The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed
Miliband) Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your statement,
and Mr Speaker's earlier. With permission, I would like to make a
statement on the Government's carbon capture programme. Last week
was a historic week for our energy system. On Monday, 142 years of
coal-fired electricity generation came to an end, as
Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station closed for the last time. I pay
tribute to the generations of...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero ()
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard your statement, and Mr
Speaker's earlier.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the
Government's carbon capture programme. Last week was a historic
week for our energy system. On Monday, 142 years of coal-fired
electricity generation came to an end, as Ratcliffe-on-Soar power
station closed for the last time. I pay tribute to the
generations of coal workers, at Ratcliffe and elsewhere, who
powered our country for more than a century, and to power station
workers; we owe them a huge debt. I am sure that sentiment is
shared across the whole House. As one era ends and we begin the
next stage of Britain's energy journey, the Government are
determined to create a new generation of good jobs in our
industrial heartlands. On Friday, we began a new era, as
Government and industry agreed the deals that will launch
Britain's carbon capture industry.
This has been a long time coming. I was proud, as Energy
Secretary, to kick-start the process of developing carbon capture
way back in 2009—some hon. Members were then still at school, and
I am much greyer now—with a £1 billion competition. In 2011, that
programme was cancelled by the coalition Government. In 2012, a
new competition was announced, and in 2015, it too was cancelled.
When we came to office, we inherited an in-principle aspiration
to go ahead, but the very significant Government funding required
had not yet been accounted for, so under the last Government we
had fits and starts, dither and delay.
By contrast, just three months since we came to office, this
Government have turned promise into reality. I can confirm to the
House that we have agreed commercial terms, and £21.7 billion of
funding over 25 years for five carbon capture, usage and storage
projects across two clusters: HyNet in the north-west, and the
East Coast Cluster in the north-east. This announcement will
enable the construction of two transport and storage networks
that will underpin this new industry. The highways for carbon
capture and the deals we have agreed will also kick-start
development of Net Zero Teesside, the world's largest gas with
CCUS plant, and—these are both in Ellesmere Port—Protos, a new
CCUS energy from waste facility, and EET Hydrogen, the UK's first
large-scale blue hydrogen project, which is the cleanest in the
world. They will crowd in £8 billion of private investment across
the two clusters, creating 4,000 jobs in our industrial
heartlands and building an initial capacity to remove over 8.5
million tonnes of carbon emissions each and every year. I pay
tribute to the six new Labour MPs in Teesside and colleagues
across the north-west who have been brilliant champions for those
projects. This is just the start; we will have more to say in the
coming months about carbon capture sites in Humberside, Scotland
and elsewhere around the country.
This investment is the right thing to do for Britain. CCUS will
unlock the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sectors, from
chemicals to cement; enable the production of low-carbon
hydrogen; and, by capturing emissions from gas-fired power
stations, play an important role, alongside renewables and
nuclear, in delivering clean power by 2030 and beyond. That is
why experts in bodies ranging from the Climate Change Committee
to the International Energy Agency are clear that carbon capture
is critical to our meeting our climate commitments. There are
those who doubt that. To them I quote James Richardson, the
acting chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who said
on Friday quite simply:
“We can't hit the country's targets without CCUS”.
The IEA, in a report from 2020 that I very much recommend to
right hon. and hon. Members, said:
“Reaching net zero will be virtually impossible without
CCUS”,
pointing to “heavy industries” that
“account for almost 20% of global CO2 emissions today”.
To those who doubt whether the technology can work, I point out
that it has been operating safely for decades in Norway and the
US.
Last week's announcement puts the UK on the path to leading the
world in deploying carbon capture at scale. Being an early mover
in this technology offers huge economic and industrial benefits
for Britain. The North sea means that we have the chance to lead;
it gives us the capacity to store 200 years of our carbon
emissions, has existing infrastructure that can be repurposed,
and allows us to use the talents and experience of our highly
skilled oil and gas workforce.
Over the last few years, around the world we have seen the race
for the jobs and industries of the future accelerate. For too
long, Britain has opted out and lost out. No longer. We will
harness Britain's geology, know-how and expertise to be a world
leader in this technology that will define the 21st century,
building an industry that could support up to 50,000 jobs by the
2030s and using every tool at our disposal to seize the
opportunities for Britain, with a proper industrial strategy and
a commitment—which is absolutely crucial—to using public and
private investment to build the future that our country
deserves.
