Topical Questions

Since the last oral question time for the Department, the spending review announced the largest investment in clean energy in our country’s history—investment in new nuclear; in carbon, capture and storage; and in hydrogen transport and storage. We are investing £8.3 billion through Great British Energy and £13.2 billion in our warm homes plan for energy security, lower bills and good jobs.

Evidence from the National Grid, Ofgem and Imperial College London shows that locational or zonal pricing would save billions of pounds a year, lower bills and reduce the need for expensive and often unpopular grid infrastructure. Why has the Secretary of State ruled it out?

I made a comprehensive statement to the House on this last Thursday, and the grounds for the decision are these: first, there is the question of fairness, and secondly, there is the question of the cost of the transition and what would happen in the meantime. We need investment in our clean energy infrastructure, and we need investment in growth. I believe that our way—reformed national pricing—is the right way forward.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why the strategic spatial energy plan will set out where we need our energy infrastructure, so that we can have a planned system that matches power needs and infrastructure at least cost to bill payers and taxpayers.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State said I was hiding when I was, in fact, with my six-month-old baby, who I know he is aware of. On behalf of all young mums who face those kinds of comments in their first few weeks back at work, may I gently suggest he reflects on those remarks? I want to ask the Secretary of State a very simple question: is £82 higher or lower than £72?

On the first point, I completely respect the right hon. Lady’s decision to be with her young baby, and there was no offence intended. I think it is very important that we understand the needs of new parents and, indeed, parents across the country. On the question she asked, I do not know what she is getting at, frankly.

I do not know whether the Secretary of State does not know or does not want to say, but £72 a megawatt-hour is what electricity cost last year, and £82 is the price he has paid for offshore wind, and he is set to do the same this year—and that is before the extra costs for the grid for wasted wind and back-up, which are going through the roof, thanks to his policies. Yesterday, he committed to radical honesty. In that spirit, will he admit either that he cannot add up, or that his policies cannot bring down bills?

I am going to be radically honest and tell the right hon. Lady the truth: she is gambling on fossil fuels—the same thing she did that led us to the worst cost of living crisis in our country’s history, with family finances, businesses’ finances and public finances wrecked. The only way to bring down bills for good is through cheap, home-grown power that we control. We have an energy security plan. The Conservatives have an energy surrender plan.

GB Energy will prioritise a whole range of projects, and that is a matter for GB Energy, as a publicly owned energy company at arm’s length from Government, but there are huge opportunities right across our country, whether in floating wind, tidal, hydrogen or offshore wind and supply chains. GB Energy is owned by the public and will benefit people right across Britain.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Across Europe, we have already seen 2,300 heatwave-related deaths—avoidable deaths—and the Met Office report says that things will just get worse. The Lib Dems and I have a really cool idea. Will the Secretary of State work with local authorities to open up public spaces with air conditioning, such as leisure centres and libraries, so that they can provide relief from extreme heat for the elderly and vulnerable?

There is no monopoly on good ideas, and the hon. Lady raises the important issue of how we adapt as a country to the climate crisis. We know we have a lot more to do, and we will listen to all good ideas.

My hon. Friend raises a great example, and I will take a risk and say yes, I will come to Stourbridge. I love Stourbridge, and I look forward to seeing that project.

Of course the Government follow the regulations that we have put in place quickly, and applications must be considered on a case-by-case basis—that is the way anyone would expect them to be dealt with. I will not say on the Floor of the House any more about those applications, as they are live decisions that will be made in due course by the Department.

I will repeat what I have said before: we are obviously hugely disappointed by the way that the owners have dealt with the company. I repeat the ask that I have made in the House a number of times, and in writing to the chief executive, that he should put his hands in his pockets and do the right thing by the workforce. We are doing everything we can as part of the insolvency process safely to manage the refinery, and to look at whether there are buyers interested in taking it on.

The most significant thing about the OBR report is that it says there is an 8% threat to our GDP by 2070 in a 3°C world, and a 56% rise in the debt to GDP ratio if we do not act on climate change. That is the most important thing from that report, which I recommend all hon. Members read over the summer.

