Michael Shanks MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on securing the debate. Although I disagree with some of what he said, the tone of his remarks is welcome. I will respond to some of his points, but given the time I will not be able to respond to them all. On a general point, I appreciate that many issues, and planning issues in particular, are contentious. As Members of Parliament, we all know that as such issues are raised regularly. Although we might take decisions as a Government that people will disagree with, I hope that I have always given the impression that I am always keen to hear the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and that other hon. Members raise, and I want to continue those conversations. Helpfully, the hon. Gentleman said at the outset that I will not be able to comment on the specific application that he references, and it is worth being clear about why that is: the application will come before my Department for a decision. As the Minister with a policy interest in this area, I personally do not see the papers for such decisions and I am not engaged in that process. My noble friend Lord Whitehead usually makes these decisions, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is important that no Minister who has a role in decision making speaks about the specifics, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. However, I can talk in more general terms about how we ensure that solar projects, which are really important, are rolled out sensibly and sensitively, which is at the heart of many of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. To start, I will take us back slightly to the bigger picture about why solar power is so important in the first place, and why it is at the heart of the clean energy mission. We know that far too often energy bills are still being set by the cost of gas, and that deploying renewables faster than we have before is a way that we can reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, protecting bill payers now and in the future. That deployment also provides an economic opportunity to create thousands of jobs in communities across the country. In addition, the Government cares deeply about tackling the most existential crisis that the planet faces. I will return to this point, but the effects of climate change, which we see all too often, cannot be put off until tomorrow. It is hugely important that we tackle them now, so this mission is critical. Solar is at the heart of the mission—and critical to it—because it is one of the cheapest renewable energy sources that we can deploy, and it can be deployed at scale. The aim of our clean power mission is to achieve at least 45 GW to 47 GW of solar by 2030. We are at around 22 GW today, so if we are going to deliver that goal, we need to rapidly deploy a combination of ground-mounted solar and a roof-top revolution, which I will return to. At the same time, we have a commitment to doing that sensitively for the communities that host that infrastructure, and to ensuring that those communities gain a benefit from hosting it on behalf of the country. I will pick just some of the hon. Gentleman’s substantive arguments. The way in which we balance the need for this infrastructure across the country—the fact that it has to be somewhere—with the adverse impacts, as well as the potential benefits, that communities face from hosting the infrastructure, is exactly what our rigorous planning system is about. The views and interests of local communities are key to that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has engaged in the process in this specific case—he has already made representations, and will obviously encourage his constituents to do the same. That feedback is hugely important; people should feel that it has a serious role in the decision-making process, because it does, and therefore it is worth participating in that process. Making those submissions and turning up to those meetings really does matter. Obviously, the planning process itself considers many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including visual amenity, protected landscapes, land use, food production, safety, and traffic conditions during construction. The system for nationally significant projects requires that considerable community engagement be undertaken before a decision is made. The level and quality of engagement is considered during the decision-making process, and these projects are marked down if that is not taken seriously. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of cumulative impact, which is a really important one for us to wrestle with. I do not pretend that we have a single answer to this, but the idea that we should plan holistically—I think the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made this point—to make sure communities do not face multiple projects, with all the cumulative impact that comes from that, is something we want to tackle. We are doing that in two ways.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  Typically, my hon. Friend is right on these points, and yes, it is one of my new year’s resolutions—and I suspect one of my ministerial colleagues’ resolutions as well—for us to redouble our efforts to make the case for this. Just this morning I was reading about yet another study that shows that we underestimate the level of support in the general public for climate action. We have to remember that while there is a lot of noise around this at the moment, the reality is that the public back action on the climate, and it is the right thing to do not just for future generations, as my hon. Friend rightly says, but for our energy security and for good jobs.