That is all part of the action of a Government who, in the last
three months, have shown that we are in a hurry to deliver our
mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. We have lifted
the onshore wind ban, consented to record amounts of nationally
significant solar, launched Great British Energy, delivered the
most successful renewables auction in British history, and set
out our plans to lift more than a million households out of fuel
poverty. We are moving apace, both because of the urgency of the
challenges that we face and because of this Government's
determination to win for Britain. Last week marked the end of one
chapter in our country's energy story and the start of a new
one—a new era showing that we can decarbonise and
reindustrialise, a new era of clean energy jobs and investment in
our industrial heartlands, and a new era of climate leadership. I
commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
6.20pm
(East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his
statement. While I welcome the news today, I am saddened, if not
surprised, that he has not had the grace to acknowledge the work
of the last Government in getting us to this place. I know that
his opinion is not that of the many partners who have come
together to get this project over the line, and it does a huge
disservice to his officials, who have worked so incredibly hard
over the last couple of years to get us here. As far as I can
see, the only positive investments that the Labour party seems to
have made in its first 100 days—the Blackstone artificial
intelligence data centre in Northumberland, the sixth assessment
report and now this—were negotiated under the Conservatives. This
is what the right hon. Gentleman's party has turned into reality:
it has crashed business confidence, and overseen £666 million of
assets from UK-focused equity funds fleeing the country. No
wonder it has had to have a change of management.
In 2022, in the Energy Security Bill, we set out £1 billion of
investment and the business models to support the CCUS market.
Our aim was to have four industrial clusters by 2030. I must pay
tribute to all who have worked together on those plans, including
BP, Equinor, Eni, and all those involved with HyNet and the East
Coast Cluster.
The brilliant Mayor of Tees Valley, , has been a leading light in
this regard for many years. I noted that the Secretary of State
did not mention him, which was pretty graceless, but I am sure
that he would like to welcome his work. I must also mention the
former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming
and Ash (), who first announced
Government support for carbon capture technology amounting to £20
billion last year. That, ultimately, was the breakthrough step
that got us here.
The Secretary of State says that CCUS was not funded. Let me
remind him of the extent to which he is resting his laurels on a
set of draft policy statements for nuclear from back in 2009 that
had no Treasury funding attached. I had agreement that at least
£20 billion would be spent following the next spending review.
The Secretary of State is a former Treasury spad, so he knows
what that means. As always, it is the cheap politics that he
reaches for. He is, I am afraid, the ultimate career politician.
In fact, the funding that we had announced, which would run for
20 years, was about £200 million more per year than what he has
set out today. Can he confirm that the projects have not been
scaled back, and if they have been, will he tell us where the
losses will be?
We have also had no word on the track 2 clusters, Acorn and
Viking, on which we were due to make progress over the summer;
they were conspicuously absent from the Secretary of State's
statement. Many people will be deeply concerned, so can he update
the House on those two projects? More widely, while his
announcement rightly drew attention to the importance of British
industry, both the TUC and the GMB have warned repeatedly about
his net zero plans and what they will mean for British industry.
In the words of Gary , the leader of the GMB, the Secretary
of State's approach has been to export jobs and import
virtue.
Let us look at what has happened on Labour's watch. At
Grangemouth, 400 jobs are at risk, with nearly 3,000 potentially
affected. At Port Talbot, 3,500 jobs are under threat, and at
Scunthorpe, there is the potential for 2,500 job losses before
Christmas. Moreover, Labour are putting 200,000 jobs at risk
through their plans to ban new oil and gas licences and to make
the UK regime the most punitive fiscal regime for the sector
anywhere in the world. When will the Secretary of State publish
an assessment of the impact that his plans for the North sea will
have on jobs, and on investment in clean energy? After all, this
carbon capture investment today would not be possible without
Eni, Equinor and BP—companies using the stable finances of their
oil and gas businesses to invest in clean energy.
The Secretary of State has talked about the importance of UK
decarbonisation in tackling climate change, but will he
acknowledge that his plans to target UK production will not mean
that we use less? They will just leave us importing more from
abroad—importing more oil and gas from the United States and the
middle east, and importing more steel from China, which is still
60% powered by coal. Will he acknowledge that both those
developments will actually increase global emissions? It would be
carbon accounting gone mad. It might leave some in the green
lobby cheering at our reduced emissions, but overall there would
be more carbon in the atmosphere and fewer jobs here in Britain.
Is the Labour party seriously going to be responsible for the end
of steelmaking in the UK, with the added cost of the loss of more
than 10,000 jobs in our most left-behind communities? The
Secretary of State must acknowledge that a better balance has to
be found.
The Secretary of State has still made no comment on, and no
apology for, promising the British public at the general election
savings of £300 on their energy bills by 2030. Will he finally
give an answer to his Back Benchers, the House and all our
constituents, and explain what has happened to that pledge?
I know that the right hon. Lady is in a difficult position, and
it rather showed today. Let us be honest: the truth is quite
painful for her. She failed, as Energy Secretary, to get carbon
capture over the line, year after year—well, to be fair, she was
only in the job for 10 months, but certainly month after month.
