Category: Energy

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Energy Price Capping

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech on Energy Price Capping

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 8 September 2022.

    I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of her opening speech.

    We are in the middle of a national emergency. People are really scared, families do not know if they can warm their homes this winter and businesses ask if they can keep the lights on. That is why the Labour party spent the summer fighting for a price freeze, so that no household would pay a penny more on their bills. When we called for it, many people said we were wrong. They pretended that this crisis was something that just affected the poorest, as if working families on average wages could easily shoulder astronomical bills. They dismissed our call for support as “handouts”. But those objections could never last; the Prime Minister had no choice. No Government can stand by while millions of families fall into poverty, while businesses shut their doors and while the economy falls to ruin. So I am pleased that there is action today and that the principle of a price limit has been accepted, but under our plan there will be not a penny more on bills; under this plan, there will be a price rise.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will just make some progress and then I will give way.

    This support does not come cheap. The real question before the House today—the real question the Government face; the political question—is who is going to pay. The Treasury estimates that energy producers could make £170 billion in unexpected windfall profits over the next two years. Let me repeat that: £170 billion in unexpected windfall profits over the next two years.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will give way in just a moment.

    The head of BP has called this crisis “a cash machine” for his company. Households are on the other end of that cash machine—their bills are funding these eye-watering profits. That is why we have been calling for a windfall tax since January, and it is why we want to see the windfall tax expanded now, but the Prime Minister is opposed to windfall taxes. She wants to leave these vast profits on the table, with one clear and obvious consequence: the bill will be picked up by working people. She claims that a windfall tax will deter investment. That is ridiculous. These vast profits are not the reward for careful planning. They are the unexpected windfall from Putin’s barbarity in Ukraine. There is no reason why taxing them would affect investment in the future.

    Do not just take my word for it. Asked which investment BP would cancel if there were a windfall tax, the chief executive said, “None”—his word, not mine. The Prime Minister’s only argument against the windfall tax falls apart at first inspection, laying bare the fact that she is simply driven by dogma, and it is working people who will pay for that dogma.

    Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)

    Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this Government have already introduced a windfall tax, and energy companies today are paying 65% on their profits? What would he rather see that tax set at?

    Keir Starmer

    We are talking about what happens this winter and next. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand—[Interruption.] I will tell him something. Every pound the Prime Minister’s Government refuse to raise in windfall taxes, which is leaving billions on the table, is an extra pound of borrowing. That is the simple, straightforward argument. Every pound that she leaves on the table is an extra pound of borrowing, loading the burden of the cost of living crisis onto working people who will have to pay back for years to come.

    Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)

    The Prime Minister has been careful to frame her guarantee in terms of her refusal to tax, but will she not have a problem explaining to the British people how a levy on their bills in the future to repay the borrowing is not actually a tax?

    Keir Starmer

    This is the basic political divide. The Government want to protect the excess profits of the oil and gas and energy groups; we want to protect working people.

    Mr Perkins

    This Saturday, I and many members of Chesterfield Labour party will be out meeting voters in Chesterfield. If any of those voters have not been paying attention this week, they might still say, “You’re all the same.” But is it not absolutely clear now that there is a clear divide? When I knock on doors, every voter will know that political parties have a choice. The Government have chosen to be on the side of the energy generators; we have chosen to be on the side of bill payers.

    Keir Starmer

    I would be absolutely amazed if Government Members have not picked that up. Ask voters whether they think it is fair that they pick up the bill, rather than those companies that made profits they did not expect to make. There is only one answer to that question. It is a very simple question of whose side are you on.

    I am afraid this is not a one-off. Not only is the Prime Minister refusing to extend the windfall tax; she is choosing to cut corporation tax—an extra £17 billion in tax cuts for companies that are already doing well. That means handing a tax cut to the water companies polluting our beaches, handing tax cuts to the banks and handing a tax cut to Amazon. She is making that choice, even though households and public services need every penny they can get. Working people are paying for the cost of living crisis, stroke victims are waiting an hour for an ambulance and criminals walk the streets with impunity. It is the wrong choice for working people; it is the wrong choice for Britain.

    Mr Dhesi

    The Government appear to have decided to deal with this energy crisis on the backs of ordinary hard-working Brits, and to load huge levels of debt on to future generations, rather than properly taxing the billions of pounds of excess profits of the energy companies. Why are the Government on the side of big corporate rather than ordinary hard-working Brits? Is it because the Prime Minister is a former employee of Shell and is therefore on the side of oil and gas companies instead of protecting ordinary working British people?

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention. It comes down to this basic point. All hon. Members recognise that profits are needed for investment in all businesses, but in this case these are profits that the companies did not expect to make. When the chief executive of BP says that the windfall tax would not deter any investment, it is a bit rich for Government Members to say that he is completely wrong. He is the chief executive of BP. He has made his case and it is the complete opposite of the case the Prime Minister is trying to make.

    The immediate cause of this energy crisis is Putin’s grotesque invasion of Ukraine. We stand united in our support for Ukraine. If we are to defend democracy, defeat imperialism and preserve security on our continent, Putin’s aggression must fail. Whatever our political differences, the Prime Minister will always have my full support in that common endeavour. But we must ask ourselves why we are so exposed to changes in the international price of oil and gas. Why are we so at the mercy of dictators able to pull the plug on wells and shut down pipelines? Why is there such a fundamental flaw in our national security?

