hon. Friend who, like my hon. Friend the Member
for Ynys Môn (), is relentless in
promoting and pursuing these interests. He can see that moving
towards net zero and capitalising on the huge natural assets
around Wales, can contribute to jobs, prosperity and industrial
renaissance, as well as help us to deliver the transition. I
would be delighted to visit him. In answer to his earlier
question, we want to do that as soon as possible. We announced
the opening of it today. We want to move forward. We have to
accelerate everything we can do right across the piece.
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
RenewableUK commented that the budget and parameters set for the
most recent contract for difference auction are currently too low
and too tight to unlock all the potential investment in wind,
solar and tidal stream. Tidal alone could produce huge amounts—up
to 11 GW —of reliable clean electricity for far less than the
cost of nuclear. The Minister claims he supports tidal, so why
have the Government cut their funding commitments to it?
We have not cut our funding commitments; we have moved to a
one-year allocation. The budgets are set based on our assessment
of projects and where they are in the planning and permissions
process. Those budgets, if projects can come forward and put
themselves in a different position, can be altered by Ministers.
I think we are in a fantastic position. We are the world leader
and we have put in a ring-fenced pot specifically for tidal, so I
suggest to the hon. Lady and her constituents that they should be
celebrating Government support for tidal. We are the world
leader, we are going further and our support continues. I look
forward to visiting Scotland, and indeed Orkney, next week with a
view to learning more about tidal potential, an enthusiasm for
which I share with her.
(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale
and Tweeddale) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend not just on his statement, but on
his long-standing passion for this subject. Perhaps he can expand
on something he referenced a moment ago: the fact that liquid gas
imported in tankers creates two and a half times as many
emissions as domestically produced gas in the North sea. Does he
not agree with me that it is incomprehensible that the SNP and
now Labour oppose domestic production, which is not only bad for
jobs, but bad for the environment?
My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. The hon.
Member for Leeds East () talked about growing our
oil and gas. We are net importers of oil and gas, and production
in the mature basin of the North sea is falling. Only new
investment can unlock the greening and electrification of
production, with even lower emissions in sight from the North sea
than from tankered gas coming in from abroad. My right hon.
Friend is absolutely right. If we did as the leader of the Labour
party, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St
Pancras (), said at Davos and had no new
oil and gas licences, we would not stop using gas; we would just
import more of it from abroad with higher emissions attached,
with no jobs, no tax and no long-term benefit to the United
Kingdom. That is not a tenable policy. I hope that, apart from
their far-left colleagues on the far Labour Back Benches,
everyone else in the Labour party recognises that is a crazy
position and it needs to change.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
I take the Minister’s recent comments to be a notification that I
will be having a constituency visit from him. I look forward to
that.
However, can I take him back to the question of energy security
and just remind him that there is more to energy security than
what we produce and where? It is also about the protection of
infrastructure and the assets around it. All this week, we have
had a Russian tug, the Nikolay Chiker, steaming up and down to
the east of Shetland in the vicinity of the pipeline servicing
Brent and Ninian. This morning, the tug has gone around to the
north-west of Shetland and is now doing the same thing in the
vicinity of the pipeline servicing the Laggan field to the west
of Shetland. It is a merchant vessel, but we know that the
Russian military often purpose merchant vessels in this way. Will
the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence
to see, first, if they know what is going on? Secondly, if they
do not, will they find out? Thirdly, what will we be doing in the
long term to protect these vital national assets?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Perhaps we can
follow up offline on that. As appropriate, I would certainly be
happy to engage with my colleagues in the MOD. As a Minister for
energy security, I keep all that under advisement. We will
formally notify him of my intention to come to his constituency
and, whether next week or another time, we can discuss this
matter further and make sure I can reassure him on what are very
well expressed concerns.
(Stroud) (Con)
I love the energy the Government are putting behind energy,
particularly nuclear. I hope that Berkeley and Oldbury will get a
small modular reactor, because the western gateway is working
really hard. Supersmart Stroud businesses are still coming up
against things like planning barriers for solar rooftop and
tracking, and Competition and Markets Authority problems for
financing options for renewables. The UK also needs to look
really lively to win the race on the hydrogen ICE—internal
combustion engine. I welcome the big announcements today, but
will the Government move the machine to resolve a raft of smaller
daily frustrations, so we can unleash some amazing British
businesses, many of which are in the Stroud district?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there was one priority
above all else in the Department, it would be ensuring that we
get the grid sorted and the infrastructure in place to allow that
transformation. We will publish an action plan this year in
response to the Electricity Networks Commissioner Nick Winser’s
recommendations, when he reports in June on halving the
development time for transmission network projects. However,
across the piece, we need to speed up connections, and sort out
the queue and perverse incentives in that system. We have a lot
to do and we are working at it. Only last week in No. 10 Downing
Street, the Prime Minister hosted an event looking at the
networks piece. The offshore wind acceleration taskforce had its
final meeting this week, which looked at grids, among other
things.