The funding was never secured, because there was not the
political will from the Chancellor or the Prime Minister. We have
seen a long line of 20 Energy Secretaries and 14 years of
failure. I must give the right hon. Lady her due: she did try, I
am sure; but there was nothing but dither and delay. When we came
to office, the funding had not been accounted for as part of a
spending review; it simply was not there. There was just a vague
promise. Now it is quite difficult for the right hon. Lady, and
perhaps we should have a little sympathy for her, because she has
had to come to the House and see what a Government actually
delivering looks like.
Let me deal with the right hon. Lady's questions in turn. She had
the brass neck to suggest that the problems at Grangemouth and
Port Talbot were somehow due to the negligence of this
Government. Let me tell the House about Grangemouth. I came to
office with the closure of Grangemouth already announced and
likely to happen. I have probably had more conversations with my
counterpart in the Scottish Government than Tory Ministers had in
10 years, because they just were not interested. We should be
extremely angry about that. So what did we do? We funded the
Willow project, which the Tories did not fund. We added to the
growth deal, which they did not do. We said that we would have a
national wealth fund with the potential to fund Project Willow.
We had none of that from the right hon. Lady. She just was not
interested. She just did not care; that is the truth of the
matter. Of course it is ideological, rather than accidental.
[Interruption.] Yes, it is. A bit of honesty from the hon. Member
for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine ()! I noted that he was very
honest about the right hon. Lady at the party conference. The
truth is that the Tories did not have an industrial strategy
because they do not believe in an industrial strategy.
Let me deal with the rest of the right hon. Lady's nonsense. I am
very pleased that she is interested in Gary , because he has said:
“This is a serious step in the right direction and a welcome
investment in jobs and industries after years of neglect under
the previous administration.”
That is the reality. As for the other stuff that the right hon.
Lady said, I think that she has a decision to make. She began her
political career in the Conservative Environment Network, and she
has ended up backing a net zero sceptic for the Tory leadership.
I think it is a little bit sad. She should take some time to
reflect on that, and on the utter contrast between her failure
and this Government's delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero
Committee.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
Unlike the shadow Secretary of State, I am very pleased that the
Secretary of State has announced jobs in Teesside—jobs from which
my constituents in the north-west of England will potentially
benefit. I am also very pleased that we have a Government who are
committed to an industrial strategy, and who believe in
Government working in partnership with business.
The Secretary of State mentioned just how important it is that we
have this technology if we are to decarbonise; he quoted James
Richardson in making the case. It will be crucial for the
abatement of heavy industries such as chemicals, glass—the
Secretary of State went to visit a glass factory in the
north-west on Friday—and cement, but it will also be crucial for
hydrogen production, for the new gas-fired power stations and,
indeed, for converting waste into energy. How long does he think
we will need this technology for the abatement of heavy industry,
and how long does he think we will need it for hydrogen
production and production from gas?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he makes a really
important point. Some people are sceptical about the use of
carbon capture and storage. The truth is that for hard-to-abate
industries—cement, for example—unless we have CCS technology,
either there will be no future for these industries or they will
not be able to decarbonise. Yes, it is an investment, but it is
absolutely crucial, and I am struck by what the IEA said. We are
talking about probably 20% of industry, and we are doing the
right thing for Britain and setting an example to the world.
I always say on these occasions that, when it comes to blue
hydrogen and gas with CCUS, we need all the technologies at our
disposal on this decarbonisation journey. It is going to be a
primarily renewables-based system, but nuclear has an important
role and we need dispatchable decarbonised or low-carbon
generation as well. All these things have a role, and the pathway
will become clearer over time, but this issue is so urgent that I
want to have all the technologies at our disposal.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
I call the Lib Deb spokesperson.
(South Cambridgeshire)
(LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The Liberal
Democrats are committed to supporting British industries in
cutting carbon emissions and getting the country back on track
towards meeting our climate targets. It cannot be emphasised
enough how significant it is that this announcement comes at the
same time as we hear about the UK being the first industrial
nation to close its last coal-fired power plant. We had been
dependent on coal for 150 years, so that is absolutely key.
It is clear that the future lies with renewables and clean
energy, where we need to bring urgency and the necessary scale of
investment. The Conservative Government's irresponsible roll-back
from key climate pledges, and their failure to invest properly in
renewable energy and home insulation, has left thousands of
households vulnerable to fuel poverty as another winter
approaches. The failure to move forward at pace in decarbonising
our industries, our transport and our homes has left us needing
to take difficult decisions. We support the need, recognised by
the Climate Change Committee, for at-scale, long-term investment
in CCS, particularly for hard-to-decarbonise industries such as
chemicals, cement and steel manufacturing. We would like to see
investment in existing industries, and we want it to meet
environmental requirements.