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will make my argument and then I will give way.

    It is about a failure to prepare, a failure to increase our energy independence and a failure to rapidly decrease our reliance on fossil fuels. The Conservatives banned onshore wind in 2015, and that cost us clean energy capacity equivalent to all our Russian gas imports in recent years—a policy disaster. The Prime Minister has been consistently opposed to solar power, the cheapest form of energy we have, and she has been consistently wrong. It is not just what the Prime Minister said in the heat of her leadership campaign this summer. When she was Environment Secretary, the Government slashed solar subsidies and the market crashed.

    Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)

    The Leader of the Opposition is being completely misleading, if I may say so. It is under this Government that the United Kingdom has the second highest offshore wind generation capacity of anywhere in the world. How is that created? It is through investment by companies, and this Government will allow for that to happen.

    Keir Starmer

    I take it from that intervention that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not quarrel with me that the ban on onshore wind since 2015 has been a policy disaster, along with the opposition to solar power.

    Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will of course take the former Prime Minister’s intervention.

    Mrs May

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about lack of preparation for the United Kingdom’s energy security. If Labour is so worried about that, why did it not build any new nuclear capacity?

    Keir Starmer

    I am grateful for that intervention and I will deal with it in full, because it is a very important point. Nuclear is vital to our future, and a new generation of power plants should have been built by now. Yesterday, the Prime Minister desperately tried to blame Labour, and that intervention goes to that point. I remember the exchange across the Dispatch Box in 2006 when Prime Minister Blair said that he was pro-nuclear, and the Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, did not know where to look. If Members have not seen the clip, they should have a look. The uncomfortable truth for Members opposite is that the last Labour Government gave the go-ahead for new nuclear sites in 2009. In the 13 long years since then, not one has been completed.

    Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)

    Tony Blair may have said that he was pro-nuclear, but he did not actually build any nuclear power stations.

    On the windfall tax and the £170 billion that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, it is my understanding that most of that is not profits of UK companies but from energy supplied to the UK, and it is not within our ability to tax it. We already have a windfall tax that taxes those profits at 65%. How high does he think a windfall tax should go?

    Keir Starmer

    What was the Conservative party’s position on nuclear when David Cameron was asked the question in 2006? He did not have a position on it. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about the £170 billion. If there is any doubt, I invite the Treasury to disclose the documents so that we can all evaluate them.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    Is not the bigger point that there is a simple choice about how to pay for this? It either all goes on borrowing, ordinary families and the never-never, or at least some of it is paid for by a windfall tax on unearned and unexpected income which Putin has put into the pockets of Shell and BP. That is the fundamental choice.

    Keir Starmer

    That is the fundamental choice and the fundamental divide in the House. Let the Conservatives defend their position of protecting those excess profits, and we will defend our position of standing up for working people.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I will make some progress: I have taken a lot of interventions.

    Let me turn to home insulation, which reduces energy consumption like nothing else. We have the draughtiest homes in Europe. The last Labour Government set about fixing that. Then the Conservative party said, “cut the green crap”, and the whole project all but collapsed. Installation rates fell by 92%—utterly short-sighted, and costing millions of households £1,000 a year on their energy bills right now.

    The Prime Minister is right to recognise that immediate support needs to be combined with longer term action. Fracking and a dash for gas in the North sea will not cut bills, nor strengthen our energy security, but they will drive a coach and horses through our efforts to fight the looming climate crisis. The Prime Minister should listen to her Chancellor, who is sitting next to her. What did he have to say on fracking just a few months ago? I see him leaning forward. This is a long quote, and I have tried to cut it down, but every sentence is worth repeating.

    “Those calling for its return misunderstand the situation we find ourselves in…if we lifted the fracking moratorium, it would take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes—and it would come at a high cost for communities and our precious countryside.”

    Those are his words. I will go on, because this is so good. He said, just a few months ago:

    “Second, no amount of shale gas from hundreds of wells dotted across rural England would be enough to lower the European price any time soon.”

    He went on:

    “And with the best will in the world, private companies are not going to sell the shale gas they produce to UK consumers below the market price. They are not charities”.

    Spot on, Chancellor.

    What did the Chancellor have to say about North sea gas at the same time? He said that,

    “additional North Sea production won’t materially affect the wholesale price”.

    Indeed, earlier this year his previous Department helpfully put out a series of Government myth-busting documents. Here is one of them—Chancellor, your document:

    “MYTH: Extracting more North Sea gas lowers prices.”

    Answer:

    “FACT: UK production isn’t large enough to materially impact the global price of gas”.

    I have a copy for the Prime Minister.

    We do need to carefully manage our existing resources in the North sea, and the industry has an important role to play in our future as we transition to a different form of energy, but doubling down on fossil fuels is a ludicrous answer to a fossil fuel crisis. If all countries took the approach advocated by the Prime Minister’s new Energy Secretary of squeezing “every last drop” out of their fossil fuel reserves, global temperatures would rise by a catastrophic 3°. That would be devastating for our planet and for future generations, and it is totally unnecessary.

    Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) rose—

    Keir Starmer

    I am going to make some progress, because other speakers need to get in.

    New wind and solar power are now nine times cheaper—nine times cheaper! We need a clean energy sprint, urgently accelerating the rollout of offshore wind, onshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen, and tidal. Last year, I set out a new national mission to insulate 19 million homes and cut bills for good. If the Government had taken me up on that challenge, 2 million homes would already be insulated by this winter.

    Britain needs a fresh start. We need a Government who will never leave working people to pick up the tab for excess profits in the energy industry. We need a Government who plan for the long term rather than leaving us badly exposed to the whims of dictators, and we need a Government who will drive us forward to energy independence rather than doubling down on fossil fuels. The change we need is not the fourth Tory Prime Minister in six years; it is a Labour Government.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Personal Conduct of Liz Truss

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Personal Conduct of Liz Truss

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, on 8 September 2022, before the start of the statement on energy made by Liz Truss.

    Before we start the debate, I want to put on record that I am very disappointed that a written ministerial statement that is relevant to it has only just been made available, in the last five minutes. Such statements should be made available, whenever possible, at 9.30 am. When they are relevant to a debate, as is the case today, it is doubly important for them to be available in good time. I am sorry that this has happened. I consider it to be discourteous to the House, and I hope that is not the way the new Government intend to treat the House. Rather than judging it to be deliberate, I will put it down to bad management or incompetence.

    We now come to the general debate on UK energy costs. Before I call the Prime Minister to open the debate—[Interruption.] This is not the day for that, given the way the House has been treated. I am defending Back Benchers and I expect a little more decorum from you.

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Statement on Government Funding for Small Modular Reactors

    Tobias Ellwood – 2022 Statement on Government Funding for Small Modular Reactors

    The statement made by Tobias Ellwood, the Independent MP for Bournemouth East, in the House of Commons on 7 September 2022.

    Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for chairing this timely debate on modular nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom. Until recently, we took our dependence on electricity generation for granted. Policy has rightly been influenced by our ambitions to reduce our carbon footprint, arguably faster than many other developing and developed nations, but we may have been a little complacent over the past few years in regard to the security of energy supply.

    Our world is getting more dangerous, not less. The war in Ukraine has been a massive reality check, exposing how reliant we are on—and therefore how vulnerable we are to—access to international energy markets to keep our lights on. We require imports of gas, oil and coal to fuel our power stations. All too regularly, we have to import electricity from the continent through the interconnectors when we cannot generate enough power ourselves.

    The security situation in eastern Europe is clearly complicating matters. Putin is weaponising Russia’s distribution of oil and gas, causing large-scale economic harm across Europe. The cost of living crisis here has many components, but arguably a major contributor is the spike in global energy prices and the volatility in the energy markets. All this requires a sense of urgency in finding short and long-term solutions. We expect that tomorrow the Government will spell out their support to get us through the crisis. There is much speculation that energy bills may be frozen, helping us to get through a very difficult winter, but we also require a longer-term strategy to become far more energy self-sufficient as we enter a decade in which global security is on the decline.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing the debate. Does he agree that the use of small modular reactors, in conjunction with nuclear energy, gives more solid certainty about sustained energy, particularly in relation to my constituency of Strangford in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland has no nuclear production, so it is essential for the type of energy to which he refers to be UK-wide. It is needed across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Mr Ellwood

    I agree. I welcome the Government’s action to bolster our energy resilience: finally increasing UK gas storage capacity, investing in better insulation for our homes, growing the contribution of wind and solar to our energy mix, and of course investing in new nuclear. As the Government’s energy and security strategy sets out, Britain will accelerate new nuclear, including modular reactors, which will form a key part of the energy mix.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Mr Ellwood

    I will make some progress, if I may.

    We have Hinkley Point and Sizewell C coming online, adding 3,000 MW to the grid, but it will be a full decade before they start to add their power. We do not have the luxury of waiting that long. Energy consumption here and across the world will only increase as we move towards a cleaner fossil-free environment, especially across Africa, as economies and industries grow, placing ever greater demands on the ability to generate power.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    Mr Ellwood

    I will make a little more progress and then give way. I know that this is an important debate.

    That last point brings me to the subject that we are discussing today: Britain’s development of modular nuclear reactors. The concept is not new; Rolls-Royce has been building small reactors to power our Royal Navy submarines for decades, so one would think the UK well placed to be the first nation to have one up and running.

    The benefits are very clear, and I am sure that the list will be added to in this debate. Each single reactor from Rolls-Royce generates approximately 470 MW of energy, enough to power 1 million homes. They cost only £2.2 billion each, versus the £20 billion that their bigger brothers cost. Once the first five reactors are built, the concept can be proven and we can start looking at exports. The export market for Rolls-Royce is worth £54 billion to the UK. This will not only help the UK, but help other nations to address their crippling energy prices and meet their COP26 targets.