I thank the offshore wind champion Tim Pick for all his work, as
well as Nick Winser. I also take the opportunity to thank
officials in the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero,
who have put a huge amount of work into producing all these
policies and are working hard to ensure that implementation can
follow as fast as possible. Officials in my new Department have
absolutely shone and I look forward to taking forward our work
with their help.
(Blaydon) (Lab)
Too many homes in places such as Chopwell in my constituency
urgently need insulation and energy efficiency. They, and people
across the country, face additional charges of up to £1,000. How
will the Government take active steps to address issues such as
those in Chopwell, to ensure that they are energy efficient and
that people can benefit from better homes?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the issue. That is
why we have set up the energy efficiency taskforce. We are
putting in £6.5 billion in this Parliament, as well as announcing
the major insulation scheme today. We have another £6 billion
between 2025 and 2028. We are absolutely committed to ensuring
that homes are insulated. I am pleased that today’s announcements
will see 300,000 of the most energy-inefficient homes in the
country tackled, reducing families’ bills by hundreds of pounds a
year as a result.
(Dudley North) (Con)
With energy security a key strategic imperative for our Union, I
thank the Minister not only for this statement but for his
common-sense approach to investments in oil and gas as we
transition to a greener economy. Building on other Members’
comments about investment in British nuclear, such projects are
notoriously slow at being delivered. Can we look at how to very
quickly get spades in the ground and invest in small nuclear
reactors for the benefit of the country?
The reason for setting up Great British Nuclear is precisely to
de-risk, roll the pitch and accelerate technologies. One of the
benefits of small modular reactors as opposed to gigawatt scale
is quicker replicability. The hope is that it can move to a
factory-like process, eliminate errors iteratively and then
deliver nuclear energy safely, cheaply and more quickly than
previous technologies have allowed.
(Gordon) (SNP)
In relation to the Acorn project, I get a feeling of déjà vu. It
was promised in 2008 and ahead of the 2014 referendum, which to
some of us feels like a generation ago. Can the Minister do
something that none of his predecessors has ever been able to do:
tell us exactly the difference between a track 1 reserve project
and a track 2 project? Can he tell us what difference that will
make to the timescale for funding and delivery, should the Acorn
project finally be favoured by his colleagues?
The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. If one of the two selected
track 1 projects were to come off track, the reserve would move
up—that was the point. It was an indicator of the maturity and
viability of the Scottish cluster. We are moving fast. We have
announced the launch of track 2 now. We believe that the Scottish
cluster and the Viking cluster in the Humber are the two leading
contenders best placed to do it, and we will move forward with
speed. I look forward to working with him and colleagues to make
sure that the Scottish cluster can play a full part in our
future.
(North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s announcements and for
his ongoing engagement on the new Department’s work. Will he
reaffirm his commitment to rapid delivery of floating offshore
wind in the Celtic sea, along with the vital UK-based supply
chain and port infrastructure right around the Celtic sea
coast?
My hon. Friend is a member of a small, elite group of colleagues
who are relentlessly focused on ensuring that the energy
transition is done in the right way, leading to jobs and
prosperity for her constituents and others. I can confirm that.
Having announced the launch of FLOWMIS today, we look forward
rapidly to supporting the port infrastructure that is critical to
the delivery of floating offshore wind, and the maintenance of
the UK as the world leader on this vital technology. Estimates
show that only about 8% of potential offshore wind capacity
globally is on a fixed bed. For those who have a shallow
continental shelf like us, 92% is floating. There is enormous
opportunity for the UK if we unlock the infrastructure and the
jobs, because then we can export that capability all around the
world.
(Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Minister spoke of making policy on the hoof, so I wonder why
the Government’s policy seems to be chasing a unicorn. What
happens if the unicorn of carbon capture and storage turns out to
be a donkey with an ice cream on its head? Would it not be better
to unlock the stables of the reliable horses of home insulation,
solar and onshore wind?