While we are discussing history, I should mention that it was my
right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton () who launched carbon capture and storage, which was yet
again cancelled by the Conservatives. However, although carbon
capture and storage is a key tool in reaching net zero, it is
also very expensive and complex, and evidence of its efficacy is
still scant. Understandably, as the Secretary of State mentioned,
there is much concern about the focus on incentivising industries
to invest in CCS as an alternative to radically reducing their
emissions. Therefore, it is important that the Government set out
clearly and transparently the path to delivery for any CCS they
invest in and show the milestones for progress. What will the
Secretary of State do to increase investment—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and thanking
her for the tone and substance of her remarks? She is right to
underline the fact that we are marking a new era but also marking
the passing of an era, and it is right to pay tribute to all the
people who worked in our coal-fired power stations and, indeed,
who worked underground to dig coal for our country. It is a big
moment of change and the passing of an era.
On the hon. Lady's broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that
we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon
capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we
can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power.
She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this
conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much
younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [Interruption.] Yes, I
am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are
you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with
fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to
build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that
is what the combination of public and private sectors working
together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a
far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such
investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady's support.
(Brent West) (Lab)
I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start
his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely
interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State
make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am
delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon
capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels
by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive
than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State
confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued
extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the
hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green
hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering
on this Government's commitment to decarbonise our power sector
by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more
expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against
swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great
knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right
about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the
Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon.
Friend the Member for Sefton Central (): there is a role for both
blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context
of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well.
It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at
our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.
(Brigg and Immingham)
(Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Humber area
produces the most emissions in the country, and it is vital that
we make progress in that region. Some £15 billion-worth of
private investment stands ready. The Secretary of State mentioned
that there will be a further announcement in the coming months.
Could he perhaps advance that as quickly as possible in order
that we can take our first steps towards reaching our
targets?
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a point of
agreement between us. These are very important projects, and I
thank him for his question. They were always envisaged as being
two tracks, and we inherited a significant degree of delay from
the last Government. We want these projects to happen as soon as
possible and, as I said in my statement, this is something that
we will address in the months ahead.
(Alloa and Grangemouth)
(Lab)
I was happy to hear the Secretary of State's words last week when
he said that industries should not die, and the Government
investment in Merseyside and Teesside is most welcome. Can he
commit to the same level of bold and transformative Government
action to retain the Grangemouth refinery workers' jobs, as they
face the prospect of redundancies and their industry dying?
This is something that my hon. Friend and I have talked about. On
Grangemouth, we are advancing at speed—in a way that the last
Government completely failed to do, because the project had not
even started—with Project Willow, which is seeking an industrial
future for the Grangemouth site. He has my absolute commitment
that we will use every lever at our disposal in Government to try
and make this happen. We have a number of levers available to us
that the last Government did not have, including the national
wealth fund, and we are going to work intensively on that in the
coming months.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that until a few days ago, the
Fawley refinery and chemicals complex run by ExxonMobil in New
Forest East was planning a major carbon capture project that
involved controversial pipelines either over sensitive areas of
the New Forest or across the Isle of Wight. ExxonMobil has
temporarily pulled the plug on that, but one reason it seems to
think it cannot use a sea route, perhaps to feed this in to the
North sea outlet for carbon capture and storage, is the absence
of purpose-built ships for the safe transportation of liquefied
CO2. Will the Secretary of State look into where we are with the
development of safe methods of transporting the gas in liquid
form by sea?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I talked to
the UK chair of ExxonMobil last week about this issue, and I
believe that the Minister of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West
(), is going to meet him later
this week. For the benefit of the House, this was not in either
track 1 or track 2—it was part of the Solent cluster—but we want
all the projects to go ahead and the Solent cluster has real
potential and is an important part of this. The UK chair told me
that this temporary pause was certainly nothing to do with the
actions of this Government, but, frankly, was to do with the time
it had taken the previous Government to get going on this. I
undertake to the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue our
dialogue with the company about these issues, including on the
more technical issues that he is talking about.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This announcement is fantastic news for the north-east and for
the country. It will place us at the forefront of a critical and
growing sector, it will help to re-industrialise regions that
have been de-industrialised by successive Conservative
Governments and it will deliver thousands of well-paid jobs—jobs
that people can raise a family on. For the benefit of those with
genuine concerns about the feasibility of this technology—as
opposed to those playing party politics with innovation or those
ideologically opposed to industry—will my right hon. Friend say a
little more about the world-leading research and innovation that
will carry on alongside this deployment, and particularly about
the carbon storage research facility and the work that it will
do?
