PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage - 7 October 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come to the next statement, may I reiterate the comments that Mr Speaker made earlier today? While the whole House understands that the business of government will go on during recess and that Ministers are required to respond to events, it is frustrating for hon. Members when statements are made during scheduled periods of recess, when the House is not sitting.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your statement, and Mr Speaker’s earlier.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s carbon capture programme. Last week was a historic week for our energy system. On Monday, 142 years of coal-fired electricity generation came to an end, as Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station closed for the last time. I pay tribute to the generations of coal workers, at Ratcliffe and elsewhere, who powered our country for more than a century, and to power station workers; we owe them a huge debt. I am sure that sentiment is shared across the whole House. As one era ends and we begin the next stage of Britain’s energy journey, the Government are determined to create a new generation of good jobs in our industrial heartlands. On Friday, we began a new era, as Government and industry agreed the deals that will launch Britain’s carbon capture industry.

This has been a long time coming. I was proud, as Energy Secretary, to kick-start the process of developing carbon capture way back in 2009—some hon. Members were then still at school, and I am much greyer now—with a £1 billion competition. In 2011, that programme was cancelled by the coalition Government. In 2012, a new competition was announced, and in 2015, it too was cancelled. When we came to office, we inherited an in-principle aspiration to go ahead, but the very significant Government funding required had not yet been accounted for, so under the last Government we had fits and starts, dither and delay.

By contrast, just three months since we came to office, this Government have turned promise into reality. I can confirm to the House that we have agreed commercial terms, and £21.7 billion of funding over 25 years for five carbon capture, usage and storage projects across two clusters: HyNet in the north-west, and the East Coast Cluster in the north-east. This announcement will enable the construction of two transport and storage networks that will underpin this new industry. The highways for carbon capture and the deals we have agreed will also kick-start development of Net Zero Teesside, the world’s largest gas with CCUS plant, and—these are both in Ellesmere Port—Protos, a new CCUS energy from waste facility, and EET Hydrogen, the UK’s first large-scale blue hydrogen project, which is the cleanest in the world. They will crowd in £8 billion of private investment across the two clusters, creating 4,000 jobs in our industrial heartlands and building an initial capacity to remove over 8.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions each and every year. I pay tribute to the six new Labour MPs in Teesside and colleagues across the north-west who have been brilliant champions for those projects. This is just the start; we will have more to say in the coming months about carbon capture sites in Humberside, Scotland and elsewhere around the country.

This investment is the right thing to do for Britain. CCUS will unlock the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors, from chemicals to cement; enable the production of low-carbon hydrogen; and, by capturing emissions from gas-fired power stations, play an important role, alongside renewables and nuclear, in delivering clean power by 2030 and beyond. That is why experts in bodies ranging from the Climate Change Committee to the International Energy Agency are clear that carbon capture is critical to our meeting our climate commitments. There are those who doubt that. To them I quote James Richardson, the acting chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said on Friday quite simply:

“We can’t hit the country’s targets without CCUS”.

The IEA, in a report from 2020 that I very much recommend to right hon. and hon. Members, said:

“Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS”,

pointing to “heavy industries” that

“account for almost 20% of global CO2 emissions today”.

To those who doubt whether the technology can work, I point out that it has been operating safely for decades in Norway and the US.

Last week’s announcement puts the UK on the path to leading the world in deploying carbon capture at scale. Being an early mover in this technology offers huge economic and industrial benefits for Britain. The North sea means that we have the chance to lead; it gives us the capacity to store 200 years of our carbon emissions, has existing infrastructure that can be repurposed, and allows us to use the talents and experience of our highly skilled oil and gas workforce.

Over the last few years, around the world we have seen the race for the jobs and industries of the future accelerate. For too long, Britain has opted out and lost out. No longer. We will harness Britain’s geology, know-how and expertise to be a world leader in this technology that will define the 21st century, building an industry that could support up to 50,000 jobs by the 2030s and using every tool at our disposal to seize the opportunities for Britain, with a proper industrial strategy and a commitment—which is absolutely crucial—to using public and private investment to build the future that our country deserves.

