Michael Shanks MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 24 Mar 2026 · Grid Capacity: West London · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has framed that perfectly. The challenge is not just about being able to get clean power into homes and businesses; on the demand side, it is also about how we can connect these critical economic growth opportunities. That is partly why we have cleared out the connections queue, so that more projects can connect. We have also launched a consultation to look at how we reform the demand side of the queue. Fundamentally, though, we have to build more grid—we have not built the grid that is needed since the 1960s. We are now embarking on the biggest grid upgrade in a generation, which is how we unlock the potential in communities like the hon. Gentleman’s and right across the country.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Grid Capacity: West London · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right that strategic infrastructure planning is crucial, which is why we are engaging in the first ever national strategic spatial energy plan, which will lead to a centralised strategic plan for the future of the network. We are also looking at how we manage demand projects such as data centres across the country in order to get the greatest advantage. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the local benefits that can come from heat networks. We will be carrying out heat network zoning to identify where waste heat can be reused, which will bring huge benefit for communities. We are also delivering the jobs that go with the building of the network, ensuring the manufacturing and infrastructure jobs that the UK has missed for many years.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution later. He is also very likeable—he kindly said that of me and I appreciated it. He talked about “lunacy made flesh”; in the past, he has remarked that his own party’s policy of cancelling auctions for renewables has been lunacy. The truth is that we need both: we need oil and gas for many years to come, but we also need to build what comes next. I am afraid that point is entirely lost on those on his party’s Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the US earlier and said that the UK was a price taker, not a price maker. The difference is that the US is responsible for a quarter of the world’s gas; we are not. By all standards, we have a minuscule amount of gas in the international markets. I am not saying that we should not be hugely grateful to have that gas in the seas around our country, but it is a minuscule amount compared with the global gas take. Therefore, we will always be a price taker, not a price maker. There were a number of contributions that I will not have time to come to, but I want to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). I think he quoted me to myself in saying that energy policy is not a theoretical exercise. I agree with him, and today’s motion states that we need to look at the reality of where we are as a country and how we deliver our energy security in an uncertain world. That means having a mix of energy and it means moving faster to deliver the clean, home-grown power that is the very thing that can protect households right now and allow us to take responsibility for our environmental impact. Conservative Members used to be great champions of the need to tackle the existential challenge to this planet that is the climate crisis, and there was great consensus in this place and across our politics on that. They have rowed back from that in a desperate attempt to chase Reform down the cul-de-sac of being anti-net zero, but in doing so they are turning their backs on the tens of thousands of jobs that will be created in the future. I spoke earlier about the importance of learning the right lessons from this crisis. As long as we are dependent on the volatile global fossil fuel market, we will always be vulnerable to the kind of price shocks that we are seeing today. When faced with events like that, the public rightly expect us to work out the pathway that reduces that exposure and protects their household bills long into the future. Today, we have heard no plan whatsoever for doing that from the Conservatives; indeed, we have just heard a plan to double down on the very exposure that households are paying the price for. The alternative path is to invest in the clean energy transition and recognise that oil and gas will play an important part in that, but also to invest as quickly as we can in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen, and in decommissioning our offshore assets, which will produce many, many jobs for a long time to come. That is why we have attracted £90 billion of investment since we began this challenge. It is why we are tackling the gridlock in the national grid that has held back projects for so long. It is why we are creating thousands of jobs across the country. Every wind turbine that we switch on, every solar panel that we install and every bit of grid that we build that was neglected by the Conservatives for far too long helps us to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and helps us to protect bills. There is an important debate at the heart of this issue, and I regret that the motion tabled by the Opposition does not help us to have it. It ultimately comes down to a choice: do we want to continue on the rollercoaster of fossil fuels, or do we want to take control of our energy future with secure, home-grown energy, creating jobs, cutting bills and strengthening our national resilience? At a moment like this, this Government are clear what path we are on. It is the right choice for the British public. I commend to the House the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an interesting debate at times—at other times, perhaps it has not been—but it is a timely and important debate, as many people sitting at home will be watching the situation in the middle east concerned about the cost of living, our energy security and the impact that our energy policies have on their lives. Let me start, as the shadow Minister rightly did, with what I thought was an outstanding contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). She rightly centred the debate, as others should have done, on the workers who have powered the country for decades. I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of them in the 20 months I have had this job—not on one visit to Aberdeen, but on many. They have done the job that we have asked of them in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They have risked their lives—indeed, many have lost their lives—in the pursuit of the energy that we have used for six decades. I will never diminish the role that the North sea has played for six decades in powering the country. It has been a source of energy, a source of revenue and a source of good jobs not just in the north-east of Scotland but beyond that in the east and north-east of England and right across the country. Its workers are sought after around the world for their skills and experiences. My right hon. Friend rightly challenged what we have heard from the Opposition in the debate. Slogans do not protect those jobs. Standing up with nothing but rhetoric and pretending that the 70,000 jobs lost on their watch were somehow irrelevant will not help, and it diminishes the scale of the challenge we face. Slogans will not build the jobs of the future. The shadow Minister talked about a lack of turbines in Aberdeen harbour, yet his party would rip up the auction that delivers the contracts that will create those jobs—and he has the brass neck to say that that is a problem with our Government’s policy. It is his policy that caused the problem. The shadow Minister talked about numbers on a spreadsheet, as if we do not care about the workers caught up in this. That is why we are building the transition and investing in the future, while they ignored it. When we started becoming a net importer—not in July 2024, as some Opposition Members would like to pretend, but in 2003—we should have been looking at the transition. I am willing to accept that the previous Labour Government should have done more on this. The Conservatives should accept that over 14 years, as they saw thousands of jobs disappear from the industry, they should have been doing everything in their power to build up what came next. They failed to do that. We have heard a number of straw man arguments put forward today about the North sea being closed. The North sea, right now, continues to send gas into our gas network and it will continue to do so for decades to come. However, the transition is hugely important. It has been under way for decades and we have to acknowledge how important it is to invest in what comes next. The events of recent weeks should concentrate minds. We should have learned the right lessons coming out of the invasion of Ukraine but we did not, and we must now learn the right lessons coming out of this present crisis. Doubling down on fossil fuels does not give us energy security; it makes us depend even more on the very volatility that has driven us into economic problems time after time. More than half the economic shocks that have faced this country have been caused by fossil fuels, and the Conservative party’s answer is to double down and have even more of it. That is not a plan for the future of this country.