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge of this subject. She
is unusual in this House, in that she is an engineer by
background and actually knows about these issues. She is
absolutely right about this. Our world-leading scientists and
engineers are a crucial part of our playing a world-leading role
in this technology. I also say to those who are worried about the
risk of this technology that the much, much greater risk is in
not acting. The risk before us is the climate crisis that grows
every day, and it is the right thing to do to get CCS moving.
(Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about there being more
news to come about Scotland, because the Acorn project is not a
track 1 project; it is a track 2 project. The previous Prime
Minister visited Peterhead and raised hopes that there might be
investment coming there, but then nothing. The Secretary of State
also spoke about the great skills that we have in oil
engineering. There is possibly nowhere else in Europe, and
perhaps the world, that has more of those skills than the
north-east of Scotland, so can he tell us how committed the
Government are to bringing forward Acorn as quickly as
possible?
I concur completely with what the hon. Lady says. We are
absolutely committed to Acorn; it is very important. We came into
Government with track 1 not accounted for, so part of the
challenge was getting track 1 over the line because it just
seemed so important to send a signal that there was not going to
be more of the dither and delay that we had seen. I can
absolutely assure her and other Scottish colleagues across the
House that this is of fundamental importance to us. It is of
fundamental importance for Scotland but also for the whole of the
United Kingdom, because we will not be able to surmount the
challenges we face simply with track 1 projects.
(Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today. Could he
say a bit more about how this important project will sit
alongside other investments in green energy as we move towards
the 2030 and 2050 targets? Could he also explain more about the
potential for job creation across the country in a wide range of
industries and regions?
My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is part of a whole set of
things this Government are doing, including lifting the onshore
wind ban, releasing private investment and dealing with solar
projects that had frankly been sitting on desks for far too long,
with nearly 2 GW consented. In fact, more has been consented in
nationally consented projects in three months of this Government
than in 14 years of the last Government. Doesn't that tell a
story about dither, delay and inaction? So my hon. Friend is
absolutely right. This is part of a whole series of investments,
both private and public, that this Government are unleashing and
putting in.
(Broadland and Fakenham)
(Con)
I am pleased that there is an announcement on the funding of blue
hydrogen at Ellesmere Port, but what about Bacton, the gas
terminal in north Norfolk? What are the Secretary of State's
plans to support blue hydrogen projects at Bacton, which would be
ideally suited for the southern North sea? Also, having looked at
the numbers, which seem a bit light, could he please confirm that
it is still Government policy that we should capture and store
between 20 and 30 megatons of CO2 by 2030?
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, that is very much part of
our plans for the future. On his second point, we will obviously
set out all those details in response to the work of the Climate
Change Committee. Frankly, one thing that we are struggling with
is the delays under the last Government. I have set out the
impact of this project and will be setting out the impact of
future projects when they are announced.
(Darlington) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State and his
wider team, who have decided in such difficult economic times to
invest in my part of the country? This marks a huge vote of
confidence in our local industry leaders and our fantastic
regional workforce, and as he said, it has been a long time
coming. Does he agree that this carbon capture project will
create exciting, skilled jobs and opportunities for people in
Darlington and the Tees valley, solidifying a green industrial
future for my constituency?
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for her brilliant
advocacy on this issue. She raises an important point, which is
that people will look at this investment and think that it is a
big investment, albeit over 25 years. Is it the right thing to do
for the country? Emphatically, yes. It is right for our
industries and for the industries of the future, because the
transport and storage networks are absolutely crucial, not just
for the specific projects I have announced but for future
projects, for our security as a country and for jobs in our
industrial heartland. I thank her for her advocacy and we will
keep moving forward on this.
(Angus and Perthshire Glens)
(SNP)
The Secretary of State says he is absolutely committed to the
Acorn project. Well, the way to show that would be to fund it,
because yet again the UK Government have failed to announce
funding for carbon capture utilisation and storage projects in
Scotland. This is a disaster economically, industrially and
environmentally. I am sure he will agree that without Acorn, the
UK cannot meet its net zero targets and will miss them by some
margin. The last Tory Government failed to back this project in
Scotland for years, and despite offering change, Labour has done
exactly the same thing, following the same path with broadly the
same budget and prioritising less developed, less substantial and
less deliverable projects in England while offering the Scottish
cluster no funding at all to date. People in Scotland remember
well how eager the Treasury and the Westminster Government were
to get their hands on revenues from North sea oil and gas. When
will we see that returned with investment from Westminster into
the north-east of Scotland to support the Acorn project?
I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's tone, but it is entirely
predictable. He knows that there have always been two tracks.
This Government have moved at speed to fund track 1, and I have
made absolutely clear our commitment to Acorn and track 2.
(Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of major investment
in carbon capture in our industrial heartlands, including in
Merseyside. Knowsley hosts significant industrial capacity and
has huge potential to contribute to this. Can the Secretary of
State provide details and meet me to discuss how Knowsley will
benefit from investment in the thousands of good, secure jobs
expected under this scheme?