    Liz Saville Roberts

    Trawsfynydd, in Meirionnydd, is entirely publicly owned, and is a nuclear-licensed site. As such, it offers an unparalleled opportunity for the fastest deployment of SMR technology at any UK site. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and the Welsh development company Cwmni Egino are working together on proposals for siting, and hopes are high that construction will begin in 2027. That is where the timing is so critical. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that Cwmni Egino’s development model provides a blueprint, which could be used not just in Wales but beyond, for the alacrity of development that we are all seeking.

    Mr Ellwood

    I am grateful for that intervention, which confirms that there is a desire to see these reactors built here in the UK. Initially they will all be built in a single factory, which, once it is up and running, will be able to build the components in months rather than decades. Just about all the moving parts are in place to make this happen: the design, the support from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—represented by the Minister who will respond to this debate—the initial development costs, the private sector investment and interest, and the factory in Derby that has been earmarked, along with potential sites across the country. We would be creating 40,000 jobs and £50 billion of investment, and offering a revolution in clean energy supply.

    So what is the problem? If we have a workable design, a genuine solution to help resolve this energy challenge, a Government Department saying all the right things and offering support, and backing from the private sector, why did I need to bring this issue to the Floor of the House? The answer is very simple. The Rolls-Royce design is now stuck between the development and delivery phases, and that delay means that the built-in advantage that Rolls-Royce has—its experience of procuring nuclear reactors for the Royal Navy—is being lost because of unnecessary delays and bureaucracy. Obviously all nuclear reactors are complex and there should be no short cuts to their procurement, but this is not about design approval; it is about the political will. The Government need to formally agree to commission those first five reactors here in the UK. That would allow Rolls-Royce to secure the funds to build the factory, and thus allow more reactor orders to be honoured.

    Jamie Stone

    Dounreay, in my constituency, was the site of the very first nuclear reactor built in the United Kingdom. The site is licensed, it has a very skilled workforce today, and it has huge local support. Does the right hon. Member agree that it should be considered as a site for one of these new reactors?

    Mr Ellwood

    I would love to be the one who gifts these locations, and I would be grateful—I am sure the Minister is hearing this—if those five locations then received potential building permissions, but we need first to cut through the red tape that is stuck in the Government. I stress that the problem is not the Department represented here today; it is, I am afraid, the Treasury.

    Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)

    As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on small modular reactors, I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this important debate.

    Rolls-Royce SMR has secured funding of £210 million from UK Research and Innovation, and a further £280 million from private investors. We now need to move to the next stage, which is all about deployment. We need to agree with the UK Government on plans for siting and funding. Manufacturing plants have been earmarked for Rolls-Royce SMR across the UK, including Deeside, which will benefit north Wales and my constituents in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next stage is important because it will unlock more private sector investment and result in new factories and more high-skill jobs in the UK during this Parliament?

    Mr Ellwood

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I commend her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group. I hope that her comments will fall on the welcome ears of the Minister, who is soon to get to his feet.

    My plea to the Minister is simple. I ask him please to recognise that the scale of the energy crisis we face necessitates a leaning into this project to secure the greater political alignment that would allow funding models to be completed during this Parliament. That is entirely possible.

    Europe is once again at war, and it is time for us to move to a warlike footing if we are to reduce our dependence on overseas power sources which are exposed to volatile international prices and, indeed, adversarial interference which we cannot control. We can enjoy greater energy self-sufficiency with cheaper bills by generating cheap, clean, reliable power within our borders. We have the know-how, we have the desire, we have the industrial advantage; I simply ask the Minister for the political will to make it happen.

  • Graham Stuart – 2022 Speech on Government Funding for Small Modular Reactors

    Graham Stuart – 2022 Speech on Government Funding for Small Modular Reactors

    The speech made by Graham Stuart, the Minister for Climate, in the House of Commons on 7 September 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    I want to begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing this important debate and speaking so passionately about the benefits that can come from this fascinating development of a UK capability in nuclear power. Tonight’s debate gives us the opportunity to build on the discussion on small modular reactors and energy security in the UK convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) in January this year.

    As Climate Minister I am proud to support not only the Government funding but the private investment that we are sometimes seeing facilitated by that Government funding in the nuclear sector. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East has said, the global energy crisis created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underlines our resolve to develop new nuclear capacity in order to boost our energy security. I am sure that all of us who take an interest in this will have been gladdened by the fact that there is such strong support for that across the House this evening.

    As we make strides towards delivering net zero, the demands on our electricity system will increase. Electricity will be increasingly important, potentially providing around half of final energy demand as its use for heat and transport increases. That would require a fourfold increase in clean electricity generation, with the decarbonisation of electricity underpinning the delivery of that overall net zero target. Our analysis shows that all low-cost, low-emission solutions that will take us to this net zero-compliant electricity system are likely to require a combination of new nuclear, combined cycle gas turbines and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, in addition to growing levels of renewables. It is a complex piece, but we need all the bits to come together to meet the challenges that my right hon. Friend has set out.

    Nuclear power is important for the UK’s energy security. As the world has emerged from covid-19, global demand for energy has risen significantly, and this has been exacerbated by Putin’s malign invasion of Ukraine. But secure, clean and affordable energy for the long term depends on the transformation of our energy system, and that means more home-grown energy from increasingly diverse sources in order to reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels and our exposure to the high and volatile prices in international markets that we can see today.