That is all part of the action of a Government who, in the last three months, have shown that we are in a hurry to deliver our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. We have lifted the onshore wind ban, consented to record amounts of nationally significant solar, launched Great British Energy, delivered the most successful renewables auction in British history, and set out our plans to lift more than a million households out of fuel poverty. We are moving apace, both because of the urgency of the challenges that we face and because of this Government’s determination to win for Britain. Last week marked the end of one chapter in our country’s energy story and the start of a new one—a new era showing that we can decarbonise and reindustrialise, a new era of clean energy jobs and investment in our industrial heartlands, and a new era of climate leadership. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. While I welcome the news today, I am saddened, if not surprised, that he has not had the grace to acknowledge the work of the last Government in getting us to this place. I know that his opinion is not that of the many partners who have come together to get this project over the line, and it does a huge disservice to his officials, who have worked so incredibly hard over the last couple of years to get us here. As far as I can see, the only positive investments that the Labour party seems to have made in its first 100 days—the Blackstone artificial intelligence data centre in Northumberland, the sixth assessment report and now this—were negotiated under the Conservatives. This is what the right hon. Gentleman’s party has turned into reality: it has crashed business confidence, and overseen £666 million of assets from UK-focused equity funds fleeing the country. No wonder it has had to have a change of management.

In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of investment and the business models to support the CCUS market. Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East Coast Cluster.

The brilliant Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, has been a leading light in this regard for many years. I noted that the Secretary of State did not mention him, which was pretty graceless, but I am sure that he would like to welcome his work. I must also mention the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), who first announced Government support for carbon capture technology amounting to £20 billion last year. That, ultimately, was the breakthrough step that got us here.

The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least £20 billion would be spent following the next spending review. The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician. In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for 20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the losses will be?

We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer; they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State’s statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update the House on those two projects? More widely, while his announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry. In the words of Gary Smith, the leader of the GMB, the Secretary of State’s approach has been to export jobs and import virtue.

Let us look at what has happened on Labour’s watch. At Grangemouth, 400 jobs are at risk, with nearly 3,000 potentially affected. At Port Talbot, 3,500 jobs are under threat, and at Scunthorpe, there is the potential for 2,500 job losses before Christmas. Moreover, Labour are putting 200,000 jobs at risk through their plans to ban new oil and gas licences and to make the UK regime the most punitive fiscal regime for the sector anywhere in the world. When will the Secretary of State publish an assessment of the impact that his plans for the North sea will have on jobs, and on investment in clean energy? After all, this carbon capture investment today would not be possible without Eni, Equinor and BP—companies using the stable finances of their oil and gas businesses to invest in clean energy.

The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still 60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain. Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to be found.

The Secretary of State has still made no comment on, and no apology for, promising the British public at the general election savings of £300 on their energy bills by 2030. Will he finally give an answer to his Back Benchers, the House and all our constituents, and explain what has happened to that pledge?

I know that the right hon. Lady is in a difficult position, and it rather showed today. Let us be honest: the truth is quite painful for her. She failed, as Energy Secretary, to get carbon capture over the line, year after year—well, to be fair, she was only in the job for 10 months, but certainly month after month. The funding was never secured, because there was not the political will from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. We have seen a long line of 20 Energy Secretaries and 14 years of failure. I must give the right hon. Lady her due: she did try, I am sure; but there was nothing but dither and delay. When we came to office, the funding had not been accounted for as part of a spending review; it simply was not there. There was just a vague promise. Now it is quite difficult for the right hon. Lady, and perhaps we should have a little sympathy for her, because she has had to come to the House and see what a Government actually delivering looks like.

Let me deal with the right hon. Lady’s questions in turn. She had the brass neck to suggest that the problems at Grangemouth and Port Talbot were somehow due to the negligence of this Government. Let me tell the House about Grangemouth. I came to office with the closure of Grangemouth already announced and likely to happen. I have probably had more conversations with my counterpart in the Scottish Government than Tory Ministers had in 10 years, because they just were not interested. We should be extremely angry about that. So what did we do? We funded the Willow project, which the Tories did not fund. We added to the growth deal, which they did not do. We said that we would have a national wealth fund with the potential to fund Project Willow. We had none of that from the right hon. Lady. She just was not interested. She just did not care; that is the truth of the matter. Of course it is ideological, rather than accidental. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. A bit of honesty from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)! I noted that he was very honest about the right hon. Lady at the party conference. The truth is that the Tories did not have an industrial strategy because they do not believe in an industrial strategy.