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The challenge for the
Government, and for the companies that have won these contracts,
is to make sure that we create jobs in the supply chain,
including in her constituency. I look forward to meeting her to
discuss this.
(Bath) (LD)
Waste incinerators release, on average, a tonne of CO2for every
tonne of waste incinerated. They are usually called “energy from
waste” but their environmental value is questionable unless
carbon capture is attached. Yes, we need to recycle more, but
energy from waste will be with us for years to come. Will the
Secretary of State commit to significantly scaling up carbon
capture for energy from waste plants?
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is why one of the
projects we funded is an energy from waste project. This is
exactly the kind of role that CCS can play.
(Middlesbrough and Thornaby
East) (Lab)
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's engagement on this
issue. Labour Members from across the Tees valley, especially our
friend , have been pressing for
many years to secure carbon capture, utilisation and storage.
Given the dithering of the Conservative party, we had become
increasingly anxious that the final investment decisions would
not be aligned and that the opportunity to invest in this
critical project would be lost. It is a testament to this Labour
Government that it has been delivered so early after entering
office. So that we can use this precious investment, will my
right hon. Friend, along with his Business and Trade and
Education colleagues, meet hon. Members from across the Tees
valley to discuss how we can secure the well-paid jobs,
apprenticeships and training that we need?
I pay tribute to and my hon. Friend for
being tireless advocates. He makes such an important point. As I
said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (), we must ensure that the
jobs we are delivering get to the people and places that have not
seen such opportunities for far too long. I look forward to
meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby
East () to discuss this further.
Dr (South West Wiltshire)
(Con)
Given the Chancellor's rhetoric about black holes, it is perhaps
a little surprising that the Government have managed to magic £22
billion for this, but I wish the Secretary of State well. I hope
his plan works. Does he share my concern that, in doing this, we
will reduce the drive to decarbonise industries, just as the use
of waste incinerators has reduced the imperative to reduce, reuse
and recycle waste, including in Westbury in my constituency?
I respect the right hon. Gentleman's question, although I do not
agree. First, this is a long-term investment in the country's
future, and I think the Chancellor is far-sighted in recognising
its importance. Secondly, there are hard-to-abate industries
that, without carbon capture, will find it very hard to enter a
decarbonised world. We have to protect those industries, but I
agree that, where industries can decarbonise without CCS, of
course we want them to do so.
(Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, and I congratulate
the trade unions, communities and campaigners that have
campaigned for this for so long. His leadership stands in stark
contrast with the asset-stripping of jobs, hopes and investment
that we have seen in too many of our industrial heartlands. Does
he agree that carbon capture is about not just net zero or
boosting cluster areas, but boosting jobs, skills and futures in
the supply chain in communities such as mine in Peterborough and
across the country?
My hon. Friend always speaks with great eloquence on these
issues, and he is completely right. When we talk about the
transition to clean energy creating the jobs of the future, and
about it being the greatest economic opportunity of the 21st
century, we have to show that it can actually happen. The problem
with the last Government is that, although they used that
rhetoric at times, they never actually delivered. Today, we are
showing the difference.
(Waveney Valley) (Green)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the vast majority of
carbon capture and storage pilot and demonstration projects that
have been commissioned worldwide have been cancelled or put on
hold. I am concerned that the Government are putting so much
money—£22 billion—into an unproven technology. I understand that
the track 1 projects are about new gas power stations and blue
hydrogen, about which the hon. Member for Brent West () has already expressed
concern because they are fossil fuel technologies. Will the
Secretary of State rule out investing any of this £22 billion in
new fossil fuels, locking the UK into new fossil fuel production?
Will he instead consider a major scaling up of natural carbon
capture through major investment in the restoration of woodlands,
peatlands and wetlands?
It is early, but I worry about the hon. Gentleman's opposition to
new grid infrastructure, so goodness knows what will happen to
the renewables. He also opposes carbon capture, so goodness knows
what will happen to the hard-to-abate industries. I am all in
favour of investing in woodlands, but we need all of these
things. I want to be generous to the Green party—[Interruption.]
I am a generous person, and I am sure the Green party has the
best of intentions, but the scale of the transition means this
country needs all of these technologies. It is not about choosing
to invest in the woodlands and not investing in grid
infrastructure or CCS. I urge the hon. Gentleman to think about
this, because we need all of these technologies.
(Mid and South
Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Government's announcement on moving forward with
the track 1 projects, which will create thousands of well-paid
jobs, attract inward investment and accelerate us towards net
zero. With the closure of the blast furnace at Port Talbot, the
two largest carbon emitters in Wales are now in my Mid and South
Pembrokeshire constituency, but they have no access to pipeline
CO2 transport. What measures is the Secretary of State taking to
encourage the decarbonisation of sites such as those in
Pembrokeshire, which rely on non-pipeline solutions for CO2
transport, to achieve a just transition?