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That is how we end up with absolutely no industry left in the country. That is what we are trying to rebuild after 14 years of it falling apart. I will turn to the specific points. First of all, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made a good point about the strength of supply chains in the north-east of Scotland; I will be in Aberdeen again on Thursday. One of the key things that the North Sea Future Board has taken as a real priority is how we map those supply chains, not just over oil and gas but over what could come in terms of offshore wind, decommissioning, hydrogen and carbon capture. For too long, the pipeline of future projects that that supply chain could be redeployed on has not been clear enough. As a result, we have been losing out on contracts that could be dealt with here in the UK. We are determined to try to fix that, because there are significant supply-chain opportunities, but we need to make it easier for companies to take those up. The shadow Minister and I always agree on new nuclear, although we slightly disagree on how much he achieved when he was the Nuclear Minister—but I will not mention that, because I want us to work co-operatively on nuclear. New nuclear is incredibly important. As he is right to say, the supply-chain benefits in the UK from nuclear are substantial: thousands and thousands of jobs in communities right across the country, not just in proximity to Sizewell or Hinkley, are contributing in different ways to building what are phenomenal engineering projects here in the UK. The small modular reactor fleet that the Government not only consulted on but have actually delivered—and are delivering—will result in even more supply-chain jobs across the country as well. The shadow Minister and I also agree that we would like to see some of those SMR projects being built in Scotland, with even closer supply chains in Scotland as well, but we first need to change the Scottish Government in May; I am glad that he will be supporting a vote for Scottish Labour on 7 May to do that. The shadow Minister also raised a number of other points about the supply chain that I think are right. It is absolutely right to say that floating offshore wind is an expensive technology, but we are at the cutting edge of its development. We have a real opportunity to do something differently on deep-sea wind, which we were not able to do on fixed-bottom wind, to have the supply chain here in the UK. We have the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world; we have one of the biggest projects in the world. That is an opportunity for us to deliver on that innovative supply chain, but it takes investment for that to happen. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked a number of genuine questions, which I appreciated. First, the regulations themselves very clearly set out the sunset clause as 31 December 2028. This will be eligible for the allocation rounds before that date; if we wanted to continue the scheme beyond that, we would have to come and update these regulations again, but it is not an unlimited fund. On the projected budget for AR8, I cannot get into projected budgets because they are driven by the initial allocation that is set, and then by the bids that come in. In AR7, we reformed the process so that we could see the bid stack in order to see what projects were in that option round, although they were anonymised. That resulted in the budget getting us the output of offshore wind that we did, at a price that was 40% cheaper than new-build gas. That is what we should hold on to: the AR7 option round was cheaper for consumers than the equivalent would be. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that there is no option to not build new energy infrastructure in this country. We have two choices: we either double down on gas, and the world as it stands right now is a reminder of why that would be a mistake; or we build renewables. There is no option to build nothing. There is a cost for consumers, regardless of what we choose to do. There is also a huge cost for consumers of building the grid that the previous Government failed to build for 14 years, which we are now determined to do. On the fair work charter, there is no compulsion on any developers to bid into the clean industry bonus. If they want to participate in the contracts for difference auction, they are very welcome to do that. If they want to participate in the clean industry bonus and have public support for supply chains here in the UK, then they should conform to the requirements of that scheme. We think it is absolutely fair to say that if the hard-working people of this country are putting money into building those factories, fair work should be at the heart of it. I am surprised, frankly, that in 2026 anyone would think that fair work is something that we should not support by any means necessary.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the point. First of all, I have been really clear. This regulation, as it clearly sets out, comes to an end on 31 December 2028. We will come back to the Committee to update the regulations should we wish to continue the scheme. We have run AR7—it was a successful scheme. Obviously, we want to monitor what happens in AR8 and AR9. We may be able to devise other schemes. It may be that by then that our industrial strategy has delivered the supply-chain benefits across the UK and that that is not necessary, but supply chains do not come out of nowhere. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made one other point that I wanted to come back to. When we left Government, two supply chain companies were building solar in this country. When we took back Government in 2024, there were none. If we want to have supply chains in the UK, we have to support and invest in them. That is not just a cost. It also delivers good jobs across the country, and our energy security. On the question about raising bills, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is quite wrong. The outcome of building the clean power system is that we will bring down bills, but we have to be able to build it and that means supply chains here in the UK as well, because the rest of the world is also in a race to build clean energy infrastructure.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will address a few things. There were some contradictory comments from different Members of the same party: on the one hand, we should support the supply chains, but on the other, the Government should do nothing to actually build them up. I will come to that point, because—

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his second speech in the debate.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a no, because the counterfactual, of relying on gas, as his party is so determined to do, would put up everyone’s bills significantly. We are the ones bringing down bills, and on 1 April all our constituents will see that the decisions this Government have made will reduce their bills by 7%. There are a number of points in this statutory instrument that I could go over again; in the interests of everyone’s time, I will not. I reinforce the point that we believe that if we are building an energy system for the future here, we should deliver the good jobs and industrial benefits that come with that. That should not be a controversial argument, but it seems that it still is. If we want to have an industrial strategy, we cannot be agnostic, sit on the sidelines and hope that someone else will do it—we have to drive it forward. If we want our constituents to have good, well paid jobs across the country, helping build the energy system, we have to do something about it. This Government are doing that, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and it is wonderful to see so many Scots reunited for this debate. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 5 February; I should say from the outset that they still carry the legacy name of this policy, although it is now known as the clean industry bonus. I will briefly set out three things: first, the purpose and direction of the clean industry bonus; secondly, how the draft regulations help us to evolve the contracts for difference scheme; and thirdly, why funding under the scheme is now conditional on applicants adhering to the fair work charter, which I will come to in a moment. First, the purpose of the statutory instrument is to amend regulations governing the clean industry bonus ahead of allocation round 8. As I am sure Members are aware, the contracts for difference scheme is our main renewable energy support mechanism. The clean industry bonus offers additional CfD revenue to offshore wind developers who invest in UK factories and ports needed to deliver offshore wind, driving investment in our industrial heartlands. Offshore wind developers have rightly prioritised reducing costs, but the CfD scheme was missing a mechanism to ensure that investments went back into the UK, and to cleaner factories, so that consumers got both clean power and local jobs. That goes to the heart of this Government’s mission to deliver not only clean power but our industrial strategy. Funding under the clean industry bonus is allocated through a competitive process that is run ahead of the main CfD round, with awards given out for the best value investments in the UK or for cleaner supply chains. Payments are released only on delivery of those commitments. In the most recent allocation round 7, £204 million was allocated through the clean industry bonus, which crowded in £3.4 billion of private investment—that is £204 million for £3.4 billion of private investment into supply chains and ports in the UK, delivering a strong return on public investment. The scale of private investment leveraged by the clean industry bonus represents an unprecedented vote of confidence in the UK’s supply chains, compared with previous allocation rounds. Let me set out the direction of travel in the draft regulations. The aim is to make targeted, practical improvements to the operation of the scheme for allocation round 8, such as simplifying the application process and clarifying how budgets and delivery rules operate. The draft regulations also provide a legislative basis for making the subsidy conditional on fair work, ensuring that investments come with a commitment to good-quality jobs. The aim of the scheme’s operational improvements is to speed up the process and reduce the administrative burden by diminishing the volume of paperwork required, as well as clarifying budgets and rules, such as if events outside an applicant’s control derail their project. The draft regulations also set a sunset clause on the scheme, meaning that no CIB can run after 31 December 2028 without further parliamentary scrutiny. In the coming allocation round, we are also thinking beyond just offshore wind; the scheme will be extended to onshore wind projects in allocation round 9, and the regulations have been amended to make that possible. The period before introduction will give industry a small amount of lead-in time to get ready. Taken together, these changes improve and widen the scheme, as we speed up the delivery of renewables. Thirdly, on fair work and skills, the most significant change in allocation round 8 is that clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter, which is a series of commitments to improve worker voice and representation and health and safety in the offshore wind industry. If an applicant wants to apply for the subsidy, they will have to sign the charter. This was designed by industry and trade union representatives, and it reflects their constructive engagement. I thank the representatives from both the industry and the trade unions, who engaged constructively in pulling this together. The purpose is very simple: if we are going to give public money, it should help to improve the quality and security of jobs in the offshore wind industry. It will mean that workers and communities across the country reap the rewards of offshore wind and that the sector becomes an even more attractive place to work amid fierce competition for skills. The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implement voluntary access agreements for trade unions. It also includes a commitment to strive for best practice health and safety standards that go beyond the legal minimum. Our commitment to good jobs through the clean industry bonus does not stop at the fair work charter. We are pressing ahead with a skills investment fund that will help develop the skills needed for the clean energy transition. The idea is that offshore wind developers pool together skills funding and initiatives, rather than relying on individual projects trying to address particular short-term needs. The Government and the offshore wind industry have agreed that they will work together to set that up by 2027; that will be funded by existing developer contributions to the supply chain, not by any new money. Once that skills and investment fund is up and running, developers may be asked to contribute to it as a condition for taking part in the CIB and CfD schemes. That way, the bonus can drive improvements in how the offshore wind sector addresses fair work and skills, while continuing to fund UK industrial heartlands. As I have set out, the regulations build on the strong foundations achieved in allocation round 7. They ensure that the clean industry bonus continues to drive supply chain growth in support of clean home-grown power. They make targeted improvements to the operation of the scheme and, crucially, ask that public funding supports public goods such as fair work and investment in skills. Taken together, the measures support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, to lead in producing affordable clean energy and to support the creation of good jobs right across the country. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The draft order was laid before the House on 2 February, under the affirmative procedure. We are all acutely aware, particularly at this moment in time, that households and businesses across the country are feeling the effects of global energy volatility. That is why the Government remain absolutely focused on finding sensible and targeted efficiencies to reduce the costs of the UK energy system, while ensuring that we maintain the investor confidence that is critical to building the system we need for the future. The order changes how we uprate the cost of the renewables obligation scheme, switching from the retail price index to the consumer price index from 1 April. CPI offers a more accurate reflection of real-world price changes than RPI, which tends to overstate the rate of inflation. In simple terms, that means that the costs of operating the scheme will grow more slowly in the years ahead, easing pressure on the consumers who pay for it through their energy bills. The change forms part of wider efforts to generate efficiencies across the energy system, reduce costs for businesses and ease the pressure on domestic bills. This change follows a joint public consultation undertaken by the UK Government with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, who operate their own renewables obligation schemes. The consultation closed in December and a response was published in January. We recognise that the proposed options generated significant concern and much disagreement from renewables obligation stakeholders. We understand the points raised about the need for policy stability and to ensure that we have strong investor confidence in the UK. But it is precisely because the renewables obligation scheme has been such a success—it now supports over 30% of the UK’s energy generation—that we must ensure its costs remain proportionate and sustainable as it continues to operate. The scheme has been instrumental in building the renewable capacity that we rely on, and we want it to keep doing that, but without placing unnecessary burdens on bill payers. By implementing the change in time for the new compliance year in April, we can secure estimated savings of £1.9 billion over the remaining lifetime of the scheme, which works out at around £180 million a year for the next 11 years. These are meaningful savings for consumers, delivered through a sensible and reasonable change to the electricity generation scheme. Our approach is one of balance: it reduces the cost pressures on households and businesses, but continues to provide the stable environment for long-term investment in the renewable sector. As we all know, the world around us is becoming increasingly unstable. The only sustainable way to shield hard-working people around the UK from global energy shocks is to accelerate our transition to clean, home-grown energy. That means not only deploying new renewable capacity, but ensuring that every part of the existing system is as fair, efficient and affordable as possible. The order before us is a small but extremely important step in that direction. It reflects a pragmatic, consumer-focused approach that underpins our energy strategy: looking for opportunities to make the system better for British people, while maintaining the confidence of the investors who are so important for building the infrastructure of the future. Subject to the will of Parliament, the arrangements will come into force the day after the regulations are made. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I always welcome unanimous support from the House for the Government’s energy policy, and it sounds like we will have that this afternoon, which I appreciate. I always thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey, for her lessons, although they often do not involve her own time in the Government, or the Conservatives’ 14 years in government. If it was so important to reform the renewables obligation, she had a number of years in which she might have done that, but she did not. It is now, after being Government, that this is all suddenly coming forward. There is an important point about the lessons learned from crisis like this, and this is a moment for us to learn the right lessons. Only four years after the price spikes caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when the fossil fuel market did broadly what it is doing now, the lesson is to move even faster away from gas, but the Conservative party is doubling down and saying that now is the time to invest even more in gas. That is the wrong lesson to learn from this crisis. Hoping that, at some point in the future, the wholesale price will come down to a point that justifies that argument is not what we should be doing with the bills of our constituents and businesses across the country. We should be building a system that protects us from volatility, and that is what we are doing. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, made the point well that the UK benefits from having a safe and predictable environment for investors. That is really important, because if that changes, we will see the tens of billions that have been invested in this country in the past 18 months go somewhere else, and will also see the cost of capital—of building the infrastructure we need—go up, which goes on consumers’ bills. A stable regulatory environment in which people can be confident that a contract means what it says is one of the strong fundamentals of this country’s economy, and why people choose to do business here. If we start ripping up contracts, we lose that credibility, so I do not think that plan is serious or credible. If it was, it surely would have been introduced after 2022, when we had the same lessons that we have now. But it was not. On the point about costs, it is important to reiterate that the renewables obligation scheme will come to an end in 2037. A number of projects will come off the scheme between 2027 and 2037, so the cost will come down. We made a conscious decision in the Budget to increase taxes on the wealthiest in order to pay to bring down the bills of some of most hard-working and less well-off people across the country, and we stand by it. That is why, in April, in the midst of a price crisis, the price of energy in this country will be capped and bills will go down by more than £100, because of the decisions this Government have chosen to take. By the sound of it, the Conservatives would not have taken those decisions, leaving consumers exposed. This order is an important step. I recognise that it does not do everything that Members want but, as I said in my introductory speech, it is about being pragmatic. It takes a step that is still unwelcome, understandably, for those who have renewables obligations, but it is a pragmatic way to make sure that we get the best deal for consumers without shaking the foundation of the investment we need to build the clean energy system of the future. We think this is the right approach. We stand ready to take further action on the cost of living and energy bills, and we are doing that work, but this is a really important step. I commend the draft order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to come on to the North sea later, but let me do that now, because the hon. Lady raises important points. Yes, our domestic supply is important—particularly the gas that goes straight into the pipes around the country—and it creates jobs for thousands of people in the industry, many of whom I have got to know over the past 18 months. However, it is also important to know that it has been in decline for a long time, with a 75% reduction in production between 1999 and 2024. Although it continues to play an important role, we have been a net importer since 2004, and that will only continue in the years ahead. Yes, we should continue to support domestic production, and it will continue to play a part for years to come, but our long-term energy security does not come from fossil fuels in the North sea. Returning to the points the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire made about the North sea, she asked whether we could pull together a plan for the North sea transition. We did that and published it at the end of last year. The North sea future plan is a fantastic read, and I encourage everyone to read it. It seeks, for the first time, to bring together projections on the future of the North sea, skills and workforce planning, and the opportunity that comes from renewables. We need to look at both sides of the North sea. It has been hugely important for 60 years, producing oil and gas, and it will continue to be important for decades to come. Equally, we need to build up industries that have been important in recent years but that have not grown as much as we would like, and where we have not seen as many jobs as we need. So there is a workforce plan. A North sea future board has also been set up; it met for the first time in Aberdeen in January, and it will meet again in the coming weeks. It is about driving forward actions—not talking about the transition, but working through the solid things we now need to do to make it a reality. I am conscious of time, and I want to pick up on a number of points. On new nuclear, we absolutely see nuclear as a critical component of the clean power plans of the future. It will be the backbone of a clean power system and will deliver energy security in uncertain times. We need to build nuclear faster, which is why we will respond in due course to the Fingleton review on how to improve regulation. As the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire outlined, we have also invested in the first small modular reactors at Wylfa in Wales. I genuinely hope we will see a change of Government in Scotland in May, to one that will look at the opportunities that come from nuclear. I had the great privilege recently of visiting Torness and meeting workers who have worked there for 20 or 30 years in good, well-paid, highly skilled jobs—jobs that Scotland is currently missing out on because of an ideological block from the SNP, which we have to remove so that we can build the power we need.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq. There is genuinely nothing I would rather do on my birthday than answer an important Westminster Hall debate on this topic. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here—cake to follow. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray)—that beautiful constituency on the other side of Glasgow from my own—for introducing this important debate, and it is a pleasure to see so many members of the Scottish Affairs Committee to the Chamber. As an alumnus of that Committee in the last Parliament, it is a pleasure to see it continue to go from strength to strength. As a proud Scot, I reflect many of the things the hon. Lady said about the contribution that Scotland has made to Britain’s economic past, and the critical role it plays at the moment and will continue to play in the future. I will return to that theme later. I also want to reflect on the fact that it is the strength of us working together across the United Kingdom that has driven much of the investment into Scotland to make these projects a reality. I will come back to that point later because I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will appreciate that, if nothing else. I want to reflect on some general points, and then I will come briefly to each of the points the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire made, because they are all incredibly important and things we are working towards. On the general argument about what the Government are trying to achieve, we are trying to tackle the energy trilemma—the question of security, affordability and sustainability—by driving as quickly as possible towards clean power. Our target—our mission—of achieving clean power by 2030 is partly about how we get off fossil fuels, and the past few days have demonstrated why that is so important in an uncertain world. It is also, as the hon. Lady rightly said, about how we take the industrial opportunity that goes along with that. How do we get the good jobs and industrial opportunity to go with it?