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a hugely important point. The future of the grid is going to be absolutely critical not only to how we get clean power to homes and businesses across the country to bring down bills, but to how we deliver the economic growth the country needs. That is why we have taken two key actions, the first of which is to build the grid we need for the future. That has been opposed by some Opposition Members, but it is critical that we build that future grid. Secondly, we are clearing out the connections queue so that there is space for more projects, like the ones he mentions, to join. Both those actions are critical, and those who oppose the building of new grid infrastructure oppose the exact economic opportunities that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  There are a number of points that I would challenge in the hon. Lady’s question. First, the floor was set by the Conservative party in government and we have not changed it. Secondly, she talks about thousands of jobs lost every month. That is from an important study that was done by a university; it is not a reflection of what has actually happened in the last few months. Although I absolutely take seriously modelling like this, I think we do need to base it in the reality of what has actually happened. Every single job that is lost is of course hugely distressing for communities, but the hon. Lady should talk up the opportunities in the North sea. She says that we are talking down the North sea—in fact, it is her party that repeatedly talks down the opportunities for the future of the North sea in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, oil and gas decommissioning work, and much, much more. She should talk up those opportunities and be ambitious for the future of the North sea, not talk it down.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I say a happy new year to the hon. Gentleman, as we see his sunny disposition back in this House again! First, we committed in the Budget to looking at the CBAM inclusion and are working to make that happen. Secondly, of course I have been working with all the refineries to make sure that they are as sustainable as possible. Thirdly, I think the hon. Member has an absolute cheek to come here and talk about deindustrialisation when his party has failed to have an industrial strategy in Scotland for the 18 years it has been in power and when, just before Christmas, it published the flimsiest of flimsy plans for energy security in Scotland, which was mostly made up of pictures and not by any detail. His party has absolutely no credibility on these issues whatsoever.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  It is a hugely important question. In an increasingly uncertain world, our energy security becomes more and more important, and that is why we are determined not only that we build a clean power system to tackle the most existential crisis that the planet faces—the climate crisis—but that we have home-grown power here in the UK that we control; that is hugely important. Every step we are taking to invest in renewable energy and a new generation of nuclear helps us to do that, but it is also, of course, the economic opportunity of the century, which delivers our energy security and jobs at the same time.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  We have been really clear that the energy profits levy comes to an end in 2030. We have also put in place what the future of that scheme looks like to provide certainty for the long-term future. Of course, the energy profits levy was introduced by the hon. Lady’s party in government. We have been really clear that the energy profits levy comes to an end in 2030 unless the price floor is triggered in the meantime. If the Conservatives are in favour of scrapping the levy, they also have to say where the billions of pounds that it generates will come from in order to fund the public services that our constituents rely on.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  First, on a positive note in the new year, I believe the hon. Gentleman had some good news over Christmas—I congratulate him on it. He is quite wrong, though, on his question. I should set out, as I did in my oral statement on the Lindsey oil refinery, that this was an insolvency process and it was therefore for the official receiver to conclude the sales process, which it has done. It has taken the highest bid that was on the table. P66 will now take forward the future of that site in a sustainable way and I will continue to work with it on that question. The Government do not retain decommissioning liabilities; they were part of the deal and P66 will take them along with the site.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to colleagues across the House. I have temporarily lost hearing in one of my ears so if I am shouting or do not hear every detail of the questions, I apologise in advance. This Government are determined to strengthen our energy security by moving away from volatile fossil fuels and delivering a clean power system. We have switched off the last coal power station in the UK and have consented enough clean power to power the equivalent of 7.5 million homes. That is how we will tackle the climate crisis, strengthen our energy security and create good jobs across the country.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Energy Transition · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important question on two fronts. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned that the transition away from fossil fuels is hugely important for our energy security and for future generations. We in this place have a huge responsibility to safeguard the future of our planet for the generations still to come. His second point was, rightly, that we need to make the case for why this is important now. It is about how we get away from the volatility of fossil fuel prices, which so many of our constituents are still paying the price for, and how we industrialise communities right across the country. Tens of thousands of jobs have been created through the renewables that are already in place and we want to see hundreds of thousands of jobs by building much more of this infrastructure in the UK; that is how we get an economic advantage as well as energy security.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for engaging with me over the weekend on this issue. I am genuinely sorry that there are still so many customers who are not connected. The engineers are doing a fantastic job, but as she rightly says, the challenge is that they cannot reconnect until households are present to disconnect. That is causing significant problems, but they are doing everything they can. I am very happy to discuss this further.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Network companies have benefited in the past, but Ofgem has moved to correct that in the RIIO-3 price control period so that it cannot happen again. We are working with Ofgem every single day to ensure that we bear down on the costs of energy and that consumers benefit from cheaper bills as quickly as possible.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right: we should have many, many more solar panels on rooftops. We agree with him on that. I met the UK Warehousing Association recently to look at some of the technical difficulties around ownership and insurance. We want to do whatever we can to unlock the potential, because we have rooftops across the country that can play a huge part in helping us to achieve our clean power mission.