Michael Shanks
MP for Rutherglen · Labour · United Kingdom
“In the past two years, during which I have had the privilege of doing this job, my hon. Friend has frequently shared her experiences as an electrical engineer, and she is right. I, too, am in awe of the grid and of the work that its operators do day in, day out as part of the extremely complex job of balancing supply and demand 24/7.”
“First, on the point about this somehow being a Government project, it is absolutely not. That is why my answers to the right hon. Member for Tatton reflected the fact that, right now, private developers across the country in a whole range of sectors are developing private propositions for all sorts of things.”
“As I have said to the shadow Secretary of State before, though, she is conflating two things, I think wilfully. There are questions to be asked about things that have been raised with her by whistleblowers, which we will now investigate.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was the point I was going to come on to. Community engagement is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely firm expectation from Ministers that any of these large-scale infrastructure projects should have meaningful engagement with communities.”
“There was a lot there, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not happy to see me at the Dispatch Box. I am very happy to see him in his place, and to be here to answer this important urgent question. On security of supply, let me say that, yes, renewables are not going to be the entirety of our mix at all times.”
“I am aware of that. Councils can take a view on a whole range of things; I do not think there is anything controversial about a council making its views known on a particular project. It is very welcome to do that, and that is why we have democratically elected councillors in this country. On a final point by the right hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Michael Shanks, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“Ministers commissioned Great British Energy Nuclear’s study of Scotland’s potential for new nuclear last autumn. That study indicates that Scotland has land areas with high potential for future development. We remain open to discussions with the Scottish Government on opportunities for new nuclear in Scotland, and I welcome the conversations I have with the new Scottish Energy Minister on a range of topics.”
“First, the hon. Gentleman knows that in every single opinion poll a majority of Scots show that they support nuclear energy. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that every single day nuclear baseload is powering Scotland, and that the last nuclear power station, Torness, is about to close with no replacement in place. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman knows that hundreds of people—skilled workers—power those nuclear power stations, and, indeed, thousands of Scots are working in nuclear power stations in England because of his party’s opposition to nuclear. This is not a choice between nuclear and renewables; it is about both energy security and good jobs for everyone in Scotland.”
“My hon. Friend is right. The industry estimates that more than 5,000 Scots are currently working in the nuclear industry, but not in Scotland. There is a huge potential for the expertise and experience of oil and gas workers to build the new nuclear power stations of the future, and to work in them as well. We need to capture those skills and keep them in Scotland, but because of the out-of-touch ideological approach of the SNP we will not have the opportunity to build those power stations in Scotland and those workers will have to go elsewhere, which is a great shame.”
“We will do everything we can to move forward with possible sites for new nuclear in Scotland, but the fact is that we cannot make as much progress with those sites as we would like because of the Scottish Government’s opposition through their planning regulations. I will continue to do what I can to persuade them to change their mind. There are hundreds of possible jobs, along with continued energy security in Scotland, and this is an opportunity that we should not miss.”
“I echo the shadow Minister’s words about those who lost their lives on Piper Alpha 38 years ago. That event was a wake-up call in respect of safety in the industry, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, it is also a reminder that there are men and women working in extremely dangerous circumstances right now in order to keep the country going. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government, which is actually not a first. Until he ended up on the Opposition Benches, he regularly agreed with what the Government are now doing. [Hon. Members: “He still does.”] He still does—I am convinced of it—and he is welcome any time.”
“What I love about the shadow Minister is how every single time his face gives away the fact that he does not believe a word he is saying. However, I welcome the former Minister for consultation and his view of his nuclear ambition, which, of course, never came to fruition in the 14 years for which the Conservatives were in government. Meanwhile, the delivery to which he referred is exactly what we are getting on with in this Government. We are delivering on the Hinkley and Sizewell C nuclear reactors, delivering on a small modular reactor programme that already has an international reputation—countries around the world are interested in that technology—and building the nuclear that he only talked about.”
“The Government closely follow developments in the agrivoltaics sector and support innovative technologies, for instance through initiatives funded by UK Research and Innovation. In the solar road map that we have published, the Government and industry have committed themselves to exploring future research and demonstration opportunities for agrivoltaic systems.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are in favour of innovation wherever we can deploy solar. He talks about solar on reservoirs, which is absolutely an opportunity that we want to explore, but we also want to look at how agrivoltaic technologies can be deployed, and we are supporting the University of Lancaster to work out what that model would look like. I have visited a number of solar farms where farming and solar generation go hand in hand, and we want to see much more of that. Planning policy supports that, but we want to go further.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have always enjoyed my conversations with the right hon. Gentleman, even if we disagree on many things. First of all, it is possible for farming practices to go hand in hand with solar generation. Secondly, even if we hit our most ambitious targets, less than 0.6% of farmland will be taken up with solar. Thirdly, he is right to say that we want to see solar on as many rooftops as possible—car parks, offices and schools—and on reservoirs, but the challenge that we face as a country is such that we need both ground-mounted solar and rooftop generation. I know that we can work together on the rooftop point, and I hope I will convince him of the other.”