    Hon. Members will be aware that in April 2022 we announced the British energy security strategy. This set out our ambition to deploy up to 24 GW of civil nuclear power by 2050, which will meet around 25% of our projected 2050 electricity demand. New nuclear generating capacity is an important part of our plans to ensure greater energy resilience as well as having a crucial role to play in net zero. I am delighted that the British energy security strategy set out the Government’s intention to take a large-scale new project to final investment decision during this Parliament, and that two projects will reach that point in the next Parliament, subject to the necessary approvals.

    I remind Members that SMRs will play an important part, as well as those larger nuclear installations, and will be a critical part of delivering new nuclear for the UK. They offer the opportunity for flexible deployment options—we have already heard various bids to host them—and could bring regional and socioeconomic benefits, including the creation of high-value manufacturing and engineering jobs on site and on the site of manufacture.

    In November last year, as my right hon. Friend has said, we announced £210 million in match funding for Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd to develop the design for one of the world’s first small modular reactors. Funding for this project was predicated on Rolls-Royce matching the Government’s contribution with private investment, which has been found, giving the design the capability of being deployed in the UK by the early 2030s, if not before. The Government funding for Rolls-Royce is part of the advanced nuclear fund, which is a significant Government commitment of up to £385 million, both to develop domestic SMR design and to demonstrate the viability of innovative advanced modular reactors by the early 2030s.

    In addition to investment in SMRs, the Government plan to invest in the AMR research, development and demonstration programme, which, as I say, should get something going by the early ’30s. It is focused on high-temperature gas reactors for low-carbon electricity generation and would allow the production of very high-temperature heat that could be used, for instance, for the increasingly efficient production of low-carbon hydrogen, to help to decarbonise industrial process heat, or even for synthetic fuel production.

    I am pleased to remind Members that we launched the future nuclear enabling fund, or FNEF—I have realised, on my first day, that BEIS is full of acronyms galore—on 2 September 2022. The FNEF—they are never terribly well crafted—is a £120 million fund announced in the Government’s “Net Zero Strategy: Build Back Greener” in 2021. It aims to help mature potential nuclear projects ahead of any Government process to select future projects. We expect to make awards from the fund at the end of this year or at the start of 2023.

    Alongside the launch of the FNEF, we are setting up Great British Nuclear, a body to enable nuclear projects and get us on a pathway to meeting our ambitions for new nuclear, with the aim of ensuring the kind of rapidity that my right hon. Friend is right to press for from Ministers such as me. We intend to initiate a selection process in 2023, with the intention that we will enter into negotiations with the most credible projects to enable a potential Government award of support as soon as possible.

    I was pleased that Parliament backed the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022, which was granted Royal Assent in March and established a new regulated asset base—or RAB—funding model for all new nuclear projects.

    Mr Ellwood

    I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not having congratulated him on securing his new position. He is a round peg in a round hole; I know how passionate he is about the environment. Will he join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who was previously in charge at BEIS? He is now in the Treasury and therefore perfectly placed to advance this idea. During the war there was an effort to create munitions, and we leant into that project because there was a necessity, and during covid there was a necessity to create personal protective equipment. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a necessity for us to lean into this idea and expedite it—within the safety parameters—to make sure that we can become more energy resilient?

    Graham Stuart

    I thank my right hon. Friend, and I am happy to do that. He will forgive me, perhaps on this one day only, for not leaning in to chastise any other Department or the Government in general on day one, self-confident though I always try to be. If we look at what we have done, we see that we have reduced our emissions by more than any other major industrialised nation, and offshore wind has been a triumph.

    I am looking forward to learning more about the detail of these programmes, but I have no doubt that with the right will and the proper prompting by colleagues from across the House we can ensure that we move with the speed necessary. We need to, because as he rightly says, we are not alone in pursuing and seeing this opportunity, and there have been instances in the past when this country has been in a position to lead and has not moved quickly enough, and multibillion-dollar opportunities—let us call them that—have ended up going elsewhere.

    I am determined that we shall not only deliver on our green obligations in this country, but build our industrial capability so that even the most sceptical person comes on board as we say, “Look, we are not just dealing with climate and not just cleaning up our domestic situation. We are developing major industrial capability so that we can sell that to the rest of the world, help it with the net zero challenge, and also produce jobs and prosperity here.” It is not a hairshirt that we want; we want to get the policy right so that we are part of a global solution, and to do so in a way that boosts jobs and prosperity and carries the support of everyone, regardless of their views on climate-related matters.

    We believe that the RAB could cut the costs of financing these projects, enabling companies to finance new ones and ending our reliance on overseas developers for finance, resulting in savings for consumers. On day one, I can reassure my right hon. Friend that a lot of work is going into making sure not only that we can move at pace, but that we do so with the most solid base possible.

    We fully support the development of small modular reactors and the exciting opportunities that they can offer the UK in energy security and reaching net zero. We have demonstrated our intent to build new nuclear capacity in the UK over the past year, and we have made the decisions that we believe will provide the confidence needed for investors and businesses to get behind it. From the energy White Paper to our landmark British energy security strategy to funding for small modular reactors and the future nuclear enabling fund, I hope we have shown our dedication to energy security, net zero and nuclear. I thank my right hon. Friend and other colleagues once again.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Speech on the Energy Policy Debate

    Liz Truss – 2022 Speech on the Energy Policy Debate

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 8 September 2022.

    Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion.

    Earlier this week I promised I would deal with the soaring energy prices faced by families and businesses across the UK.

    And today I am delivering on that promise.

    This Government is moving immediately to introduce a new Energy Price Guarantee that will give people certainty on energy bills.

    It will curb inflation and boost growth.

    This Guarantee – which includes a temporary suspension of green levies – means that from 1st October a typical household will pay no more than £2,500 per year for each of the next two years, while we get the energy market back on track.

    This will save a typical household £1,000 a year. It comes in addition to the £400 Energy Bills Support Scheme.

    This Guarantee supersedes the Ofgem price cap, and has been agreed with energy retailers.

    We will deliver this by securing the wholesale price for energy, while putting in place long-term measures to secure future supplies at more affordable rates.

    We are supporting this country through this winter and next, and tackling the root cause of high prices, so we are never in this position again.

    For those using heating oil, living in park homes or those on heat networks, we will set up a fund so that all UK consumers can benefit from equivalent support.

    We will also support all businesses, charities and public sector organisations with their energy costs this winter – offering an equivalent guarantee for 6 months.

    After those 6 months we will provide further support to vulnerable sectors, such as hospitality, including our local pubs.

    My Rt Hon Friend the Business Secretary will work with businesses to review where this should be targeted to make sure those most in need get support. This review will be concluded within 3 months, giving businesses certainty.

    In the meantime, companies with the wherewithal need to be looking for ways they can improve energy efficiency and increase direct energy generation

    We will be bringing forward emergency legislation to deliver this policy. And my Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out the expected costs as part of his fiscal statement later this month.

    I can tell the House today that we will not be giving in to calls for this to be funded through a windfall tax.

    That would undermine the national interest by discouraging the very investment we need to secure home-grown energy supplies. You can’t tax your way to growth.

    Instead, we are taking an approach which is pro-growth, pro-business and pro the investment we need for energy security.

    This is the moment to be bold. We are facing a global energy crisis and there are no ‘cost-free’ options.

    There will be a cost to this intervention. However we are also acting immediately to defray the cost of this intervention in three ways.

    Firstly, by ramping up supply.

    Following on from the successful vaccine taskforce, we have created a new Energy Supply Taskforce under the leadership of Maddy McTernan.

    They are already negotiating new long term energy contracts with domestic and international gas suppliers to immediately bring down the cost of this intervention.

    We are also accelerating all sources of domestic energy, including North Sea oil and gas production.

    We will be launching a new licensing round, which we expect to lead to over 100 new licences being awarded.

    And we will speed up our deployment of all clean and renewable technologies including hydrogen, solar, carbon capture and storage, and wind… where we are already the world leader in offshore generation.

    Renewable and nuclear generators will move onto Contracts for Difference to end the situation where electricity prices are set by the marginal price of gas.

    This will mean generators are receiving a fair price, reflecting their cost of production, further bringing down the cost of this intervention.

    Secondly, today’s action will deliver substantial benefits to our economy, boosting growth which increases tax receipts and gives certainty to business.

    This intervention is expected to curb inflation by up to 5 percentage points, bringing a reduction in the cost of servicing government debt.

    Thirdly, this morning, together with the Bank of England, we will set up a new scheme, worth up to £40 billion, to ensure that firms operating in wholesale energy markets have the liquidity they need to manage price volatility.

    This will stabilise the market and decrease the likelihood that energy retailers need our support, like they did last Winter.

    By increasing supply, boosting the economy and increasing liquidity in the market we will significantly reduce the cost to government of this intervention.

    As well as dealing with the immediate situation we face, we are also dealing with the root causes.

    Energy policy over the past decades has not focused enough on securing supply.

    There’s no better example than nuclear, where the UK has not built a single new nuclear reactor in 25 years.

    It’s not just about supply. The regulatory structures have failed, exposing the problems of having a price cap applied to the retail but not the wholesale market.

    All of this has left us vulnerable to volatile global markets and malign actors in an increasingly geopolitical world.

    That is why Putin is exploiting by weaponising energy supplies as part of his illegal war on Ukraine.

    So as well as the action we are taking today on bills, we will use the next 2 years to make sure that the United Kingdom is never in this situation again.

    I will be launching two reviews.

    Firstly, a review of energy regulation to fix the underlying problems. We want a new approach which will address supply and affordability for the long term.

    Secondly, we will conduct a review to ensure we deliver net zero by 2050 in a way that is pro-business and pro-growth. This review will be led by my Rt Hon Friend the member for Kingswood.

    We are delivering a stable environment that gives investors the confidence to back gas as part of our transition to net zero.

    We will end the moratorium on extracting our huge reserves of shale, which could get gas flowing in as soon as six months, where there is local support.

    We will launch Great British Nuclear later this month – putting us on the path to deliver up to a quarter of our electricity generation with nuclear by 2050.

    As a result of these steps on shale and nuclear and the acceleration of renewables, I am today setting a new ambition for our country.

