Michael Shanks MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I have made my position very clear on that project. We were carrying out national security assessments, which should always rightly take priority. The First Minister of Scotland has been briefed on the security grounds for doing that. He is aware of why we reached the decision that we reached. I am obviously not going to comment further on that. Our national security always comes first. Something that I have always said in this role is that our domestic production in the UK does matter. It sustains jobs and it delivers tax receipts and the gas that flows into our pipes every single day. We are not a Government that are for turning off the taps, and we never have been. But we are for recognising that a transition is under way and that investing in what comes next is critical. I am afraid that that is at the heart of the problem with the argument put forward by the Opposition, because they say that we need to build up the jobs that come next, but then oppose all the decisions that drive forward that investment. They criticise that there are not enough jobs coming from renewables but then say that we should not invest in the renewables projects that create those jobs. That is not a coherent argument to have.

• 24 Jun 2026 · North Sea Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right on that point, and I will come to it in a moment because it is the main thrust of my speech. I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) said and also welcome Donald MacKinnon into his place. I know he will be a strong advocate for the western isles. My hon. Friend rightly recognised that this is about a sense of identity. Yes, it is about a job and a pay packet at the end of the month, but it is also about a sense of belonging to an industry that many people have worked on in incredibly difficult circumstances for a long time. Since I came into this job as Energy Minister two years ago, and as a Scottish MP and someone who has friends and family working offshore right now, I have always said that getting the transition right for those workers is central. We have seen too many failed economic transitions in the past, so we have to learn the lessons from that. As hon. Members have made very clear today, we must also see the huge potential that comes from the projects that we need in the future, not least in the supply chain that will build many of the projects that we need as part of our transition to clean energy. That will come from those very workers, so it is hugely important that we put them at the centre of all of this. We also have to recognise that this did not somehow just start happening in July 2024. We have been in a period of transition for decades now. A third of jobs in the industry have been lost in the past 10 years, and we cannot accept that failed status quo any more. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the realities of the need for us to fund this transition properly will not protect a single job, nor will it create a new one. Nor will abandoning the sector entirely and turning off the taps as others would seek to do. I notice that this is yet another energy debate where no Green MPs—who have the most extreme positions on this issue—have bothered to turn up. It must never become a binary conversation. The North Sea Future Board, which I chair, has just produced a statement on what we are seeking to do to drive forward this transition. That says that, at the heart of it, that transition is not about one industry being pitted against another. It is about stewarding the future of the North sea through collaboration and through managing all the opportunities that come, as well as an obligation to work together. There is always rightly a lot of heat in these debates, but I honestly believe that underneath it all there is a lot more consensus about the need, not for one or the other, but for all the energy that we can get and for all the jobs that come from it. I will briefly say what our position is on the North sea. Gas has been flowing into this country for more than 60 years and is continuing to flow into this country 24/7. I was pleased to be at Bacton gas terminal a few weeks ago to see the skilled work that they do to manage up to a third of this country’s gas. It will continue to be a vital resource for decades to come, but it is also a basin that has been in decline. The most accessible oil and gas has been extracted. Production has been in decline for a quarter of a century, and it reduced by approximately 75% between 1999 and 2024. That did not begin in July 2024.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to that point. I appreciate the importance of consultation, but I thought the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury put it very well. Consultation is not a briefing exercise; it is a listening exercise, and a reshaping of things on the basis of what we hear back. I will say more about that in just a moment. Let me be really clear about how this project is being developed. The Peak project is being developed independent of Government and is at an early stage. It is crucial that developers engage fully with local communities as they develop the proposals, and they will have to work towards introducing a proposal into the planning system. I have been very clear with developers directly that the project has to take local views into account and offer clear benefits to local communities. If that does not happen, the submission will simply not be taken forward. I am aware that proposals have received a number of local stories in the press and that a public petition has received many signatures. Let me echo something that the hon. Lady said. There is a way to engage in this process. Robust comments are important, as people care deeply about these things, but abuse targeted at either those involved in the project or hon. Members is not a productive way to take this work forward. I hope that there will be a process in which people feel they can genuinely participate. As I understand it, the Peak Cluster has plans for more extensive consultation later this year, before any final proposals are made. No decision has been made by the Government either to support the project or on the development consent order process, which will be completed once the proposal is submitted and will be completed in the way that these processes always are—in a quasi-judicial way, by the Secretary