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Energy Security and Net Zero: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  That is a well-trodden argument that, unfortunately, the facts do not bear out. The energy produced in Scotland is more than it uses, but at any given time Scotland often relies on nuclear energy; in fact, it is quite often imported from England when necessary—when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Nuclear is critical, and Scotland was relying on gas from Peterhead power station recently because Torness was undergoing renovation work. Scotland does in fact rely on nuclear, and it is important. Furthermore, the argument about costs would be well placed in the SNP’s own plan on this issue, which says that there would be a third off energy bills with independence. There are absolutely no figures to back that up. Let me move on in the time I have left to the key points that have been made. First, it is absolutely right to centre the future of the country’s economy and of the clean power that we need to get to households and businesses on improving the grid. For far too long, we have not invested in what is probably one of the most important pieces of infrastructure that this country has. As a result, it is taking far too long to connect projects. As the hon. Lady for Mid Dunbartonshire rightly outlined, every single minute of the day we are wasting clean power, which could be bringing down bills, because we cannot get it through the necessary constraints. We have to build that grid, and with that will come tens of thousands of jobs across the country, so it is a hugely important economic opportunity. I was glad my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) referenced the importance of community energy and of the local power plan, which was published recently—another fantastic read that I encourage all hon. Members to read. This is about the biggest transfer of wealth and power in the energy space in British history, putting communities right at the heart not just of building energy infrastructure, but owning that infrastructure and benefiting from it. Tomorrow I am going to the Western Isles to see a project that has benefited greatly from being able to own that energy and take the profits that come with it. Community benefits remain important as well. We did consult on making them mandatory, and we will announce the outcomes of that consultation soon. We have announced bill discounts for people in the proximity of transmission infrastructure and community benefits from that. We also want to see much more shared ownership of energy, with communities having the ability to take a stake in much bigger projects and take the profits that come with that to invest in their local areas. That is hugely important. Consenting decisions on these projects are devolved in Scotland, and I urge the Scottish Government to move as quickly as possible on making those decisions. Every delay to a piece of grid in Scotland means we are not getting cheaper power on to people’s bills, which could make a huge difference now. Those delays are significant, so I urge them to make that happen. Finally on the grid, the industry is working collectively to make sure that the billions of pounds of investment going into building the grid results in supply chain jobs across the country. There were many other things that the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire raised that I would love to spend longer talking about. However, at the outset she made absolutely the right point about Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s energy security. It is not a story of the past or a promise of the future, but a reality at the moment. We have to seize the opportunities that come from the energy transition. That means creating the jobs that go along with the infrastructure we are building, so that Scotland benefits and gets that economic potential. I am glad there is some consensus on many of the actions we have to take in this space, but the question is how we move further and faster to make this happen. Communities cannot wait for those community benefits or for cheaper power, and we should always root this issue in the Government’s No. 1 priority: tackling the affordability crisis facing households across the country. The clean power mission is the way to do that. In an increasingly uncertain world—not least the one we see on our TV screens right now—the answer is to move further and faster away from fossil fuels and to the cheaper, cleaner power that is an economic opportunity for Scotland and the whole country. Question put and agreed to.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to be in this Committee this afternoon, Sir Alec. The statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 2 February 2026, amends regulations concerning the levies used to fund the operational costs of the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company. The LCCC administers the contracts for difference scheme on behalf of the Government under the Energy Act 2013. Under the same Act, the LCCC also administers schemes modelled on the CfD scheme, including the dispatchable power agreement and the low-carbon dispatchable contracts for difference. The LCCC acts as the revenue collection counterparty for the regulated asset base for new nuclear under the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022. It is anticipated that, subject to future policy decisions and the will of Parliament, the LCCC will conduct additional work to support Government under the Energy Act 2013. That includes work on a new scheme supporting the deployment of large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, as well as work related to proposals by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to support nuclear generation and around potentially supporting landfill gas generation. The ESC administers the capacity market scheme. Those schemes will incentivise the significant investment that is required in our electricity infrastructure, keep costs affordable for consumers and help to deliver our clean power mission while delivering on energy security. In terms of the existing schemes, CfDs provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The most recent CfD auction—the seventh that we have had—secured a record 14.7 GW of new clean energy capacity across Great Britain, making it the most successful renewables auction in the country’s history. It brought forward a diverse range of renewable technologies while delivering a good deal for bill payers. The LCCC is currently signing the 197 CfDs with projects that were successful in that auction. Under the Energy Act, DPAs are agreements modelled on CfDs. They have been designed to instil confidence among investors for power carbon capture and storage projects and to incentivise the availability of low-carbon, non-weather-dependent dispatchable generation capacity. The LCCC signed its first DPA on 19 November 2024, which related to the Net Zero Teesside power project. That pioneering project in the north-east aims to build the world’s first commercial-scale gas-fired power station with carbon capture and storage. Over the next three years, the LCCC is expected to sign additional DPAs, which will drive the private sector investment required to bring forward further power carbon capture and storage projects by the mid-2030s. The LCCC will be the counterparty for those, and funds have been included within the budgets before us to support that role. The LCCC signed its first low-carbon dispatchable CfD with Drax on 4 November 2025. That agreement, which came before this House, will ensure that Drax generates electricity when needed between 2027 and 2031, thus bolstering our energy security. That was a good agreement for consumers, saving £6 a year on household bills compared with the arrangements in place under the previous Government. The Government subsequently agreed heads of terms for an additional LCD CfD with EP Lynemouth Power Ltd on 6 February 2026. If a full contract is concluded in the coming months, it will further bolster our energy security by ensuring that Lynemouth can continue to generate between 2027 and 2031. The revenue collection contract with Sizewell C Ltd, the first project to use the regulated asset base model for new nuclear, became effective on 4 November 2025. Funds have been included in this budget to cover the LCCC’s operational costs for that RAB. Turning to the ESC, the capacity market is the tried, tested and most cost-effective way