Let me deal with the rest of the right hon. Lady’s nonsense. I am very pleased that she is interested in Gary Smith, because he has said:

“This is a serious step in the right direction and a welcome investment in jobs and industries after years of neglect under the previous administration.”

That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon. Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership. I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure and this Government’s delivery.

I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has announced jobs in Teesside—jobs from which my constituents in the north-west of England will potentially benefit. I am also very pleased that we have a Government who are committed to an industrial strategy, and who believe in Government working in partnership with business.

The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and, indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry, and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen production and production from gas?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology, either there will be no future for these industries or they will not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.

I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I want to have all the technologies at our disposal.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.

It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of investment. The Conservative Government’s irresponsible roll-back from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet environmental requirements.

While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned, there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the Secretary of State do to increase investment—

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and thanking her for the tone and substance of her remarks? She is right to underline the fact that we are marking a new era but also marking the passing of an era, and it is right to pay tribute to all the people who worked in our coal-fired power stations and, indeed, who worked underground to dig coal for our country. It is a big moment of change and the passing of an era.

On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [Interruption.] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering on this Government’s commitment to decarbonise our power sector by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Humber area produces the most emissions in the country, and it is vital that we make progress in that region. Some £15 billion-worth of private investment stands ready. The Secretary of State mentioned that there will be a further announcement in the coming months. Could he perhaps advance that as quickly as possible in order that we can take our first steps towards reaching our targets?

Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a point of agreement between us. These are very important projects, and I thank him for his question. They were always envisaged as being two tracks, and we inherited a significant degree of delay from the last Government. We want these projects to happen as soon as possible and, as I said in my statement, this is something that we will address in the months ahead.

I was happy to hear the Secretary of State’s words last week when he said that industries should not die, and the Government investment in Merseyside and Teesside is most welcome. Can he commit to the same level of bold and transformative Government action to retain the Grangemouth refinery workers’ jobs, as they face the prospect of redundancies and their industry dying?

This is something that my hon. Friend and I have talked about. On Grangemouth, we are advancing at speed—in a way that the last Government completely failed to do, because the project had not even started—with Project Willow, which is seeking an industrial future for the Grangemouth site. He has my absolute commitment that we will use every lever at our disposal in Government to try and make this happen. We have a number of levers available to us that the last Government did not have, including the national wealth fund, and we are going to work intensively on that in the coming months.

The Secretary of State will know that until a few days ago, the Fawley refinery and chemicals complex run by ExxonMobil in New Forest East was planning a major carbon capture project that involved controversial pipelines either over sensitive areas of the New Forest or across the Isle of Wight. ExxonMobil has temporarily pulled the plug on that, but one reason it seems to think it cannot use a sea route, perhaps to feed this in to the North sea outlet for carbon capture and storage, is the absence of purpose-built ships for the safe transportation of liquefied CO₂. Will the Secretary of State look into where we are with the development of safe methods of transporting the gas in liquid form by sea?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), is going to meet him later this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the more technical issues that he is talking about.

This announcement is fantastic news for the north-east and for the country. It will place us at the forefront of a critical and growing sector, it will help to re-industrialise regions that have been de-industrialised by successive Conservative Governments and it will deliver thousands of well-paid jobs—jobs that people can raise a family on. For the benefit of those with genuine concerns about the feasibility of this technology—as opposed to those playing party politics with innovation or those ideologically opposed to industry—will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the world-leading research and innovation that will carry on alongside this deployment, and particularly about the carbon storage research facility and the work that it will do?

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by background and actually knows about these issues. She is absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.

I welcome what the Secretary of State said about there being more news to come about Scotland, because the Acorn project is not a track 1 project; it is a track 2 project. The previous Prime Minister visited Peterhead and raised hopes that there might be investment coming there, but then nothing. The Secretary of State also spoke about the great skills that we have in oil engineering. There is possibly nowhere else in Europe, and perhaps the world, that has more of those skills than the north-east of Scotland, so can he tell us how committed the Government are to bringing forward Acorn as quickly as possible?