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was delighted to meet my hon. Friend recently to talk about this exciting project in York and the wider developments that go alongside it. We see huge potential from geothermal. As she rightly says, how we structure these projects is important if we are to take them forward as quickly as possible. My noble Friend Lord Whitehead has a particular focus on geothermal, and I am sure that he will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  That is exactly the work we are looking at as part of the local power plan. As my hon. Friend points out, we are determined to unlock much more community-owned energy, to make it as easy as possible for communities to connect to the grid, and for these projects to deliver not just clean energy, but real social and economic benefits for communities. We will publish the local power plan very soon.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need a mix of technologies to achieve our clean power targets, and rooftops are an obvious place to use. I think there is broad consensus about how much we can use rooftops, even from those who disagree with other measures. GBE has invested to bring down bills for public institutions, including schools and hospitals, but we want to see much more solar on car parks and warehouses—everywhere we can possibly have it.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are genuinely excited about any new technologies that come forward, so we are very interested in innovation like that. We need a real mix of technologies to achieve our target, so I am very happy to find out more about that. I am just trying to work out whether I can somehow get a visit to space to see these projects.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Power Cuts: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Energy resilience is one of my top priorities and I understand the particular challenge in rural communities, which see more frequent power disruption. We work with industry and with Ofgem to ensure that sufficient investment is made into the rural power networks and that support is provided when power cuts occur. I thank all the engineers and support staff who work in difficult circumstances to reconnect communities when power failure does occur.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Power Cuts: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I congratulate the businesses in his constituency on doing such a good job. We are determined to bring down the cost of energy for households and businesses across the country. Schemes such as the one he has mentioned demonstrate our commitment to doing that, but the Chancellor also announced in the Budget that households right across the country will have £150 coming off their bill as a result of the decisions that this Government have made to tackle the cost of living crisis. We are determined to support businesses to do the same, and of course in the long term we will reduce the bills of businesses, industry and households by removing gas from the system and delivering the clean power system that will help all of us to have energy security and cheaper bills.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Power Cuts: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  We review lessons learned after every significant power failure, particularly after storms. There was a significant review after Storm Arwen in 2022, but after every storm we look at whether there are any areas in which we can improve. I regularly meet the Energy Networks Association, which does much of the work with the distribution network operators to ensure that welfare provisions, in particular, are provided as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is much more we can do, but one of the fundamental things is to invest in the future of the grid, which means building grid infrastructure and improving existing infrastructure. Members across the House have to support that grid infrastructure if they want to see as resilient a grid as possible across the country.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I apologise in advance to the Committee for my voice; I am full of the joys of the season, which are going around this place at the moment. I hope we get through this in one go. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 24 November under the affirmative process. Like so much of what I seem to bring to these Committees, the draft regulations may appear technical, but they are hugely important. They are essential to the effective sharing of data within UK carbon capture, usage and storage and the offshore petroleum industries—data that underpins collaboration, transparency and innovation, all of which are critical to advancing our energy security. The data-sharing rules set out by the regulations will support the effective use of the UK’s carbon storage capacity and the contribution that it can make to delivering the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and accelerate our journey to net zero. Carbon capture, usage and storage is a set of emissions reduction technologies designed to prevent carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide captured from a range of sources, including power generation and industrial processes, will be transported for permanent storage offshore, deep underground, rather than being emitted into the atmosphere. Complementing our transition to home-grown clean energy, not only is CCUS essential to meeting our climate commitments, but it will safeguard our energy security and decarbonise power and industry in a way that drives economic growth. The Oil and Gas Authority, now operating under the business name of the North Sea Transition Authority, regulates the secure permitting of carbon dioxide stores on the UK continental shelf. That means that anyone who wishes to explore for, or use, a geological feature for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide on the continental shelf must hold a carbon storage licence issued by the NSTA. As set out in the Energy Act 2023, carbon storage licensees are responsible for complying with various obligations, including the reporting to the NSTA of information and samples obtained through the conduct of licensee activities. In our view, the wealth of data that carbon storage licensees gather during exploration or storage activities is a national resource, and its publication will accelerate the deployment of CCUS in the UK. That is why