    Far from being dependent on the global energy market and the actions of malign actors, we will make sure the UK a net energy exporter by 2040.

    And my Rt Hon Friend the Business Secretary will set out a plan in the next two months to make sure we achieve this.

    I know businesses and families are very concerned about how they will get through this winter.

    That’s why I felt it was important to act urgently to provide immediate help and support, as well as setting out our plan about how we are going to secure the UK’s future supplies.

    This is part of my vision for rebuilding our economy.

    Secure energy supply is vital to growth and prosperity. Yet it has been ignored for too long.

    I will end the UK’s short-termist approach to energy security and supply once and for all.

    That is what I promised on the steps of Downing Street.

    Today we are acting decisively to deliver that pledge.

    This will help us build a stronger, more resilient and more secure United Kingdom.

    I commend this motion to the House.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on the Energy Price Guarantee

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments on the Energy Price Guarantee

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, on 8 September 2022.

    Decades of short-term thinking on energy has failed to focus enough on securing supply – with Russia’s war in Ukraine exposing the flaws in our energy security and driving bills higher. I’m ending this once and for all.

    I’m acting immediately so people and businesses are supported over the next two years, with a new Energy Price Guarantee, and tackling the root cause of the issues by boosting domestic energy supply.

    Extraordinary challenges call for extraordinary measures, ensuring that the United Kingdom is never in this situation again.

  • Committee on Fuel Poverty – 2022 Letter to Liz Truss

    Committee on Fuel Poverty – 2022 Letter to Liz Truss

    The letter sent by the Committee on Fuel Poverty to Liz Truss on 2 September 2022.

    (in .pdf format)

  • Committee on Fuel Poverty – 2022 Letter to Rishi Sunak

    Committee on Fuel Poverty – 2022 Letter to Rishi Sunak

    The letter sent by the Committee on Fuel Poverty to Rishi Sunak on 2 September 2022.

    (in .pdf format)

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech on Energy

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Speech on Energy

    The speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 1 September 2022.

    Good afternoon everybody

    Thank you for coming today, thank you for coming everybody to Sizewell

    It’s wonderful to be here and to see this astonishing plant and to meet the staff and some of the young people who are going to be working here, already are working here..

    Now, when I was a child, I had a wonderful book – a much thumbed ladybird book called the story of nuclear power,

    It was published in 1972

    And I used to go through it again and again

    and I was enthralled to read how scientists split the atom here in the UK for the first time

    and they did it at the Cavendish laboratories in Cambridge

    and I noted that the world’s first civilian nuclear reactor, the first civilian nuclear power station was at Calder Hall in Cumbria, now of course Sellafield

    and I look back at the optimism in every page of that book and what has happened since
    and at the short-termism of successive British governments

    at their failure to do justice to our pioneering nuclear history
    their abject failure to think of the needs of future generations

    above all the families that are today struggling with the cost of energy in this country

    I feel like one of those beautifully drawn illustrations of what happens in a nuclear pile when the graphite rods are taken out at the wrong moment

    My blood starts to boil and steam comes out of my ears and I think I’m going to melt down

    And I asked myself the question: What happened to us?

    When Sizewell was opened in 1966 it was the eighth reactor that this country had built in just 7 years

    Why have we never got back to that kind of rhythm? Have we lost the gumption and the dynamism of our parents and grandparents

    but it gets worse

    When Sizewell B -fantastic white dome – was completed in 1995 it was the 5th reactor in 7 years

    1995 – an era that was technologically so primitive that people used things called carphones and went down to blockbusters to rent VHS videos

    Think of the colossal technical progress in other areas – and contrast the paralysis in nuclear energy

    how many new nuclear power stations have we built in the 27 years since?

    How many have been connected to the grid?

    How many slices of bread could we toast with the additional nuclear power we have created?

    how many washing machines could we power?

    How many families have been helped with extra nuclear energy?

    The answer is, none, zero, zilch

    The French, they have loads of nuclear power stations already, they’ve built four more since 1995– bringing their total reactor fleet up to about 56, the Indians have added about 12 and the Chinese have built more than 50 additional nuclear reactions since 1995!

    and you know why we have failed? It’s not even as though we have some cultural aversion to nuclear power

    I just met those nice protestors outside – it wasn’t some atomkraft nein danke – they seem to be objecting to the disruption to the roads, it’s pure nimbyism out there

    I will diagnose the problem

    It’s called myopia. It’s called short-termism

    It’s a chronic case of politicians not being able to see beyond the political cycle

    Tell that to British businesses and industries that are desperately short of affordable and reliable electricity

    tell that to the families struggling with the cost of heat and light this winter

    It is because of that kind of myopia that here in the country that first split the atom we have only 15 per cent of our electricity from nuclear – and it is falling

    whereas in France it is at 70 per cent

    and we ask ourselves why France is more self reliant than we are when it comes to energy

    why they have found it relatively easier to hold down their costs

    and yes nuclear always looks – when you begin, it always looks relatively expensive to build and to run

    but look at what is happening today, look at the results of Putin’s war

    it is certainly cheap by comparison with hydrocarbons today

    in fact if Hinkley Point C were already running already this year

    it’s been delayed for ages and ages of course

    it would be cutting fuel bills by £3 bn

    I’ll say that again – if Hinkley Point C were running now, it would be cutting fuel bills by £3 bn