“We love community energy and we are determined to see much more of it all across the country. Through the local power plan, which we published recently, we are rolling out the biggest expansion of community energy in British history. By 2030, Great British Energy, which is delivering for the people of this country, will support over 1,000 local and community energy projects, with £1 billion of investment. Ownership matters to this Government, and we are determined to deliver it for communities across Britain.”
“That sounds like a great project, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as I would anyone across the House who has exciting community energy projects in their area. The local power plan partly deals with investment, but it also deals with those questions of how we get regulation right so that communities can sell power locally and make a return that they can keep in their community.”
“I love all the work that the hon. Member has been doing on community energy; I am tempted to say that we were going to do it anyway, but it was great to have the report on my bedside cabinet to read as well. Giving guidance and making reforms are exactly what we need to do; it is about making it much easier for communities to sell power to the market and hold on to the profits that they make from that. We will legislate to take that forward in the energy independence Bill. There are a number of other things that we are taking forward, but investment in those community energy projects is critical. I would encourage her to speak to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and make clear that £1 billion through GB Energy to make it happen does matter.”
“I love Bellshill, and it was a pleasure to visit the other day to see this fantastic facility opening just across my constituency boundary. More than 300 wind turbines are being maintained and operated from the facility. That is a good example showing that the clean energy mission is about not just the renewables being deployed, but the jobs that go with it in communities like my hon. Friend’s.”
“The hon. Lady could go on all day reading out the things that this Government are already going to do. We want to see much more community ownership, because it matters to us that communities own their future energy, and that people keep the wealth in their communities to invest it in the things that they think are important, because they know their community best. There is a whole series of actions that previous Governments have not taken that would have made that possible. We are going to clear that away and make it possible for communities to own their energy, and we have put £1 billion into that. I always welcome the Lib Dems’ support for what we are doing.”
“First, just to be clear, we are not abandoning at all the idea that we should put solar on as many car parks as possible and encourage the creation of car ports, so that there can be solar panels on the roof. That is brilliant, and we should see much more of that. We consulted on whether there should be one mandatory solution for the whole country, and the consultation responses, which we take heed of, suggested that was not the right way to go. That does not mean at all that we are not hugely ambitious about solar on car parks.”
“Yes, I completely agree. I am sure that if my hon. Friend’s local authority is listening, it will hurry up and make those decisions. We also want the process to be more standardised across the country, so that community projects like hers can learn from others who have done the same, and so that we can speed up the whole process.”
“I suspect that in the coming days England fans will learn a lot from Norway in something else. On the serious point that the hon. Member raises, we should first recognise that Norway took a different approach to extraction from the North sea 60 years ago, and it has continued to do that over its 60 years of extraction from the North sea. Secondly, we are not turning off the taps in the North sea. We have said that we will introduce transitional energy certificates to allow new production tied back to existing fields.”
“First, we are delighted to be building the first long-duration energy storage in Britain in 40 years, including pumped hydro storage projects that will help us store renewable energy for when we need it. Secondly, there will be local benefits from that and I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about jobs. These are big construction projects and there will be jobs relating to running them afterwards. However, I will look further at his point on community benefits, because the community should benefit from such projects being built.”
“We take those issues seriously across the energy resilience and security piece. It is for individual developers to look at their individual sites and ensure that they comply with the regulations that are in place. We are also looking at what more needs to be done, because the security and resilience of all our energy infrastructure has never been more important.”
“I am very happy to answer, because I responded to all the right hon. Lady’s written parliamentary questions, as I always do. In my answers, I set out very clearly that this is not a Government project so the Government do not have all the details. It is a private project, and as with any other private development going on around the country, we would not expect the Government to have an insight into all that data. The Government have not backed that project, so the answers to her questions were as I accurately gave them, and that is the case for all my written parliamentary questions.”
“2) Rules 2026, which were laid before the House on 14 May, alongside these regulations, and the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No. 4) Rules 2026, which will be laid in due course, will come into force alongside this instrument. In conclusion, the instrument enables the continued efficient operation of the capacity market so that it can deliver on its objectives. It will improve delivery assurance and ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible for all participants. I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
“Respondents were broadly supportive of the measures that clarified regulations or enabled participants with a direct-award CfD to manage their transition off the capacity market. Responses to the delivery assurance reforms were more mixed. Having carefully considered those responses, the Government have proceeded on the basis that these increases are necessary to realign delivery incentives and strengthen delivery assurance. The changes are proportionate, aligning fees with their real-terms-equivalent values in 2016, and will apply only to participants entering the scheme after the instrument comes into force. We have also made several technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the regulations. The Capacity Market (Amendment) (No.”