we introduced the Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2025, another thrilling statutory instrument, which came into force in May. Those regulations specify the types of information and samples that carbon storage licensees must retain and the periods for which they must be retained. These requirements ensure the preservation of valuable data on carbon storage activities on the continental shelf. The draft regulations set out when the NSTA can publicly disclose carbon storage information and samples provided to it by carbon storage licensees, and which types of information and samples may be so disclosed. They will also amend when the NSTA can publicly disclose information on the drilling or operation of wells under offshore petroleum licences; the timeframe for that was set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Period) Regulations 2018. This amendment to the 2018 regulations will bring the NSTA disclosure powers across CCUS and offshore petroleum into alignment. Information and samples play a significant role in the UK carbon dioxide storage industry. Access to high-quality data for the NSTA, industry, academics and the public will help to deliver efficient ways to utilise the UK’s storage potential. The carbon storage information and samples published will support the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned, including best practices and innovation, ultimately leading to cost reductions and the overall advancement of the sector. That includes accelerating the North sea’s energy transition. The NSTA helps to drive that transition by realising the significant potential of the UK continental shelf as a critical energy and carbon abatement resource. The draft regulations will further provide opportunities for the industries based offshore, with very significant potential for storing carbon dioxide in the depleted oil and gas fields and other geological formations on the UK continental shelf. The NSTA consulted on the carbon storage and the offshore petroleum aspects of the regulations—under the previous Government, I might say. The consultation on the amendment to well data confidentiality closed in 2022; a response was published in 2023. The consultation on the proposed regulations for the disclosure of carbon storage information closed in April 2024; a response was published in October 2025. Feedback from both was positive and has been carefully considered to ensure that the draft regulations reflect industry needs and best practice. CCUS is critical to the UK’s future energy security and to our industrial ambitions. The draft regulations may be technical, but they are imperative and will enable a wealth of data to be made accessible, which will ultimately support the advancement of the CCUS industry and the future of industries on the UK continental shelf. I commend them to the Committee.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to end the year on a high with the shadow Minister agreeing with the Government. I wish it happened more often.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Draft Oil and Gas Authority (Carbon Storage and Offshore Petroleum) (Specified Periods for Disclosure of Protected Material) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I think the shadow Minister was actually congratulating his own work when he was in my role several years ago, but it is a treat nevertheless. I thank him for his support and echo his comments about the NSTA; its primary role is that of a regulator, but it also does a phenomenal amount of work to bring the industry together to look at how it improves on its practices. I also echo his thanks to Stuart Payne and the team for their work. I turn to the shadow Minister’s questions. First, our purpose is not just to bring both sets of regulations into alignment; it is also important to recognise that a lot of the decommissioning work is moving further and further to the right. It will be a huge economic opportunity for us if we can ensure that that work happens. This is partly about making sure that the regulations are aligned, but it is also about ensuring that action can be taken against those who are not meeting the deadlines. Beyond the draft regulations, wider work is going on to ensure that we are enforcing our expectation of decommissioning work being concluded, not least because the public will end up on the hook for many of the costs if that work is not done. On the question about the administrative burden, we look at these issues in the round, but there were consultations with the industry in 2023 and 2024 and no objections were raised by industry bodies. I think we had 11 responses, including three from industry representative bodies and five from individual companies, and overall the consultation received a positive response, so our sense is that the draft regulations will be warmly welcomed. On the specific question of enforcement, one of the issues that we addressed in the North sea plan was how we will look at the enforcement powers of the NSTA. We will say more about that when we introduce legislation in due course. I welcome the support for these measures, and indeed the work of the previous Government on setting up the landscape for carbon capture and storage. It is a huge opportunity for our country, and we look forward to moving it forward. Question put and agreed to.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Small-scale Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that point; I am sorry for not mentioning it earlier, as my hon. Friend made it before. It is an important point, and we need to look at water scarcity right across the policy landscape. Demand for water is increasing in a number of areas—for example, I am looking at it in terms of data centres at the moment. The Government must look at the uses of water, as well as building new reservoirs to ensure we have water supply. That is an important point that will be taken into consideration by the Environment Agency and as part of the local planning process, but I will take it away and see whether there is anything more we can do on that. The Department and I are keeping low-volume hydraulic fracturing under active review. We are open to receiving objective evidence, wherever that may come from; we will review that and look at whether definitions need to change and whether other legislation is required, but the position is as I have set out at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby again for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall, and other hon. Members who have participated. I appreciate the engagement on the issue, which I am confident that my hon. Friend will continue. I look forward to that. Question put and agreed to.