So can I take it that the hon. Lady’s party is opposed? It failed
to support the regulated asset base regulations in Committee to
allow new nuclear to go ahead, despite its protestations to the
contrary. Now, she seems to be opposed to carbon capture and
storage, which offers enormous opportunities for all sorts of
industrial parts of the United Kingdom—another failure. On solar,
I am delighted to announce the launch of a solar taskforce
precisely to accelerate the take-up.
I cannot believe the gall of the Opposition party, which left
Government with just 11% of our electricity from renewables, when
it is around half now. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for
Doncaster North () failed in government, and
now he chunters from a sedentary position. We will drive forward
the solar taskforce. Having transformed our solar base, which is
greater than that of France—despite the larger area—and about
equivalent to the radiated country of Spain, we will increase it
fivefold by 2035. That is why we have the taskforce—because we
deliver. We do not just talk or chunter from a sedentary
position. We transform the UK’s energy system.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
If we are truly serious about speeding up the planning process
for energy production, the Minister’s new Department needs
exclusive planning control over all matters. Is that Government
policy? If it is, when is it likely to happen?
Talking of making policy on the hoof, my announcement today that
the Department would take over the entirety of the planning
system would cause something of a Whitehall ruckus. At least
twice this week I have met colleagues from the Department for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure a joined-up
approach across Government. That Department is alive to these
issues, as is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, my Department and the Ministry of Defence, which has
equities here. Joining up and working across Government so that
this is as seamless as possible—it is never entirely seamless—is
at the heart of delivering the changes in the system that we
need. My hon. Friend is right that planning is vital to that.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I have listened
attentively to him, I have read the Government publication and,
unfortunately, I did not see any reference to tidal energy. In
Strangford lough we have a ready-made project. I was pleased to
have the Minister over to visit the Queens University biology
station. The scientists there were very happy to see him there
and to have his input on the projects that we feel can make a
difference. Will he outline whether the potential of tidal energy
is getting the appropriate attention it deserves?
It was my great pleasure to be hosted by the hon. Gentleman at
Strangford lough and to hear all about the potential strengths of
the tides. I am delighted to see the growth of tidal energy. For
offshore wind, it took quite a while to build up what was a
nascent market. People said that we would never be able to lower
costs offshore, yet we did. I think that tidal is on that
pathway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the
ringfence, our continued support and our flexibility on budget as
and when projects come through. We seek to drive the cost curves
down so that, ultimately, we are technology neutral but support
and nurse new technologies such as that, which have great
potential.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
There is much to welcome in my right hon. Friend’s statement,
particularly in the Humber region, as he will recognise. He
referenced a £160 million fund for port infrastructure. Clearly,
improvements will be needed to cope with many of these projects.
Can he indicate when that is likely to come forward? I presume
there will be a bidding process. Will that be open fairly
soon?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let me follow up with
him to talk about more of the details, but I welcome, as he does,
the success of the Gigastack Phillips 66 project, the initial
hydrogen project. We are leading the world and, having met with
Phillips 66, I know that that type of refinery of the future has
a real opportunity to play an important part in delivering the
green transition on a number of fronts. It is fantastic to see it
successful in today’s announcements.
(Waveney) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. This strategy rightly
focuses on security of energy, its cost and decarbonisation. I
would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government will
also concentrate on the enormous opportunity to create jobs, and
that they will come forward quickly with both a skills strategy
and a plan for investment in infrastructure, which should include
both the grid and ports such as Lowestoft?
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive contribution, as
ever. I co-chair the green jobs delivery group. We are working
closely with industry to ensure that we get the signals from them
across multiple trades, and engaging with the Department for
Education to ensure that it can use those inputs to construct
various courses to support that. We are absolutely focused. The
reason we have a Minister for nuclear and networks is that we
recognise that we have to get that infrastructure right. If we
get it right—look at the success we have already had and at our
investability going forward—it will be a tremendous transition,
generating lower-cost energy and making us one of the most
competitive economies in the world.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Minister for his statement and for responding to
questions for over an hour. Could he stay in his place a little
longer, as this point of order relates to him?
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has accused
me of misleading the House and asked me to correct the record. I
am happy to do that. My question should read: “If the Government
were serious about climate action, why did the Government need to
be dragged into court and told by the High Court that their
existing policies are lacking detail?” I apologise to the House
that I used the word “insufficient” rather than “lacking
detail.”
Mr Deputy Speaker
Does the Minister wish to respond?
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Court
asked for more detail and I am delighted to say that is precisely
what we have provided today. There was no suggestion from the
Court that our policies were not adequate. It wished for more
detail and we have been delighted to share that.
|
