PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 18 March 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Britain produces 1% of global climate emissions. China is the world’s largest emitter, yet no UK Energy Secretary has visited it in eight years to make the case for it to do more. That is why I have been in Beijing making the case for climate action. Engagement, not negligence, is what fighting for Britain looks like. On climate, as on so much else, this Government believe that Britain can only protect our national interests by engaging on the international stage.

The Bacton energy hub in my constituency is undergoing a green transition, which I support because I believe in protecting our natural environment and boosting our economy through net zero—two things the Conservatives seem to have abandoned. Green hydrogen at Bacton needs wind power to be brought in from the coast. Will the Secretary of State help to make that happen, and will he visit Bacton with me to see the potential for himself?

This, among many others, is a very, very important potential project and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for it. Green hydrogen is absolutely part of our energy mix in the future.

Clean energy is one of the eight growth sectors in the industrial strategy and will provide a core part of that strategy. If anybody wants to build new nuclear in this country, our door is always open.

Last month, with surprisingly little fanfare from the Department or the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee published carbon budget 7. Among the more eyewatering recommendations was the figure put on the cost of meeting the obligations: £319 billion over the next 15 years. Frontloading that will be a net cost to industry every year until 2050. Is that exorbitant cost the reason that he cancelled his Department’s review, commissioned by his predecessor, into the whole-systems cost of net zero?

I deeply regret the direction in which the hon. Gentleman is going. The Climate Change Committee does incredibly important work. We will look at CB7, but the biggest cost we face as a country is if we do not act on the climate crisis. That is what would leave hundreds of billions of pounds of costs to future generations.

The right hon. Gentleman might be content with signing our energy sovereignty over to the People’s Republic of China, and he might be happy with his Government’s arbitrary targets and bans, pushing bills up and leaving us more reliant on importing and costing jobs, but we think it is time for a new approach, as the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, focused on security and cost to the consumer, not pie-in-the-sky targets with no plan to reach them. Will he recommission the review into the whole-systems cost? If not, what is he trying to hide?

It is the Tory party that has an energy surrender policy: surrendering us to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The Tories would keep us locked in to fossil fuels, threaten billions of pounds of investment in net zero and leave our children and grandchildren a terrible legacy. That is the Conservative party in 2025: anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-business and anti-future generations.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have moved forward on delivering our plan that people hosting important infrastructure in their constituencies should benefit from it. The Conservatives consulted on it, like so many policies that they talked and talked and talked about, but failed to deliver over 14 years—we are moving on with delivering it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

In the recent advice for its seventh carbon budget, the Climate Change Committee highlighted the urgency of ensuring cheaper electricity so that households can transition away from gas heating. When will the Government act to improve energy security and reduce costs for the households seeking to adopt low-carbon heating by reforming policy costs on energy bills?

As we discussed earlier, the CCC raised an important issue that we need to look at. The key question on this so-called rebalancing is that it must be looked at in the context of understanding the principled case, while also ensuring that if we go down that or another route, we do so in a way that is fair. That is the work that my Department is engaged on.

I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for his constituents. As I said, I am very receptive to calls from BCSSS trustees. I wrote to the Chancellor, who sent back a positive response, and we are now taking the next steps in this process. I will be reconvening trustees to meet and talk about it again.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are very aware of the issues with park homes, and industry support is provided to residents. As we think about expanding the warm home discount and the support we provide for households that cannot afford their energy, we will, of course, have park homes in our mind.

Yes, that sounds really good. Community energy is a crucial part of our energy future.

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not necessarily agree on everything, but on this we do agree. The transformation of the West Burton site from a fossil fuel-fired power station to a fusion power plant is an incredibly exciting project, and we should all be battling for it.

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He underlines the importance not just of delivering on energy projects but the wider economic benefits from building infrastructure—the kind of infrastructure that the Conservatives now oppose. He is right that in order to deliver these projects, we need to see investment in rural communities by the Scottish Government. We will continue to press them on those issues.