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns. This is a matter for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I am happy to talk to colleagues as they bring forward their land use framework. Nature-based solutions to climate change are important, so we very much engage with our colleagues in DEFRA on these issues.

Solar developers are not playing by the rules when it comes to accessing the land of people on Ynys Môn. Government guidance states that developers must act reasonably when trying to obtain permission to access the land, but my constituents have received threatening emails and there have even been cases of developers trespassing on land. Does the Minister condone such behaviour, and does he believe that current guidance is strong enough to protect constituents such as mine?

I do not know the specifics of the case that the hon. Lady raises—if she wants to send any details to me, I will certainly look at them. We clearly want to see and expect in every single case a partnership between developers delivering projects that we think are important, the planning system responsible for putting the processes in place and the communities who should have their local area protected and be able to access it. I am happy to follow up with her if she wants to raise specifics with me.

That is not the position of the Government, because report after report and the evidence points to the fact that undergrounding cables is significantly more expensive than putting them above ground. Individual applications will clearly look at the individual circumstances and make a decision on that. We have said as a Government that communities that host network infrastructure should benefit through community benefits and direct money off bills, and that is what we will deliver.

It was recently announced that the surplus Ministry of Defence land at RAF Wyton in my constituency has been designated as an MOD trailblazer site. The Housing Minister confirmed to me last week that no assessment has yet been made of the energy infrastructure currently in place. The Prime Minister recently confirmed to me here in the Chamber that my proposal to develop a defence technology cluster on the site would be supported. To that end, is the Minister prepared to look into the available energy infrastructure and substation connectivity at the site and write to me with his assessment?

The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in raising these sorts of questions with me. I am very happy to look at the possibilities. He is right to outline the potential of sites such as that, and we will look at it.

Nova Innovation in my constituency is pioneering floating solar, which is generating clean energy. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Government are taking to support the development of floating solar?

That sounds incredibly exciting, and I look forward to finding out more.

We have been using floating solar technology in this country since 2016. Last month, the French started the largest plant in Europe, producing 74.3 MW. The Chinese have single plants that produce 350 MW. Given the scale of its use across the world, bar Britain, why did the Secretary of State refer to floating solar as a nascent technology? What is nascent about it?

It sounds like I am being educated about floating solar. I am happy to share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for it; if he has proposals about how we can take it forward, I am all ears.

In France, Germany, Croatia and elsewhere on mainland Europe, geothermal energy is being taken very seriously. I was disappointed that geothermal energy got little mention in the industrial strategy, particularly as there is estimated to be 30 GW of energy in the Cornish granite batholith. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we clear the barriers to unleash the potential of the Cornish granite batholith?

My hon. Friend always raises the huge potential of Cornwall in this House and in the energy space. He is right to talk about the potential for geothermal; we are hugely excited about the opportunities that it presents. I am very happy to meet him and others to discuss further how we can take it forward.

I am already being contacted by constituents who are worried about affording their energy bills this winter, but do not feel that the service they get from the energy companies is properly supporting them. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that energy companies provide the support that they need?

We are very clear that energy companies have strict obligations to follow. We are working with Ofgem to ensure that it adheres to those obligations, and we are doing the job of reviewing Ofgem to ensure that it is a proper consumer champion, with the mandate and powers to work on behalf of consumers and reform this market so that it works in the interests of the hon. Lady’s constituents.

More than 100 INEOS chemical employees are to lose their jobs at Grangemouth because the refinery has closed. The £200 million commitment to Project Willow does not help them in the here and now, and it is frankly an insult to the workers who are about to lose their livelihoods to talk about training opportunities at Forth Valley college that are not being afforded to them. What have the Government actually done and what will they do for those workers who do not have the same redundancy or training package as the refinery workers?

We are looking in the round at how we can deliver jobs and opportunities on the Grangemouth site. The National Wealth Fund made an unprecedented commitment of £200 million, and I have been meeting companies that are potentially interested in developing projects, to make sure we get them over the line. We have delivered on the training guarantee and delivered support beyond that provided by the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal. We are doing everything we can to support the workforce there, and we will continue to do so.