I concur completely with what the hon. Lady says. We are absolutely committed to Acorn; it is very important. We came into Government with track 1 not accounted for, so part of the challenge was getting track 1 over the line because it just seemed so important to send a signal that there was not going to be more of the dither and delay that we had seen. I can absolutely assure her and other Scottish colleagues across the House that this is of fundamental importance to us. It is of fundamental importance for Scotland but also for the whole of the United Kingdom, because we will not be able to surmount the challenges we face simply with track 1 projects.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Could he say a bit more about how this important project will sit alongside other investments in green energy as we move towards the 2030 and 2050 targets? Could he also explain more about the potential for job creation across the country in a wide range of industries and regions?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is part of a whole set of things this Government are doing, including lifting the onshore wind ban, releasing private investment and dealing with solar projects that had frankly been sitting on desks for far too long, with nearly 2 GW consented. In fact, more has been consented in nationally consented projects in three months of this Government than in 14 years of the last Government. Doesn’t that tell a story about dither, delay and inaction? So my hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is part of a whole series of investments, both private and public, that this Government are unleashing and putting in.

I am pleased that there is an announcement on the funding of blue hydrogen at Ellesmere Port, but what about Bacton, the gas terminal in north Norfolk? What are the Secretary of State’s plans to support blue hydrogen projects at Bacton, which would be ideally suited for the southern North sea? Also, having looked at the numbers, which seem a bit light, could he please confirm that it is still Government policy that we should capture and store between 20 and 30 megatons of CO₂ by 2030?

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is very much part of our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of future projects when they are announced.

May I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State and his wider team, who have decided in such difficult economic times to invest in my part of the country? This marks a huge vote of confidence in our local industry leaders and our fantastic regional workforce, and as he said, it has been a long time coming. Does he agree that this carbon capture project will create exciting, skilled jobs and opportunities for people in Darlington and the Tees valley, solidifying a green industrial future for my constituency?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her brilliant advocacy on this issue. She raises an important point, which is that people will look at this investment and think that it is a big investment, albeit over 25 years. Is it the right thing to do for the country? Emphatically, yes. It is right for our industries and for the industries of the future, because the transport and storage networks are absolutely crucial, not just for the specific projects I have announced but for future projects, for our security as a country and for jobs in our industrial heartland. I thank her for her advocacy and we will keep moving forward on this.

The Secretary of State says he is absolutely committed to the Acorn project. Well, the way to show that would be to fund it, because yet again the UK Government have failed to announce funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects in Scotland. This is a disaster economically, industrially and environmentally. I am sure he will agree that without Acorn, the UK cannot meet its net zero targets and will miss them by some margin. The last Tory Government failed to back this project in Scotland for years, and despite offering change, Labour has done exactly the same thing, following the same path with broadly the same budget and prioritising less developed, less substantial and less deliverable projects in England while offering the Scottish cluster no funding at all to date. People in Scotland remember well how eager the Treasury and the Westminster Government were to get their hands on revenues from North sea oil and gas. When will we see that returned with investment from Westminster into the north-east of Scotland to support the Acorn project?

I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman’s tone, but it is entirely predictable. He knows that there have always been two tracks. This Government have moved at speed to fund track 1, and I have made absolutely clear our commitment to Acorn and track 2.

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of major investment in carbon capture in our industrial heartlands, including in Merseyside. Knowsley hosts significant industrial capacity and has huge potential to contribute to this. Can the Secretary of State provide details and meet me to discuss how Knowsley will benefit from investment in the thousands of good, secure jobs expected under this scheme?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The challenge for the Government, and for the companies that have won these contracts, is to make sure that we create jobs in the supply chain, including in her constituency. I look forward to meeting her to discuss this.

Waste incinerators release, on average, a tonne of CO₂ for every tonne of waste incinerated. They are usually called “energy from waste” but their environmental value is questionable unless carbon capture is attached. Yes, we need to recycle more, but energy from waste will be with us for years to come. Will the Secretary of State commit to significantly scaling up carbon capture for energy from waste plants?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s engagement on this issue. Labour Members from across the Tees valley, especially our friend Alex Cunningham, have been pressing for many years to secure carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Given the dithering of the Conservative party, we had become increasingly anxious that the final investment decisions would not be aligned and that the opportunity to invest in this critical project would be lost. It is a testament to this Labour Government that it has been delivered so early after entering office. So that we can use this precious investment, will my right hon. Friend, along with his Business and Trade and Education colleagues, meet hon. Members from across the Tees valley to discuss how we can secure the well-paid jobs, apprenticeships and training that we need?

I pay tribute to Alex Cunningham and my hon. Friend for being tireless advocates. He makes such an important point. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), we must ensure that the jobs we are delivering get to the people and places that have not seen such opportunities for far too long. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) to discuss this further.