The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. Rolling out electric car infrastructure is incredibly important. If he writes to my Department, we will ensure that he gets the best possible reply.

Will Ministers consider exercising the community electricity right within the Infrastructure Act 2015 to require commercial renewable energy developers to offer communities the opportunity to part-own schemes developed in their area?

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. As an energy nerd, I am really interested in this 2015 power, which, despite my nerdery, I did not actually know about. We are actively looking at this really important power, which was put in place by the previous Government.

In response to a written question to me last week, the Minister confirmed that no nationally significant infrastructure projects have been consented to that will use greater than 50% best and most versatile agricultural land. In my constituency, the East Park Energy solar farm is close to 75%, but the overarching national policy statement for energy states at paragraph 5.11.34:

“The Secretary of State should ensure that applicants do not site their scheme on the best and most versatile agricultural land without justification.”

Can the Minister confirm whether nearly 1,500 acres of best and most versatile land is too much good-quality agricultural land to sacrifice?

The hon. Gentleman will know that any nationally significant project goes through a proper planning process, and it would not be right for me to comment on that. None the less, I am sure that the decision makers will be looking closely at the issues that he has raised.

There is to be a much reduced testing process for oil at the import terminal at Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State concerned that, if imported oil does not pass these reduced tests, it cannot be used, leading to Scotland suffering a fuel shortage?

Throughout the seven months that we have been in government, we have been doing everything we can to work with the operators of the Grangemouth refinery. Of course we were disappointed by its closure. We have carried out a number of pieces of work on fuel security. We are not concerned about that at this point, but, across the whole country, we keep constantly it under review.

Although the Leader of the Opposition thinks that achieving net zero is impossible without “bankrupting us”, investment in low carbon energy for communities such as Severn Beach in my constituency could create valuable skilled jobs. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the area around the River Severn will get the investment that it needs to realise its potential?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right on that. The Opposition are off to the “Wacky Races” when it comes to net zero. We in the Labour party know the truth: net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century and, under this Government, we will seize it.

Carbon capture, utilisation and storage is the central plank of the Humber 2030 vision. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to meet the Humber Energy Board, and if he does not will he join me in doing so?

I talk every day to my hon. Friend about her constituency and I am very happy to meet whoever she wants me to, because we think this is an incredibly important matter. The opportunities for her area and the Humber are great if we can harness the talents of the people in her constituency.

Requiring developers to include solar panels in all new homes and buildings would be extremely popular with the public and help deliver net zero targets. Can the Secretary of State give an update on his discussions with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, including those on mandatory solar as part of the future homes and buildings standard?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We are actively working on that in government. Whatever one’s view on ground-mounted solar—we in the Labour party think that it has a role—we do need solar panels on rooftops. It is an important opportunity. While we are about it, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can start supporting our plans on planning and infrastructure so that we can build the clean energy infrastructure that we need.

The Secretary of State will be aware of the ongoing work to deliver new nuclear investment in Hartlepool. Billions of pounds are on the table, which will mean jobs and skills for generations to come. Will he meet me to discuss how we can get this deal over the line?

New nuclear is an essential part of our future energy plans. My Ministers and I would be absolutely delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those plans.

I welcome the warm words from the Secretary of State earlier about the Acorn project. How confident is he that the Chancellor is listening?

I speak as an old lag in these things: we have never had a Prime Minister and a Chancellor so enthusiastic and committed to the net zero agenda and what it can do economically for our country. The right hon. Gentleman should take heart from that.

Teesside is seeing thousands of jobs coming on stream in carbon capture and storage, but the Conservatives’ new energy policy would put those jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State restate his commitment to this industry, and will he work to establish a Europe-wide CO₂ market to bring investment and jobs to our region?

My hon. Friend puts it so well. This is the economic opportunity of our time. Our investment in carbon capture and storage shows what is possible. Today’s desperate request for attention from the Opposition is anti-business, anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-investment and the wrong choice for Britain.