Michael Shanks MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.