of State. Let me respond to a couple of specific challenges raised in the debate. On safety, it is really important to make the case to the public that carbon capture is a very tried-and-tested technology that has been deployed across industry and power generation at scale for a long time. Geological carbon dioxide storage has been in operation for decades, and Norway has stored CO 2 since 1996, with more than 20 million tonnes stored so far. Our regulatory regime rightly has to raise the safety levels to ensure that continues. The hon. Lady raised a number of other points, which I will happily pick up with her in more detail, but let me make a final point in closing. We want to be a Government who drive forward on reducing our carbon emissions and build the technologies of the future, but we do not govern by diktat. The views of local communities matter—they matter deeply to me, but also to the Secretary of State and to this process. The only way this works for everyone involved is if those views are taken seriously, and if communities feel that their views are taken seriously by all those involved. We must also all recognise the really important benefits that come from carbon capture and the pathway we are on as a Government. That is the balance that we seek to achieve as a Government—taking the views of local people seriously, but also building the infrastructure that this country needs for the future. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing this debate before the House, and my hon. Friends for contributing to it. Question put and agreed to.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The National Wealth Fund is independent in the decisions it makes. It has clearly made decisions based on the Government’s ambitions on carbon capture, but on this particular project it made investment independent of my Department, which has not made any funding commitments to the Peak project. That should be seen as just a decision for the National Wealth Fund and not as any wider support from the Government at this stage.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I will take interventions in a moment—I have clearly started something. The major thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was about how the voices of communities are heard in the consultation process.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Carbon Capture Pipeline Projects: Cheshire · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing the debate and on her work gathering her constituents’ views. I genuinely welcome the tone that she has taken. As a personal reflection, I miss the fact that a great many subjects that we used to debate in this place used to be debated in that tone, with a genuine desire to get the right outcome, with a bit less heat and a bit more substance. I hope that we can get back to that in debates about the energy sector. I will come to the points raised by the hon. Lady in a moment. I recognise that the project she mentioned has a lot of interest from her constituents, as well as those in neighbouring constituencies, but it is part of the wider carbon capture industry in the UK, so before I come to those specific points, I will take a moment to explain our wider position on carbon capture. Carbon capture, usage and storage will decarbonise industry and power in a way that drives economic growth and supports jobs, as well as our climate goals. Through CCUS we can produce flexible, low-carbon power, displacing the use of unabated gas when renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are not available. CCUS will be critical. I welcome the hon. Lady’s recognition that our pathway to reducing our carbon emission matters, and that the route we take to get there matters as well. In our view, carbon capture plays a part in that. I was reflecting on the commitment by previous Governments to this. The shadow Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), put it very well in December 2023, when she was the Energy Secretary: “Thanks to the UK’s geology, skills and infrastructure, we are in a unique position to lead the way on carbon capture technologies.” I welcome those comments because they set out the right approach to take, but I think there are now some new ideas among Conservative Front Benchers. CCUS at home is one part of the story, but the story is also about how we export that technology and expertise abroad. McKinsey recently forecast that the global investment in the industry could be worth up to £135 billion by 2035. We want the UK to be at the forefront of that and to capture as much of that potential as possible. We have several advantages that make us well placed to take that forward. Our first clusters in the UK are projected to support an average of 4,800 direct jobs, while the sector as a whole can deliver up to 50,000 jobs and £2.8 billion of gross value added by 2050, and includes jobs included in north-west England and north Wales. The question of how we reduce emissions from cement has been referenced. The HyNet cluster, which I visited a few months ago, and Padeswood cement works are examples of projects that are moving forward where carbon capture technology not only reduces our emissions and creates jobs in the process, but protects jobs at the cement works that have been rooted in that community for decades. This is about protecting our industrial base as well as building what we need for the future. Although I welcome the hon. Lady’s important point about low-carbon cement, this is not an either/or situation. There should be a place for innovation. Where we see technological solutions coming forward, we should support them as much as possible. I agree with her point about prevention being better that cure, but we also need to protect the industries that we have and the jobs that go with them. I hope that we can do both. I welcome the chance to talk about the specifics of the Peak Cluster project, which the hon. Lady particularly wants to talk about. I also welcome the conversations that I have had with a number of other hon. Members over the past few months on this issue. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), who joins me on the Front Bench, and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, have all raised questions, some very similar to those raised by the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. They are legitimate questions about how we ensure that safety is a paramount consideration—