of ensuring that we have electricity capacity when we need it. It provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system and generate electricity when we need it by increasing generation or turning down electricity demand in return for guaranteed payments. The capacity auctions to date have secured the capacity that we need to meet the peak demand out to 2028-29. A T-1 auction is ongoing, and a T-4 auction will take place next week, securing most of the capacity that we need toward 2029-30. In both the CfD and capacity market schemes, participants bid for support via a competitive auction, which ensures that costs for consumers are kept as low as possible. DPAs are allocated through a process involving competitive assessment, followed by shortlisting, then a final stage of bilateral negotiations between the developers and DESNZ. LCD CfD contracts are agreed following a structured negotiation process between DESNZ and the generator. Revenue collection contracts under the RAB are agreed through a structured process involving Ofgem, the LCCC and DESNZ, which provides a stable, regulated revenue stream to projects during construction and operation. In turn, we expect the RAB to lower the cost of financing for nuclear—one of the biggest drivers of new project costs—resulting in better value for money for consumers. The LCCC and the ESC’s effective administration of all those schemes has demonstrated their ability to deliver the schemes at a low cost to consumers. That is part of the reason why the LCCC has been working with DESNZ and other parts of Government to develop new schemes for incentivising the deployment of even more low-carbon technologies. For example, the LCCC is working with my Department to develop incentives that will be useful in bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Although they have not been confirmed yet, contracts for such projects could potentially be entered into, following the process outlined in the 2013 Act. It is important that the LCCC and the ESC are sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively, given their critical role in administering those schemes, which I have just outlined. However, the Government are clear that both companies must deliver value for money. With that in mind, we have closely scrutinised their operational cost budgets to ensure that they reflect operational requirements and objectives for the companies. The LCCC and the ESC are very mindful of the need to deliver value for money as one of their guiding principles. Operational costs per contract are expected to fall by 27% per CfD across the budget period, despite the growing CfD portfolio, because of a number of actions to bring down costs. The narrative is similar for the ESC, which expects the number of capacity market electricity meters to exceed 1.2 million over the budget period—a 450% increase on current meter numbers. The ESC intends to invest in a system architecture redesign to manage the growth and minimise costs, and it estimates that costs per meter will fall by 23%. The operational cost budgets for both companies were subject to consultation, which gave stakeholders and others the opportunity to scrutinise and test the key assumptions in the budgets and, importantly, ensure that they represent value for money. These regulations revise the levies currently in place to enable the companies to collect enough revenue to fund their budgets. Any levy collected that is not spent will be returned to suppliers at the end of the relevant financial year, in accordance with the regulations. Subject to the will of Parliament, the settlement cost levy for the ESC is due to come into force on the day after these regulations are made. The operational cost levies for the LCCC will come into force by 1 April in each of the relevant financial years. I assure Members that the Government are mindful of uncertainties in setting a budget for the next three years, such as world events impacting on energy demand and policy decisions on new schemes that have not yet been taken. Consequently, we will keep the companies’ budgets under careful review throughout the budget period to ensure that the cost to consumers is minimised. I commend the draft regulations to the House.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for all those technical questions on the statutory instrument before us. Let me turn to the more general questions that were asked. I welcome the support from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine; it is always a great pleasure when he supports things that this Government are doing. Unfortunately, he does not do it often enough. On costs, the Chancellor made a decision in the Budget to take £150 off bills. That has come through in the price cap period, taking into account the need for investment in the network in order to pick up the slack from the time that the shadow Minister was in government—I think he was the Minister for networks for a period. The work to build the grid that the country needs was not done then, so we need to invest in the grid now, but that is a significant investment in bringing down bills, and we stand by the promise to take £300 off bills by the next election. There are two fronts here. The cost of living is the most important thing facing people across the country, and it is the thing that every bit of Government is seized of taking action on. That is why the £150 was important. Equally, there is no shortcut to bring down bills in the long run, so it is important to say that this work is over the lifetime of the Parliament, to ensure that we put in place the measures that get us off more expensive gas. The shadow Minister referenced AR7. The outcome from that in terms of cost was that the prices came in at 40% cheaper than the cost of building and running new gas power stations. That is fundamentally the difference here. His party has taken the decision to reference the wholesale cost of gas—given the events of recent days, I wonder whether it might revisit that—while completely ignoring the cost of building and operating the new gas power stations that would be necessary. That power does not just come out of nowhere. On refusing to publish the analysis, I have the benefit of taking my written questions incredibly seriously, so I signed off the answer to that written question myself, and that was not in fact the answer. I do not know whether it was the shadow Minister who asked the question, but the answer that was sought was in the footnote to the AR7 publication, so we did not have to publish more. It was there in the footnote, if his colleagues had bothered to read it. We have made it very clear that we will publish a response to the Fingleton review very soon. We had hoped to do that in the past few days, but, given all the things that are going on, we will publish it as soon as we possibly can. We are determined to move forward on the recommendations, because the shadow Minister is absolutely right; we need to build more nuclear much faster in this country. Let me turn to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am delighted that the Lib Dems still take credit for some things that they did in government—although not so much austerity and tuition fees. We will move past that, because I know she does not like to talk about those days. The hon. Lady is right to raise the uncertainty in the middle east. That underscores how important it is that we focus on our energy sovereignty here in the UK. This is clearly a turbulent time, but, in truth, we have been living through an uncertain world for a very long time. The only way we can get off the volatile series of ups and downs that we have seen in fossil fuels over decades is to build clean power here in the UK and control the nuclear, the renewables and the storage that goes along with it, which is absolutely critical. These schemes are really important, and we have seen CfDs and other things being exported to other countries, because they are seen as the way to reduce the cost of capital. That feeds through into all consumer bills, which we are determined to reduce. I welcome the cross-party consensus on the Government’s energy policy—it is a delight to see. Question put and agreed to.