PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Energy Security - 17 December 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Last Friday, we published our landmark clean power action plan, which sets out the route towards our world-leading 2030 clean power mission, including wholesale reform of the grid and planning to make it happen. This is the route to getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets and delivering energy security, lower bills and good jobs for the British people, as well as tackling the climate crisis.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Given Wales’s tradition and history of fuelling the UK’s energy needs, can the Secretary of State tell us what his plans are to put Wales at the heart of our energy security and net zero agenda?

My hon. Friend asks a really important question. The whole clean power plan is about benefiting all four nations of the United Kingdom, including Wales, and we work closely with the Welsh Government on these issues. Before this Labour Government came to office, they were actually trailblazers on how we could have publicly owned generation, and that is one of the things that we and GB Energy are working with them on.

Meur ras, ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. We have seen the terrible consequences for households of fossil fuel energy insecurity, and we cannot allow this to happen with the transition to renewables. However, to achieve our net zero goals, we will have to see a massive increase in demand for critical minerals such as tin and lithium, much of the supply and processing of which will be dominated by economically bad actors. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government will be mitigating this clear and present danger?

I very much enjoyed my trip to my hon. Friend’s constituency before the general election. He is an incredibly powerful advocate for the way his area can source some of the critical minerals we need, including lithium, and he is right about this. The concentration of supply chains, including critical minerals, has taken a generation to arrive, but we must unwind it, and it is one of the many things we are working on as a Government.

Small modular reactors are less land intensive, are very efficient and would get us to clean energy very quickly if the Government were to get on and actually support some orders. As land is in scarce supply, when will the Government get on board with nuclear, instead of shackling themselves to the inefficient, land-destroying, countryside beauty-destroying and inefficient solar.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we support the SMR programme, and we are driving it forward through Great British Nuclear. I am afraid he is making a terrible mistake, which is that we need all of these clean technologies at our disposal—we need nuclear, we need renewables, we need carbon capture and storage—and the difference is that this Government are getting on with it. We have delivered more in five months than the last Government did in 14 years.

Despite lifting the onshore wind ban in England, the clean power action plan shows that, by 2030, 8,600 MW of onshore wind will be needed in England and Wales, 5,000 MW of which will be mainly in Wales, with bits in England. Can the Secretary of State outline exactly how Wales will be benefiting from this huge ramp up in onshore wind, rather than the benefits being extracted out of Wales?

I have to say to the hon. Lady that I do not see it that way. The reality is that the country is totally vulnerable to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. We do not need to look into a crystal ball; we just need to look at the record: we saw the worst cost of living crisis in generations. So long as we are exposed in this way, people in Wales and across the country are vulnerable. That is why clean power is so important, and the Opposition should get on and support it.

I call the shadow Minister.

In the clean power 2030 document published last week, the Government state that they are

“progressing the post-2030 generation interventions, with final decisions on Sizewell C and the Great British Nuclear-led Small Modular Reactor programme”,

but no date is specified for the final investment decision on Sizewell, no date is specified for completion of the down-selection SMR process, there is no indication of a route to market for advanced modular or other technologies, and there is no mention of Wylfa at all. So is it any wonder that the nuclear industry holds a suspicion that this Government are not serious about nuclear, that the damascene conversion to nuclear power professed by the Secretary of State is a false one and that, for the Government, it is renewables at any cost and the exclusion of everything else?

I find the hon. Gentleman quite extraordinary, and not in a good way. The last Government left not only a generalised absolute mess in the public finances, but lots of the programmes that he is talking about were not even funded. The difference with this Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is that she put the money for Sizewell in the Budget. That is something the Conservatives simply do not understand. [Interruption.] You get the point.

It was us in government who bought the Wylfa and Oldbury sites from Hitachi last year, giving much-needed certainty to the workforce and local communities on both sites. It was on 22 May that we announced that Wylfa was our preferred location for a third gigawatt-scale reactor, again giving a boost to that community and the wider industry. I have three questions. Is it still the Government’s intention to reach 24 GW of nuclear power by 2050? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that is impossible without another gigawatt-scale reactor? If a third gigawatt-scale reaction is planned, will it be built at Wylfa and, if not, what is the future for the Wylfa site?

The hon. Gentleman’s story about Wylfa says it all. He says his Government had this great plan for Wylfa, but they had no money behind it.

We bought the site.

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman does not say how the power station will be funded. The truth is that this is elementary economics. If things are announced, they need to be able to be funded, and the Conservatives need to learn that lesson.