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the comments of both hon. Gentlemen, in particular those of the hon. Member for West Dorset, who spoke to the actual draft regulations. I thank him for his support. I also thank the official Opposition for their support for all that we do in energy policy, or so it seemed from the speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. The hon. Member for West Dorset spoke about increasing the CfD lifetime, but we did extend the CfD from 15 to 20 years. We recognised the impact on the cost of investment, which brought down—or played a part in bringing down—some of the bid prices into the auction. We will maintain those changes into AR8 before we open the round. On the more general points that were made, I think that there is a moment here to reflect. AR7 was the most successful renewables auction that we have ever had. Crucially, however, it was an auction that brought in prices 40% lower than those for building and operating new gas. That was before the situation in the middle east arose. I do not have the actual figure for what the difference would be now, but we can all safely assume that with the price of gas where it is today, it would be a significantly higher saving now than it was then. That is the truth of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire saying that he opposes forcing families to pay more; what he is proposing is to force families to pay for gas, which is significantly higher in price right now, and is often much higher. He is gambling that at some point in the future gas prices might come down, so everything will be okay. We are determined not to drive forward our energy system in that way. From an energy security point of view, there has never been a clearer argument than what we are facing right now. Only four years ago, we faced exactly the same question with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have to learn the right lessons, not continue to make the same mistakes. The last point that I would make—with your patience, Mr Stringer, because none of this is in the draft regulations—is on curtailment and storage. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the cost of building the grid, but as much as I would love to take credit for this Government for building the renewables projects that are generating clean power in this country, the truth is that most of them were built under the previous Conservative Government. I give the Conservatives credit for that, even if they do not wish to give it to themselves. What they did not do, however, was build the grid to connect those projects up. We were left with generation right across the country and a grid that was completely out of phase. A lesson for us to learn from the 14 years of Conservative Government is to build the grid to connect the clean power to households, to connect the economic growth opportunities that we need badly, and to get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster as fast as possible, so that we are not forcing families to pay sky-high prices for gas, which we can never control. That is what the draft regulations help us to achieve, and I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 April. They make several minor and technical amendments to improve the operational efficiency of the contracts for difference scheme during the assessment of applications. Subject to the will of Parliament, the Government intend to introduce those targeted and practical measures in time for allocation round 8, which opens on 20 July. For the interest of Committee members, the CfD scheme is the Government’s flagship policy for supporting new low-carbon electricity generation in Great Britain. CfDs are awarded through annual competitive auctions, with the lowest-priced bids being successful. In March, in response to events in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary outlined a package of measures to go further and faster on clean power, including bringing forward the opening of AR8 to July to provide certainty for clean energy investors. The most recent allocation round, AR7, alone secured 14.7 GW of clean, home-grown generating capacity across 201 new projects. AR7 built on the success of AR6—out in September 2024—which secured more than 7 GW of renewable capacity across Great Britain. AR7 was the most successful renewables auction in European history. The reforms we introduced for AR7 boosted competition and investor confidence, and secured renewable capacity at strike prices 40% lower than the cost of building and operating a new gas power plant. Such achievements show how the CfD scheme—our key path to deliver on our mission of clean power by 2030—strengthens Britain’s energy security. The regulations that govern the scheme are kept under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The draft regulations will make the following three targeted amendments to improve the future operation of the scheme. First, they will enable the National Energy System Operator to correct certain types of error it makes during the assessment of applications by issuing new or amended qualification decisions, where evidence supports that. NESO, in its role as the CfD delivery body, assesses applications against the eligibility criteria and determines whether applicants qualify to participate in the competitive allocation process. As the CfD scheme has grown in popularity, the volume of applications has increased significantly, with several hundred submitted in recent allocation rounds. Eligibility checks are always robust, but larger numbers of applications increase the risk of errors in assessment decisions. This amendment will ensure greater consistency and fairness in how the eligibility requirements are applied. Secondly, the draft regulations will enable NESO to consider additional information or documentary evidence submitted by applicants when examining appeals from non-qualification decisions. That change will help to avoid projects being disqualified for minor or trivial omissions from their applications. It should streamline the process and ultimately increase the number of participants in the auction, which will help us by driving greater competition and better value for money for bill payers. Thirdly, the regulations clarify how NESO is to treat applications where eligibility has not yet been decided by the point at which the regulations require NESO to proceed with the auction. In the light of operational experience from AR7, this amendment will remove some ambiguity in existing regulations. Finally, the draft regulations provide for procedures or information relating to the implementation of several of the measures that I have just described to be set out in the contract allocation framework—a statutory document that contains the eligibility criteria and rules governing how NESO must allocate CfDs in an allocation round. The Government published a draft of the framework setting out the proposed requirements for AR8 on 1 June, and invited stakeholder views. The final version will be published in early July, before the round opens to applications. These amendments received strong stakeholder support in a recent public consultation, which showed broad recognition that the changes will improve the experience of applicants during the assessment process, support more effective competition and secure better value for money for consumers. This approach reflects our continued close engagement with industry in the development of the CfD scheme. By building on the foundations that we laid in AR7, the draft regulations will strengthen the procedures and simplify the operation of the scheme, which will drive progress towards clean power by 2030, while of course helping us in our No. 1 mission of securing value for money for bill payers. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight this issue. We have provided funding to support the development of carbon capture projects in Northern Ireland, such as Catagen’s biohydrogen reactor in Belfast. We welcome engagement on further carbon capture, usage and storage projects. It is a really important part of decarbonisation, and I am happy to engage on it further.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We see carbon capture as a hugely important part of how we decarbonise, and we have supported clusters already. We are looking at what a future model could look like; equally, we need to see other projects coming forward on commercial terms to ensure that they are viable. I continue to meet with all the clusters, and I chair the CCUS taskforce to ensure that we are doing as much as we can.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done to support the workers from Grangemouth. I wrote to him earlier this week on the case of his two constituents. The training fund was set up to provide that support. We will continue to look at it, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it further.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a crucial aspect of the local power plan. We need to support communities in developing the project, and then creating a market in which they can sell electricity locally. We are working with Ofgem and partners to ensure that can happen, and we will say more in due course.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but because it is a live planning application under independent examination, it is not possible for me to comment further. I obviously encourage him and his constituents to register with the Planning Inspectorate, if they have not done so already, so that they can share their views.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on live applications for obvious reasons. We look at every single application on its merits; even though we have ambitions for where we want to get to, individual planning applications are considered on the individual merits on which they are presented.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right about the ambition, and that is why we commissioned the independent review by my noble Friend Lord Whitehead. We will respond to that review in due course, and we are ambitious about the role that GGRs can play.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it is a basic fact that the very short-term disruption at both Glasgow and Edinburgh airport was caused by driver disruption. That has now been resolved, and flights are carrying on as normal. There is not an issue with jet fuel in the UK at all; that is just a fact, and I am happy to put that on the record. My hon. Friend is right to say that the failure of both the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government to plan for what was well known—the closure of Grangemouth—has meant that we lost the opportunity to build on the industries that were there. However, we have committed £200 million, so that there is an industrial future at Grangemouth. We have announced the first projects from that, and there are many more to come.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to highlight the enormous potential. For a very long time, the UK has not been good at growing the good innovation and spin-outs coming out of our university and innovation space. We need to nurture them, but also build on them and invest in them in the future. That is why we are investing in that early stage development, and it is also why Great British Energy is interested in what the next set of innovations are, how we can back them and, crucially, how we can keep the intellectual property here in the UK and also build the supply chains and the industry that goes along with it. It is a huge opportunity for us, and today’s report from the CBI outlines just how crucial it is to the overall British economy that we continue to grow and nurture the exact industries that he talks about.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right to champion her local community. I have met with those involved in the Dorset super cluster before, and I am happy to do so again, because we do see huge potential for the clean energy transition right across the country. As she rightly says, it is also about how we create good, well-paid jobs in every community, so I am very happy to meet her to discuss it further.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  The very simple answer is that we are continuing to use the North sea—no one is switching off what we are producing in the North sea—but the amount that we are able to extract from the North sea has been in long-term decline. The right hon. Lady knows that because she was the Secretary of State who talked a lot about the need for a transition in the North sea—she recognised then that the North sea has been in decline. We have been a net importer for more than 20 years, so this is not a short-term position. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), gave the game away a few minutes ago: the answer to this is how we build the industries that come in the future, alongside retaining oil and gas for many decades to come.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Transition from Fossil Fuels: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  With that new-found consensus on the clean power mission, I am happy to report to the House that we are making good progress towards our targets. We delivered the most successful renewables auction in history through allocation round 7, securing enough home-grown power for 11 million homes, as well as delivering a record-breaking 269,000 solar installations last year, the majority of which were on rooftop sites. By moving further and faster towards electrification, we are reducing our dependency on global fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security here at home.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Chinese-manufactured Solar Panels · Hansard source

