Michael Shanks MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Electricity Distribution Network: Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend asks an important question. I completely understand the frustrations of people who are without power and the disruption that it has on people’s lives. My Department has had a number of conversations with Northern Powergrid on the particular issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency and I am advised that many of the power outages across Waterhouses, Brandon and Esh Winning were caused by trees contacting overhead lines. This is all feeding into work that is being done to ensure that the resilience of the network allows us to avoid those situations in the future. We are also working on how we can upgrade the network where possible to ensure it is resilient. There is always more that we can do, but the grid does remain hugely resilient across the country, and we will work to support communities such as that of my hon. Friend where, unfortunately, there are power outages.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Electricity Distribution Network: Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I think Electricity North West is considering exactly that question, looking at where the lines can be buried to avoid repetition of the issues that have been caused so far. I will follow up on that point in particular with it. I had a fantastic meeting with the hon. Gentleman yesterday to talk about Coniston and local energy markets. I encourage him and Members across the House to read the local power plan, published this morning, which sets out our ambition to look at innovative ways in which communities can own and invest in their own energy while also having the resilience of local energy networks and smart energy systems that help the grid both nationally and locally.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Electricity Distribution Network: Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Great Britain’s electricity distribution network is highly resilient and the Government work closely with industry to maintain that. Energy resilience is a top priority for the Government, which is why my Department will publish an energy resilience plan in 2026.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, all projects that are consented and licensed have to follow the law, and the North Sea Transition Authority as a regulator makes that happen. I will not comment on projects that are currently going through the consenting process.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said repeatedly, any projects that are going through the planning system have to demonstrate community engagement and that they have engaged genuinely with that feedback. That is part of the process, and projects of any kind are assessed against that. I will not comment on individual applications for obvious reasons.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I recently had a useful meeting in Aberdeen, in which the GMB participated, about building up the future of the North sea. What I never hear from Conservative Members is any support for industries that will invest in the North sea in the future, and in the tens of thousands of jobs that will go with it. Perhaps at some point they should support the future in the North sea.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Given that it is topical questions, I might struggle to say all the progress that is being made, but the Government have committed in our energy strategy and in decisions made by the Chancellor to fund hydrogen and carbon capture, to ensure that those are important parts of our energy mix. I will be visiting projects in the Humber soon, to see exactly what is happening on the ground, but we are committed to carbon capture, usage and storage and the jobs that go with it.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I visited Ratcliffe-on-Soar for the closure ceremony. It was a good example of a just transition done well, and an historic moment of consensus, delivering the phase-out of coal across our country. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recently met the mayor to talk about the future of that site, which has huge potential.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will not be disappointed because, as she said in her question, I will not comment on the application. However, we set out clearly in response to the Finch ruling how scope 3 emissions will be taken into account. That process is now under way, and I cannot comment on those applications.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. All the evidence points to the fact that the fire risk from batteries is less than in residential homes, but we take safety incredibly seriously. I recently convened a roundtable of those involved to look at what more we might do in the regulatory space, and DEFRA is looking at environmental regulations on batteries. We obviously take fire safety incredibly seriously.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend was at a Westminster Hall debate on this issue a few months ago, and what I said then remains the Government’s position: we work closely with the Welsh Government on this issue. We are content with the Welsh Government’s position that this area is already regulated and sufficient, but we obviously keep these things under review.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Again, we have had a meeting to discuss that issue. I will not get into Ofgem’s decisions, but any planning applications or further processes will be dealt with by the Government and by Ofgem in the usual manner.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We want to improve regulations and processes for new nuclear projects while continuing to protect the environment. We will present a full Government response, and an implementation plan, by the end of this month, taking into account our national security and environmental considerations.

• 27 Jan 2026 · East Park Energy: North Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to that point in just a moment. Part of the wider work we are seeking to do across Government is to plan where infrastructure is built holistically and strategically. For example, the land-use work that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing is about looking at the whole United Kingdom and making sure we have a plan in place for future land use, so that all of those things are taken into consideration. The legal requirement for a cumulative effects assessment is set out in environmental regulations. The Government have published advice that summarises the process for undertaking that assessment in relation to NSIPs, and the hon. Gentleman’s wider point about the cumulative impact of housing, Universal Studios or transport is also really important. Obviously, my Department has a particular interest in how we plan the energy system, but we are seeking to work much more broadly right across Government. The land use consultation that DEFRA launched closed in April 2025, and the outputs from that and the regional workshops that have been undertaken are now being analysed. That is the first time we have had a national, holistic plan to bring all these things together. From an energy perspective, which is what I am responsible for, the second point is about the strategic spatial energy plan. For the first time in our history, we will strategically plan the energy system that we need and make conscious decisions about where we site energy infrastructure, so that we are not needlessly building the grid infrastructure that goes with it—so that we are building it next to where we need it the most, reducing the impact on communities and taking into account the cumulative impact of those projects. We should have been doing that a long time ago. I do not blame any particular Government for this, but we have rolled out a huge number of renewables projects across the country without doing any of that strategic planning. That has been a huge failure in the past, and as a result, we are now spending huge amounts of money on building the grid to connect that infrastructure. We have to do that. It is a shame that we did not plan it more strategically in the first place, but we start from where we start, unfortunately. I am conscious of the time, so I will quickly refer to the point about land use and the use of farmland for solar projects. That point is raised regularly, and it is an important one to raise—food security is also our national security, and it is hugely important. Planning policy makes clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. I understand the point that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire made about this particular site; I cannot comment on that, but he helpfully quoted me to me. I still agree with me—which is not always the case—but I am not going to set a specific figure, for obvious reasons. There is very much a determination in the process that we should be using lower-quality land wherever possible, but that does not mean that we can always do so. We need to realise that for some projects, that is just not possible. However, if we zoom out just a little bit, even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios, only 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to solar in 2030. There are a number of other points that I do not have time to address, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some responses on them. In the context of what we are seeking to do, I am not complacent about the impact that these projects have on communities—I genuinely understand it. I read all of my correspondence from people who write to me about these points, and he is right to raise these issues. We are seeking to build the infrastructure that the country needs in a way that takes into account the local impact. Communities may feel that has not been done, and for that I apologise, but we are seeking to build a strategic system that deals with many of these issues into the future, so that communities feel that energy is not done to them, but is part of their community and is something that they welcome. At the same time, that helps us to deliver our missions as a Government. Solar power in this country remains hugely popular and, despite a number of issues, the planning process is rigorous. There is not an automatic yes coming out of the planning system; we look carefully at every single one of these applications. They get a huge amount of consideration, and it is important that communities feel that, and that they know that these applications are taken seriously. If they do not feel that, we have to do more as a Government to ensure that people have confidence in the system. As we deliver this clean power mission, solar will play an important role. We want to bring communities with us, and I commit to doing more to make sure that is the case. Question put and agreed to.