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point; a generation of lobbyists should look back at the history books of Shetland Islands council at the time, because it is an extraordinary story of how it seized the opportunity of what it knew then would be decades North sea oil and gas and has still benefited from it. I was also going to come to the right hon. Gentleman’s other point, around the Viking wind farm, which I have seen in the Shetlands myself. The scale of it is extraordinary, but the community benefits are not where they should be and the community is not feeling enough of the benefit of it. It is important that we do everything we can to reduce the constraints on wind, so that local communities benefit directly from it and the country as a whole benefits from cheaper power on the grid, bringing down bills. Let me turn to some of the actions that we have taken since we came into government. We have set up Great British Energy—a really important moment for us to say, for the first time in 70 years, that we want the public to have some ownership stake in our energy future. We have delivered the most significant programme of investment in home-grown clean energy in our history. Just a few weeks ago, we published the local power plan, the biggest shift of wealth and power in the energy space in British history, to make sure that energy projects are not just built by developers, but owned by local communities that have a real stake in their energy future. We also published the warm homes plan, so that we can have the biggest upgrade to homes in British history. Any infrastructure, in the energy space or elsewhere, brings local impacts, and there is no point in anyone pretending that those impacts do not upset local people. That is why we have an extremely rigorous planning system, why we take great care over decisions that are made and why, at times, there is great frustration about the length of time it takes for planning decisions. However, that is because the public rightly have a voice in that process, and important determinations should take time. We should always remember the fundamental outcome: since the poorest in our society have paid the price from our exposure to fossil fuels, the infrastructure we are building today is imperative, and it is important that we move faster than ever before. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal and I have talked about cumulative impact before, and I have said repeatedly in the House that it is a serious issue. All nationally significant infrastructure projects must take account of cumulative impact, including the range of those cumulative impacts—not just the number of projects in a particular place, but the impact on other local services and other bits of infrastructure. They must submit a local impact report, which makes the examining authority aware of what those potential impacts are. That process must demonstrate that the applicant has taken seriously the concerns of local communities. If they have not, that will count against them. Consultation cannot be an exercise to tick a box; there must be some demonstrable engagement with that process. Local communities have a voice in that process through early consultations, but they can also register through the Planning Inspectorate in the pre-examination stage. All those various issues are taken into consideration. Let me also speak to the broader point about how we plan the future energy system. My hon. Friend made a correct observation: while the previous Government now want to run a mile from all the renewable energy projects that they developed, which we would support— I think I am the only person still cheerleading the previous Government’s drive for renewable energy, because they certainly are not—they did not design and co-ordinate the system such that we were not building unnecessary grid to connect all those projects. My hon. Friend’s constituency is a good example of where better co-ordination at a strategic level would have got the same outputs from the system, but with much less local impact. We are taking forward a number of things—this is where we get into the acronym soup that is the energy world. First, and most importantly, the National Energy System Operator will design the first ever strategic spatial energy plan, or SSEP, which will be published by the end of next year. This is an important opportunity for us to design the future of our energy system holistically: to take into account what can be built where and what the future energy system looks like for our needs, not now, but in the future. As a result of that planning, we can design the most efficient network and transmission system that goes with it. The centralised strategic network plan, which will be the holistic design of the network, will follow that. This is something that we should have done 15 or 20 years ago, but we start from where we are now, and we are determined that the future of our energy system will be much more strategically planned and aligned. That plan will take into account local impacts and views, and the regional energy plans in particular will take a much more granular and local look, engaging with local authorities and others to make sure that those plans really take into account both local needs and local opportunities. Those will be designed for Scotland, Wales and nine English regions, and we will bring together various people to share their views on how the plans should meet local priorities. I want to be really clear about the scale of that work. The reason why the Government are taking longer than perhaps we would like is that that is the best way to plan long into the future what the system will look like, and to give communities a real opportunity to shape it at an early stage. That is important for the planning of the system and for community benefits, which other Members have raised. It is really important that we fundamentally recognise that communities who host energy infrastructure are doing a service for the country. Infrastructure has to be built somewhere. There is not some third place that would let us say, “Well, we are in favour of this, but please don’t build it in my area.” At some point, it has to go somewhere; as a Government, we are done with dither and delay and we are going to build things again, but communities should get a benefit from that infrastructure being built. We are committed to making sure that communities who host infrastructure will benefit. As my hon. Friend said, we have consulted on whether community benefits should be made mandatory—at the moment, they are voluntary and a patchwork across the country, and they have different degrees of impact on communities, even where the funding is being delivered—and we will respond to that consultation soon. In the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we have also outlined the very first community benefits and bill discounts for people close to transmission infrastructure, recognising that often they have been left behind in terms of community benefits, as pylons and transmission wires flow through communities. That scheme will be up and running soon. It will directly deliver money off bills for those people living within 500 metres of new transmission infrastructure, but also millions of pounds of investment in communities next to significant pieces of transmission infrastructure such as substations. The grid is critical for the future of the country, and those who host grid infrastructure should get some benefit from that. In July last year, we also published guidance on voluntary community benefits to make sure that they are as robust as they can be. My hon. Friend mentioned a levy, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that further. I pay tribute to the fact that, having identified a problem, instead of just bringing that problem to the House—I do not want to criticise other hon. Members here—she has worked on a solution. I am happy to engage with it and to look at it further. There are two things that I want to say clearly. First, the affordability crisis is this Government’s No. 1 objective. It is driving decisions right across Government. It is what has led to a 7% reduction in bills from the next price cap period, which was announced today. Every single penny that might find its way on to bills has to be scrutinised very carefully. I am initially hesitant at the idea of an additional levy. Although my hon. Friend made the point that these energy companies are making significant profits, and I would not disagree with her on the scale of some of those profits, we should also be aware that, unless the Government are going to take a power to cap those profits, it is likely that the cost of a levy and the costs of the projects themselves would simply be passed on. Consumers, at the end of the day, would pay for it. I will look into her suggestion further, because every penny on bills makes a difference. Finally, on section 106 agreements, in addition to community benefits arrangements locally, developers are already required to mitigate specific local impacts through 106 agreements. They are legally binding agreements that are paid to local authorities. With section 106 agreements and community benefits together, we think work is being done to invest in and enhance communities, but I am happy to look at what my hon. Friend has proposed in more detail. To conclude, I reiterate two things. First, my thanks