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Small-scale Fracking Ban · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for securing this debate, for her fantastic speech and for all her campaigning on this issue and many others since she was elected. She is a fantastic champion for her community. I also thank her for all the conversations we have had on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby noted the importance of this Government’s climate commitments. I think it is useful to restate those for context. In the face of a fractured consensus—pardon the pun—this Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate emergency. That is why our clean power mission and everything we are doing in Government is about getting us off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. It also means managing the role that oil and gas plays in the country at the moment. Just a fortnight ago we published our response to the consultation on the future of the North sea—our “North Sea Future Plan”—which includes not just the future actions in the North sea, but our approach to the onshore oil and gas sector. We have set an ambitious and pragmatic approach to cease new oil and gas licensing and explore new offshore and onshore fields while managing existing fields for their lifespan; I will come back to that point later. That is all about helping manage our transition from fossil fuels—what we have to do for climate change—but also how we invest in what comes next and the clean energy that will bring down people’s bills and deliver our energy security. I have listened closely to the points made by my hon. Friend in today’s debate, and in the correspondence that I have had with her and our other meetings. My Department has also been aware of these concerns through correspondence from other Members in this place and the recent e-petition that was considered. I want to be clear on this Government’s position towards hydraulic fracturing—both high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas and more conventional low-volume hydraulic fracturing. Regarding high-volume fracturing for shale gas, the Government have committed to end fracking for good, as my hon. Friend noted. On 1 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced legislation that will be introduced soon to end new onshore oil and gas licensing in England, including new licences that could be used for high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas, which is commonly understood as fracking. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made a powerful point about our opponents in this debate. The idea put forward by Reform that we should not only not continue with our moratorium, but embrace fracking as a form of energy and start doing it all across the country, goes into the bucket with so many of their policies that are backward, dangerous and ill-conceived. We will absolutely reject that approach and we will legislate to make sure that our commitment will stand in the statue books for the future. There is already an effective moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing for shale gas—fracking—in England, and that will continue to apply to all existing licences. That is in place because of concerns that were raised around the prediction and management of induced seismicity in that type of fracturing. There are similar restrictions in place in other parts of the UK; taken together, that existing moratorium for currently licensed fields and the end of licensing for new fields means that no fracking for shale gas takes place anywhere in the country, and no new licences will be granted that could be used for that in the future. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is about low-volume hydraulic fracturing, which has been the focus of today’s debate. I want to be clear that this Government make policy based on evidence. Although I have listened very closely to her points today and in the past, the evidence base is not there at the moment to suggest that low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities have the same associated risks as fracking for shale gas. A small number of those activities take place—including, for example, proppant squeezes at volumes lower than the thresholds for fracking generally, as currently defined in legislation. The small number of those activities are not currently in scope of the effective moratorium that is in place. She rightly asked whether I would consider a review of that definition; of course, I keep all these things under review, and I am very happy to continue to review new evidence as it comes forward, but any change has to be based on evidence. We have to see additional evidence to what we have reviewed on the definition, but that is not there at the moment. Low-volume hydraulic fracturing activities under existing licences take place in the context of conventional oil and gas operations. They require a range of permissions and consents before they can be undertaken, which include planning permission from the relevant local authorities and the necessary permits and consents from the North Sea Transition Authority, the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. That system ensures that operations meet the safety and environmental standards and obligations set out in law, and activities will be approved only if each of those stages is positively completed. My hon. Friend noted the point about existing licences, and I want to reiterate what our manifesto said. There were two parts to that commitment: we said that we would not issue new licences to explore new fields—we will legislate for that soon—but that we would not revoke existing licences. It is the Government’s position that existing licences are in place and we do not intend to rescind them. This is clearly a complex issue. I understand, as my hon. Friend has raised today, that there are real concerns from communities about any of these kinds of projects. Although the evidence base is important for us to make decisions here, I do not discount for a second the concerns that communities have. I want to hear those concerns from across the country. I remain very open-minded, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to new evidence coming forward to look at this definition, but for obvious reasons, it is important that the Government make policy decisions based on evidence that can stand up to scrutiny if ever challenged in court. That evidence base is critical.