    So you have to look ahead
    And you have to beware of the false economy

    If you have an old kettle that takes ages to boil, it may cost you £20 to replace it

    But if you get a new one you will save ten pounds a year every year on your electricity bill

    I remember when the government finally did the deal on Hinkley C– in fact by then I was already sitting in the cabinet

    and I remember some people protesting that the strike price of £92.50 per kilowatt hour was very, very expensive

    it doesn’t look so expensive today

    that is why we must pull our national finger out and get on with Sizewell C

    That is why we are putting up to £700 m into the deal

    Just part of the £1.7bn of Government funding available for developing a large-scale nuclear project to final investment stage in this Parliament,

    and in the course of the next few weeks I am absolutely confident that it will get over the line.

    and we will get it over the line because it would be madness not to

    This project will create tens of thousands of jobs, but it will also power 6m homes – that is roughly a fifth of all the homes in the UK

    So it will help to fix the energy needs not just of this generation but of the next

    a baby born this year will be getting energy from Sizewell C long, long after she retires

    and this new reactor is just a part of our Great British nuclear campaign

    we will build a reactor a year again

    we will build them across the country, at least eight of them, large ones and small modular reactors

    and of course they are not the entire solution to our energy needs – far from it

    yes we are increasing our own domestic hydrocarbons

    we’ve got more gas out of the north sea this year than last year, considerably more, 26% more

    we are putting a big bet on hydrogen and on carbon capture and storage

    and because of the activism of the government we are now racing to our target – and we will hit it – of 50 GW of offshore wind by 2030

    this is a huge amount, it’s probably half the electricity needs of the country from offshore wind

    I’ll tell everybody who thinks hydrocarbons are the only answer and we should get fracking and all that

    that offshore wind is now the cheapest form of electricity in this country
    offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas because of the insanity of what Putin has done

    and that’s why it makes sense for us to become more self-reliant

    and of course it is entirely clean and green

    so renewables are not only helping us to defeat climate change

    they are also helping to keep bills lower than they would otherwise be in this crisis

    what Putin has done is to launch a kind of kamikaze attack on the world economy

    He doesn’t care how much pain Russia suffers

    He believes that ultimately we will flinch, that western politicians do not have the stomach for the fight

    He believes that we will give up on Ukraine, give in to his aggression and go back to mainlining his hydrocarbons

    And I have to tell you he is wrong

    He is wrong about his assumptions about the British people

    I think he is wrong about other European governments too by the way

    I talked to Olaf Sholz last night and it is absolutely clear that Germany is resolute in moving away from dependence on Russian

    And Putin in this strategy is going to fail

    So we are helping people now with the cost of living and of course there will be more cash to come in the months ahead

    Substantial sums – that’s absolutely clear

    But now even more important our British energy security strategy of Great British nuclear is rectifying the chronic mistakes of the past

    taking the long term decisions that this country needs
    and I would say frankly folks over the last 3 years this government has done some very difficult things

    we have done some of the hardest tasks that you can set politicians

    we fixed our relations with the European Union

    we settled that argument pretty conclusively

    we got brexit done and took back control of our law-making even though we knew it would not be easy

    we opened up our economy post covid faster than any other major country because of the speed of our vaccine rollout

    we led the whole of Europe in helping the Ukrainians and in standing up to Putin and seeing the wisdom from the start in arming them and assisting them

    and at every stage of the last three years – and I hope I can say this given this will be one of my last speeches in this office

    at every stage what we have tried to do is put in the things that this country will need for the long term

    to try to look at what future generations will need for their prosperity, their productivity and for their quality of life and to reduce the cost of living as well

    so whether that’s gigabit broadband gone up from 7% penetration to 70% of premises now

    three new high speed rail lines

    investing massively in this country’s ability to make its own vaccines

    fixing social care

    coming up with a solution for that problem

    I think it would be fair to say this government has not shirked the big decisions

    we have raised our eyes, we’ve looked to the horizon

    and I just say whoever follows me next week I know that they will do the same

    No more national myopia

    No more short termism

    let’s think about our future, let’s think about our kids and grandchildren, about the next generation

    with the prophetic candour and clarity of someone about to hand over the torch of office

    I say go nuclear and go large and go with Sizewell C.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on the Energy Price Cap

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on the Energy Price Cap

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 26 August 2022.

    Ofgem’s announcement that the energy price cap will rise to £3549 in October confirms what many of us have long feared. Despite repeated warnings, the Government has consistently failed to intervene and Ministers must act now to prevent this cost of living crisis becoming a national disaster.

    Without Government support, some Londoners will not only be forced to choose between heating or eating but could struggle to do either. The Government must immediately freeze bills and introduce a Lifeline Tariff to ensure the most vulnerable people in our city receive a basic amount of free energy every day.

    Through transformative initiatives like my Warmer Homes scheme I’m committed to doing all I can to support Londoners through this deepening crisis but, with energy prices soaring and more families struggling to make ends meet, this Government needs to step up and take urgent action now.