Given the Chancellor’s rhetoric about black holes, it is perhaps a little surprising that the Government have managed to magic £22 billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well. I hope his plan works. Does he share my concern that, in doing this, we will reduce the drive to decarbonise industries, just as the use of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, including in Westbury in my constituency?

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s question, although I do not agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country’s future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of course we want them to do so.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I congratulate the trade unions, communities and campaigners that have campaigned for this for so long. His leadership stands in stark contrast with the asset-stripping of jobs, hopes and investment that we have seen in too many of our industrial heartlands. Does he agree that carbon capture is about not just net zero or boosting cluster areas, but boosting jobs, skills and futures in the supply chain in communities such as mine in Peterborough and across the country?

My hon. Friend always speaks with great eloquence on these issues, and he is completely right. When we talk about the transition to clean energy creating the jobs of the future, and about it being the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st century, we have to show that it can actually happen. The problem with the last Government is that, although they used that rhetoric at times, they never actually delivered. Today, we are showing the difference.

As the Secretary of State will be aware, the vast majority of carbon capture and storage pilot and demonstration projects that have been commissioned worldwide have been cancelled or put on hold. I am concerned that the Government are putting so much money—£22 billion—into an unproven technology. I understand that the track 1 projects are about new gas power stations and blue hydrogen, about which the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has already expressed concern because they are fossil fuel technologies. Will the Secretary of State rule out investing any of this £22 billion in new fossil fuels, locking the UK into new fossil fuel production? Will he instead consider a major scaling up of natural carbon capture through major investment in the restoration of woodlands, peatlands and wetlands?

It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman’s opposition to new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these things. I want to be generous to the Green party—[Interruption.] I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about this, because we need all of these technologies.

I welcome the Government’s announcement on moving forward with the track 1 projects, which will create thousands of well-paid jobs, attract inward investment and accelerate us towards net zero. With the closure of the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the two largest carbon emitters in Wales are now in my Mid and South Pembrokeshire constituency, but they have no access to pipeline CO₂ transport. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to encourage the decarbonisation of sites such as those in Pembrokeshire, which rely on non-pipeline solutions for CO₂ transport, to achieve a just transition?

My hon. Friend also speaks with customary eloquence on these issues. This is potentially an important part of the solution. We owe a debt to the workers at Port Talbot, and we must ensure that we leave no stone unturned in looking to the future. I look forward to continuing these discussions with him.

The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO₂ he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO₂, at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.

In Northern Ireland, we are tearing up thousands of acres of pristine upland bogland to erect windmills, and Scotland has already cut down 17 million carbon-absorbing trees to make space for windmills. I know the Secretary of State is keen on modelling, but have his models told him how many carbon capture and storage facilities will be needed to offset the carbon impact of his green policies?

I will let the House into a secret: the conversation—if I can put it that way—between myself and the right hon. Gentleman goes back to 2008 or 2009, when he was shadowing me, so this is a long-running saga, and I fear I will not convince him. I disagree with him on so many levels that it is hard to listen. I respect his point of view, but I think we will not agree.

This Government have shown in the last three months what can be achieved by rejecting the climate denialism that the last Government often seemed at risk of sliding into. However, this announcement is important because it underlines the opportunity we have to also reject climate delivery denialism—the idea that we can somehow make the transition to net zero work without making big, bold investments or by focusing only on narrow solutions that align with our ideological priorities. The International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee could not be clearer: CCUS is not just an economic opportunity for this country, but a scientific necessity if we are to meet our climate targets. Will the Secretary of State therefore leave no stone unturned and no opportunity off the table, doing everything we can not just to deliver on our targets, but to ensure that we make the most of the opportunity to reindustrialise parts of this country that have been neglected for far too long?

My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking to international partners about where the new British Government stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back. However, if I had said to them, “We can’t do carbon capture; that’s just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our disposal, both for British leadership and for global decarbonisation.

The Secretary of State will know that it is vital that we reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst ravages of a climate crisis that is already manifesting. Given that this deal risks incentivising hard-to-abate businesses to continue with business as usual, will he outline what steps the Government intend to take to ensure that those industries also invest in reducing their emissions?

I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed, our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.