not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal, but to right hon. and hon. Members across the House who made serious points and suggestions on how not to turn away from necessary investment, but to ensure that communities genuinely benefit from it. They are absolutely right to champion their local community and to ensure that everyone benefits from the energy transition. Secondly, we should not for a moment think that building that infrastructure is optional, or that it can all be done somewhere else. There are those in this House who believe that we can simply go backwards to deliver energy security and affordability without a serious and credible plan to do so, but simply tying communities to fossil fuels for longer is not a serious proposition. I reiterate what I said at the beginning. My hon. Friend rightly made the case that all the polling that we have seen points to the country being in favour of the energy transition. Every piece of research points to the importance of tackling the climate crisis, which is not a future threat, but a very present reality. Infrastructure, which for too long has been held up in this country, is necessary to do that. It is necessary to get clean power, cheaper power, to people’s homes and businesses, and to bring down bills, but it is also absolutely necessary to unlock the economic growth that this country needs. There is no shortcut to doing that. We have to build the infrastructure that the country has been crying out for, for many years. I thank hon. Members for their participation in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. I am happy to meet her to discuss the issues further. As I said at the beginning, we take seriously the role that communities play. We thank them for putting up with disruption when infrastructure is built, and for hosting that infrastructure on behalf of the country. We want to ensure that they benefit from it. Question put and agreed to.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Energy Developers Levy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to join this debate under your chairship, Mr Twigg; I know that you take a great interest in these issues. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was right: my hon. Friend is making a name for herself as a hard worker in this space. Our meetings about this issue have been genuinely really helpful and insightful for me—and her as well, I hope. She is right to flag these issues. I should also say at the outset that I genuinely welcome the tone that my hon. Friend has taken since she has become MP for Suffolk Coastal. In this place at this time, it is very easy to take the view that the easy answer is simply to say that we should not build anything anywhere ever again and let the country continue to slide further and further backwards; many on the Opposition Benches, who of course are not here at all, would say that. My hon. Friend concluded her speech by saying something worth repeating: many in her community and across the country are pro the energy transition—they are pro-investment, pro-growth and pro-building the infrastructure—but they rightly want to know that that will be well planned and benefit their community. It is entirely legitimate for communities to ask for that and to be concerned when it does not happen. Given that spirit, she has raised this debate in the right way. I want to pick up on a couple of things and also go back to why the infrastructure is so important in the first place. We sometimes lose sight of why it is so important for us to build energy infrastructure—in particular, much of the transmission infrastructure that is in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She said that the previous Government had not done that work, and I will come back to that. It is worth remembering that since this Government came to power we have sought to tackle the energy trilemma: how we bring down bills and make the cost of living more affordable—today’s decision on the price cap is an important statement of how seriously we take that mission; how we deliver our long-term energy security in an uncertain world and how we move away from the volatility of fossil fuels, which have cost us so dearly in recent years; and how we build infrastructure that sets the country up for the future. This is about connecting not just renewable energy but the demand projects that will stimulate economic growth across the country. If we do not do these things, all we will do is harm that economic growth. Those decisions are incredibly important.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  This is just the most absurd nonsense from the Conservatives, who I see are now crowdsourcing their energy policy on Twitter. It is not surprising that they come up with that sort of nonsense, when that is the information that they use. Even in the most ambitious deployment scenarios, all the statistics suggest that 0.4% of UK land would be occupied by solar. The Conservatives come to this House time and time and time again calling for bills to be brought down, but their policy would put them up and turn away the investment that is driving jobs and opportunities across the country. They had no answers in energy policy for 14 years, and they have learned absolutely nothing in opposition.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps unsurprisingly, I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. He takes seriously the issue of how we can build the infrastructure that the country needs for our energy security, but he also rightly draws attention to a fact that Opposition Members seem to ignore completely: the fact that renewables are the cheapest and quickest form of power to get on to the system. Just today, the new auction has resulted in 4.9 GW of capacity. That, taken together with the offshore wind results, makes it the most successful renewables auction in British history. The entire Opposition Front Bench used to agree with this. These renewables are 50% cheaper than the new-build gas that is now championed by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), which would add money to the bills of people throughout the country. This is the right plan for bringing down bills, for our energy security and for providing jobs throughout the country.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  As we explained in our solar road map, the Government consider effective community engagement to be crucial as we scale-up solar deployment throughout the country. Developers must consider local community views as part of their applications, and the quality of that community engagement is taken into account by decision makers.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  I have had many productive meetings with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall be happy to meet him again to talk about these issues. The Government absolutely believe that communities that host infrastructure should benefit from doing so. We have consulted on mandatory community benefits and we will respond to the consultation in due course, but today we have published the local power plan: the biggest shift in power and wealth that we have seen in the energy space in British history, which will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s community and communities throughout the country benefit from the ability to own their energy infrastructure, and that the benefits of that flow into those communities. That is the ambition that we have set out as a Government.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Nuclear Projects: Alternative Routes to Market · Hansard source

  More

  On 4 February, the Government published the advanced nuclear framework, which establishes a pathway to market by introducing the UK advanced nuclear pipeline and clarifying the enabling policy landscape to unlock privately financed advanced nuclear projects in the UK, which is all part of our new golden age of nuclear power.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Nuclear Projects: Alternative Routes to Market · Hansard source

  More

  Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend who is an absolute champion for Hartlepool. I was delighted to be at an event recently as part of Nuclear Week in Parliament, where I met some of his constituents who pay tribute to him for the work that he does in this place and outside it to bring nuclear investment to Hartlepool. The framework that we have announced enables credible, mature privately led projects by providing the clarity needed to attract private capital. To join the UK advanced nuclear pipeline, projects must meet the readiness assessment, gaining in principle the endorsement of deliverability. Therefore, his point is hugely important and we look forward to these private-led projects coming forward as part of this huge investment in new nuclear.