  More

  As I said during the passage of the Great British Energy Bill, I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of tackling modern slavery as a country across supply chains and across the economy. It is right that we take action. We are tackling forced labour where we find it in global supply chains, and we want to go further. GBE will be a leader in how we tackle modern slavery, and it has set up a function to look at sustainable supply chains and to ensure that they are free from modern slavery.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Chinese-manufactured Solar Panels · Hansard source

  More

  The provisions under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 drive industry action via due diligence and transparency to tackle forced labour in supply chains for solar panels. All procurement conducted under Government and GBE contracts is required to meet those standards.

• 2 Jun 2026 · EU Internal Electricity Market · Hansard source

  More

  Co-operation with our EU counterparts is vitally important when it comes to energy security. I recently travelled to the WindEurope conference in Madrid, where I joined other European Ministers to discuss how recent global events have shown that we have to work together to deliver on our energy security. We have held constructive discussions with the EU on the internal electricity market and those continue.

• 2 Jun 2026 · EU Internal Electricity Market · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member. We have this bizarre situation where we have chuntering from the Opposition Front Benchers about the fact that we have interconnections with Europe. We have had them for decades, and they are important to our energy security. That was the case under both Governments, and theirs is an absurd position. He is absolutely right to say that in a moment of geopolitical uncertainty, closer links with Europe are important. Our interconnectors import and export every single day to the benefit of consumers in Britain. We want to see much more efficient energy trading, and that is why we are working on those formal negotiations about the EU internal electricity market, which is important for Britain.

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  I say that the Scottish National party’s plan for independence for energy was the flimsiest of flimsy documents. It had no plan for how independence would bring down bills, because the truth of the matter is that independence would tear apart any argument on energy security and drive up bills for people right across Scotland. That is why people rejected it in the referendum 10 years ago. The Tories and their former friends and colleagues now sitting on the Reform Benches want to solve a dependence problem by becoming even more dependent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined earlier, we will not be taking that course. This is the moment to end our reliance on fossil fuels, to electrify the wider economy and to speed up our transition to clean, secure, home-grown energy, which does give us energy sovereignty. That is the road to national security. Along the way, we seize the economic opportunity of the 21st century, with 400,000 extra good energy jobs and billions of pounds in investment by 2030 alone.