I am so pleased to be part of a new era of clean energy investment, with carbon capture in the north-east and the very successful recent renewables auction. The Secretary of State has been to see our critical minerals, floating offshore wind potential and geothermal potential in Cornwall. Will he please confirm that the industrial strategy and renewables will be truly UK-wide and will span from Scotland and the north-east down to the west and Cornwall, with a clear pipeline of investment opportunities in order to give certainty to developers in, for example, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before in the House, Cornwall has a crucial role to play in our clean energy future. She is a brilliant champion for Cornwall and for floating wind. As she says, there is huge opportunity, and we look forward to working with her to make it happen.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation and carbon capture, particularly in heavy industry, including cement. However, the track 1 projects include new gas power stations and new blue hydrogen, which will carry a huge greenhouse gas penalty caused by upstream methane emissions. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to reviewing the full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for any project before it goes to a full investment decision?

That is indeed done as part of this. I gently say to some of those asking me this question that this Government have a world-leading position on no new oil and gas licences, and that position is recognised around the world. I say to the hon. Member—this goes back to what I have said throughout this statement—that we need everything as part of the mix. That is why we are going to keep existing fields in the North sea open for their lifespan—for decades to come—and that is part of the energy mix. Of course we are going to move off oil and gas; indeed, we have a science-based position on this issue, unlike the last Government. But this does need to be a transition, and that is what we are going to make happen.

I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to delivering for Teesside and to delivering thousands of good green jobs in clean industries—delivery after years of delay. He mentioned Solent earlier, and he knows the risk that delay can pose to CCUS and to jobs. Does he therefore agree that it is absurd for the Conservative party to try to claim credit for this proposal after failing to deliver for 14 years, failing to commit any resources and leaving our industries in the lurch?

My hon Friend is absolutely right. The last Government cancelled the project twice, which tells us all we need to know about them. I had forgotten about the second cancellation; I actually had to check—I could not believe that they had cancelled it not just once but twice. That is going some. After three months, here is the reality: they talked, we acted.

The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS projects would not be possible without the private investment generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that, of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will he ensure that that private investment continues so that more CCUS projects come forward in the future?

I listened to what oil and gas companies such as BP and Equinor said: they warmly welcomed this announcement. Frankly, there was a sigh of relief; after years of promises and delay, we finally had a Government getting this done.

Ten million pensioners will find it utterly extraordinary that this Government can find over £20 billion when they cannot find £1 billion to fund the winter fuel payment. That is £20 billion to invest in what the Secretary of State has today admitted is a risky technology—I find myself in the rare position of agreeing with the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), on that. The extraordinary thing is that this is almost £1,000 per household. Will this sum of taxpayers’ money be added to general taxation, when taxes are already at record highs, or will it be added to our energy bills, which the Secretary of State has promised will be brought down?

Let us be absolutely clear about this, because that was a significant intervention from the hon. Gentleman. Here we have what claims to be the party of working people opposing jobs for working people right across the country. That says all we need to know about the hon. Gentleman: outside this House, he pretends to be in favour of good industrial jobs for Britain; in this House, he opposes them.

I welcome the announcement that has been made, but the Acorn project in St Fergus, between Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my constituency, has been waiting for years, following a promise of jam tomorrow from the last lot. Opposition colleagues have asked for a definitive statement regarding progress on the project. I know that it is a track 2 project, but I am deeply impressed by the extent to which the Secretary of State is prepared to move things forward rapidly, so can he please give us some sort of timescale for the Acorn project today?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his question. I do understand that, just as track 1 was led a merry dance by the last Government, so too was track 2. The current Government have been in power for three months. We are moving at speed, and we have got track 1 over the line. These are obviously decisions that the Chancellor will have to make in the spending review, for reasons the hon. Gentleman will understand. I just say to him that we are absolutely committed to track 2, including Acorn.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but carbon capture can be done in a number of ways. Anaerobic digestion plants, for example, produce as much CO2 as methane, which can be ducted into greenhouses to produce bigger tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces. Will such natural carbon capture be included in the project, thereby helping to enhance our food security?

I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman.

Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use and storage does so at their peril, and the Government’s commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals, rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope he has a conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—[Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member does not want to talk to him right now. A good point to end on is the fact that, of course, jobs will be created in certain parts of the United Kingdom, but the measures announced will benefit supply chains across the whole United Kingdom. This Government look forward to ensuring that happens.