My hon. Friend also speaks with customary eloquence on these
issues. This is potentially an important part of the solution. We
owe a debt to the workers at Port Talbot, and we must ensure that
we leave no stone unturned in looking to the future. I look
forward to continuing these discussions with him.
(East Antrim) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of
public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what
he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in
taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it
into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that
his own green policies are generating the very CO2he condemns?
The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped
down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting
CO2, at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.
In Northern Ireland, we are tearing up thousands of acres of
pristine upland bogland to erect windmills, and Scotland has
already cut down 17 million carbon-absorbing trees to make space
for windmills. I know the Secretary of State is keen on
modelling, but have his models told him how many carbon capture
and storage facilities will be needed to offset the carbon impact
of his green policies?
I will let the House into a secret: the conversation—if I can put
it that way—between myself and the right hon. Gentleman goes back
to 2008 or 2009, when he was shadowing me, so this is a
long-running saga, and I fear I will not convince him. I disagree
with him on so many levels that it is hard to listen. I respect
his point of view, but I think we will not agree.
(Hitchin) (Lab)
This Government have shown in the last three months what can be
achieved by rejecting the climate denialism that the last
Government often seemed at risk of sliding into. However, this
announcement is important because it underlines the opportunity
we have to also reject climate delivery denialism—the idea that
we can somehow make the transition to net zero work without
making big, bold investments or by focusing only on narrow
solutions that align with our ideological priorities. The
International Energy Agency and the Climate Change Committee
could not be clearer: CCUS is not just an economic opportunity
for this country, but a scientific necessity if we are to meet
our climate targets. Will the Secretary of State therefore leave
no stone unturned and no opportunity off the table, doing
everything we can not just to deliver on our targets, but to
ensure that we make the most of the opportunity to
reindustrialise parts of this country that have been neglected
for far too long?
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I was with the
Prime Minister in New York in the last couple of weeks, talking
to international partners about where the new British Government
stood, and there is a sense that British leadership is back.
However, if I had said to them, “We can't do carbon capture;
that's just not an answer,” they would have said, “Well, what are
we going to do about our industries?” My hon. Friend is
absolutely right: we need to have all the solutions at our
disposal, both for British leadership and for global
decarbonisation.
(West Dorset) (LD)
The Secretary of State will know that it is vital that we reduce
our global greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid the worst
ravages of a climate crisis that is already manifesting. Given
that this deal risks incentivising hard-to-abate businesses to
continue with business as usual, will he outline what steps the
Government intend to take to ensure that those industries also
invest in reducing their emissions?
I welcome the hon. Member to the House. We have all kinds of
projects in place to encourage business to decarbonise; indeed,
our drive for clean power by 2030 is part of ensuring that we
decarbonise the electricity system to help businesses to be part
of the decarbonisation journey. However, I just do not recognise
the picture that he paints—that this proposal is somehow a
disincentive for companies. I hear lots of businesses asking how
they are going to exist, frankly, in a decarbonised world. What
is the answer, for example, for the cement industry in a
decarbonised world? That is why CCS is so vital.
(Truro and Falmouth)
(Lab/Co-op)
I am so pleased to be part of a new era of clean energy
investment, with carbon capture in the north-east and the very
successful recent renewables auction. The Secretary of State has
been to see our critical minerals, floating offshore wind
potential and geothermal potential in Cornwall. Will he please
confirm that the industrial strategy and renewables will be truly
UK-wide and will span from Scotland and the north-east down to
the west and Cornwall, with a clear pipeline of investment
opportunities in order to give certainty to developers in, for
example, floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I have said before in the
House, Cornwall has a crucial role to play in our clean energy
future. She is a brilliant champion for Cornwall and for floating
wind. As she says, there is huge opportunity, and we look forward
to working with her to make it happen.
(South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for decarbonisation
and carbon capture, particularly in heavy industry, including
cement. However, the track 1 projects include new gas power
stations and new blue hydrogen, which will carry a huge
greenhouse gas penalty caused by upstream methane emissions. Will
the Secretary of State therefore commit to reviewing the
full-lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for any project before it
goes to a full investment decision?
That is indeed done as part of this. I gently say to some of
those asking me this question that this Government have a
world-leading position on no new oil and gas licences, and that
position is recognised around the world. I say to the hon.
Member—this goes back to what I have said throughout this
statement—that we need everything as part of the mix. That is why
we are going to keep existing fields in the North sea open for
their lifespan—for decades to come—and that is part of the energy
mix. Of course we are going to move off oil and gas; indeed, we
have a science-based position on this issue, unlike the last
Government. But this does need to be a transition, and that is
what we are going to make happen.
(Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Lab)
I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's
commitment to delivering for Teesside and to delivering thousands
of good green jobs in clean industries—delivery after years of
delay. He mentioned Solent earlier, and he knows the risk that
delay can pose to CCUS and to jobs. Does he therefore agree that
it is absurd for the Conservative party to try to claim credit
for this proposal after failing to deliver for 14 years, failing
to commit any resources and leaving our industries in the
lurch?
My hon Friend is absolutely right. The last Government cancelled
the project twice, which tells us all we need to know about them.
I had forgotten about the second cancellation; I actually had to
check—I could not believe that they had cancelled it not just
once but twice. That is going some. After three months, here is
the reality: they talked, we acted.
(Gordon and Buchan)
(Con)
The Secretary of State will know that investment in these CCUS
projects would not be possible without the private investment
generated from our oil and gas companies. In the light of that,
of him again confirming his policy on no new licences and of
other policies that are set to close down the North sea, how will
he ensure that that private investment continues so that more
CCUS projects come forward in the future?
I listened to what oil and gas companies such as BP and Equinor
said: they warmly welcomed this announcement. Frankly, there was
a sigh of relief; after years of promises and delay, we finally
had a Government getting this done.
(Boston and Skegness)
(Reform)
Ten million pensioners will find it utterly extraordinary that
this Government can find over £20 billion when they cannot find
£1 billion to fund the winter fuel payment. That is £20 billion
to invest in what the Secretary of State has today admitted is a
risky technology—I find myself in the rare position of agreeing
with the co-leader of the Green party, the hon. Member for
Waveney Valley (), on that. The extraordinary
thing is that this is almost £1,000 per household. Will this sum
of taxpayers' money be added to general taxation, when taxes are
already at record highs, or will it be added to our energy bills,
which the Secretary of State has promised will be brought
down?
Let us be absolutely clear about this, because that was a
significant intervention from the hon. Gentleman. Here we have
what claims to be the party of working people opposing jobs for
working people right across the country. That says all we need to
know about the hon. Gentleman: outside this House, he pretends to
be in favour of good industrial jobs for Britain; in this House,
he opposes them.
(Aberdeenshire North and
Moray East) (SNP)
I welcome the announcement that has been made, but the Acorn
project in St Fergus, between Fraserburgh and Peterhead in my
constituency, has been waiting for years, following a promise of
jam tomorrow from the last lot. Opposition colleagues have asked
for a definitive statement regarding progress on the project. I
know that it is a track 2 project, but I am deeply impressed by
the extent to which the Secretary of State is prepared to move
things forward rapidly, so can he please give us some sort of
timescale for the Acorn project today?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his question.
I do understand that, just as track 1 was led a merry dance by
the last Government, so too was track 2. The current Government
have been in power for three months. We are moving at speed, and
we have got track 1 over the line. These are obviously decisions
that the Chancellor will have to make in the spending review, for
reasons the hon. Gentleman will understand. I just say to him
that we are absolutely committed to track 2, including Acorn.
(Melksham and Devizes)
(LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but carbon capture
can be done in a number of ways. Anaerobic digestion plants, for
example, produce as much CO2 as methane, which can be ducted into
greenhouses to produce bigger tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces.
Will such natural carbon capture be included in the project,
thereby helping to enhance our food security?
I am all in favour of big tomatoes and improving our food
security. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the
potential uses of CCUS. On Friday, we were at a glass factory
that will be using hydrogen from a new project and will be the
beneficiary of a decarbonised supply. I look forward to further
discussions with the hon. Gentleman.
Madam Deputy Speaker ()
And the final word goes to .
(Strangford) (DUP)
Maybe not the final word, Madam Deputy Speaker, as that will be
for the Secretary of State. I welcome the statement, in which he
rightly underlined that anybody who ignores carbon capture, use
and storage does so at their peril, and the Government's
commitment to carbon capture. While the amount set aside is
incredible, so too is the requirement that every penny brings an
achievement. How will the Secretary of State ensure that each
region of the United Kingdom is involved in this net gain? I say
to him gently that Northern Ireland is not mentioned in his
statement; I am sure he will address that issue. There must be
accountability to ensure the realisation of environmental goals,
rather than simply the aspiration of achieving them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I hope he has a
conversation with his right hon. Friend the Member for East
Antrim ()—[Interruption.] I see the
right hon. Member does not want to talk to him right now. A good
point to end on is the fact that, of course, jobs will be created
in certain parts of the United Kingdom, but the measures
announced will benefit supply chains across the whole United
Kingdom. This Government look forward to ensuring that happens.
|