“That will better align the capacity market with the clean power ambition and ensure a smooth transition from payments under the capacity market to a CfD. Secondly, the instrument will strengthen delivery assurance by increasing termination fees and credit cover to restore their value broadly in line with 2016 levels in real terms. Thirdly, it makes several amendments and a revocation to ensure that the legislation delivers on the policy intent. It gives the Secretary of State and NESO the powers to extend the prequalification deadline for an auction following a major IT outage. It will align the capacity market timetable with the ongoing market-wide half-hourly settlement reforms, and it will remove obsolete provisions. Two public consultations in relation to the measures in this instrument were conducted towards the end of 2025.”
“To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly amend the implementing legislation, based on what is required to best ensure continued security of supply. Let me now turn to the detail of this instrument. It amends 11 regulations in, and introduces one new regulation into, the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, it amends two regulations in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014, and it revokes one chapter of the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019. First, this instrument will ensure that assets awarded a contract for difference following a direction from the Secretary of State will be allowed to participate in the capacity market until the start of the asset’s CfD support.”
“Through auctions held one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured, based on advice from the National Energy System Operator. Through those auctions, participants secure agreements requiring them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is a technology-neutral scheme that pays providers for making capacity available when needed, covering generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection. Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in about 20 GW of new capacity needed to replace older and less efficient plants as we transition towards the clean power 2030 target.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Laid before the House on 14 May, this statutory instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market, which is the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. Before outlining the specific provisions in the instrument, I will briefly provide some context. The capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to maintain the security of electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient capacity is available to meet future demand predictions.”
“We should be very careful about nonsense scaremongering that is not based in fact whatsoever. The draft regulations are about improving the already strong capacity market so that it can continue to deliver our energy security, now and into the future. It has made Britian’s energy system one of the most resilient in the world, which will continue to be the case in future with a mix of technologies. The draft regulations help to achieve that, and I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
“We just saw investment into long-duration energy storage in this country for the first time in 40 years, which involves some really world-leading battery projects that will give us that additional capacity. Consumer-led flex is not about forcing consumers to do anything; it is about giving them the power to make choices that can bring down their bills, if they use technology in different ways, and it also helps the system. Consumer-led flex is a win for both consumers and the system. It is bizarre that the Opposition see it as some sort of enemy of the people, even for their race to the bottom on future technology. On the point about blackouts, I have genuinely seen an increase in the number of people from both the Conservative party and Reform peddling nonsense about blackouts in this country.”
“We work towards a range of future scenarios, which is why we have both the four-year-ahead auction and the one-year-ahead auction. As we get closer to those dates, we have a much more accurate sense of what demand will be, and we therefore procure additional capacity in the one-year-ahead auction. I would gently challenge a number of the points made by the shadow Minister. First, we are moving towards a low-carbon power system because that is what will get us off the volatility of fossil fuels. Gas will play a strategic reserve role in the system, as was highlighted in the clean action plan, which set out that 95% of our generation will come from clean sources, with the remainder coming from gas and other sources. I would also say that this is not just about gas and renewables; new technology is coming in all the time.”
“For the third time, let me welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—although I think he was in a Delegated Legislation Committee in his first week in this place. I am not sure whether his SNP predecessor was ever in a Delegated Legislation Committee in all his years in this place, so the hon. Gentleman is already making progress on Stephen Flynn in that respect. First, I welcome the support for the capacity market, which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has served the country well, and it continues to play an important role in bringing forward the investment needed to ensure the security of supply in the future. I want to make a couple of points clear. The T-4 auction for delivery in 2029-30 secured 40 GW of capacity at £21 per KW per year, which is above the target capacity that we set out.”
“For the first time ever, we have announced community benefits from network infrastructure: direct bill discounts for consumers, so that those closest to transmission lines and substation upgrades feel the benefit in their energy bills, but also wider community benefits, so that communities can benefit from funding. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other hon. Members raised a point about long-term, sustainable and really impactful benefits. My constituency is close to some of the biggest onshore wind farms in Europe, and in truth we have not seen the long-lasting community benefits that we might have seen. This is about trying to shift that, so that there are real investments in communities.”
“Friend referred, and there are many opportunities for communities to have their say. I recognise that communities do not always feel that that is taken into account, but I say genuinely that it is taken into account. Projects have to demonstrate that they have considered the cumulative impact of other NSIPs as part of their process through the system. I have said that communities providing a service to the country by hosting this infrastructure have to benefit from it. We have already taken decisive steps to ensure that they have tangible and lasting benefits.”
“Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal powerfully outlined some examples of the impact of Sizewell C, one of the most important energy projects that we are building. The last time we built a nuclear power station in this country, I was not even born, so it is really important that we push forward on those projects. However, I recognise that the scale of Sizewell C has an impact on roads and local businesses. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend again to talk specifically about that point; I would also be happy to set up a meeting with her and the team at Sizewell C, because I know that they are also seized of the importance of getting this right. I should also say that this is partly why we have a rigorous planning system. All nationally significant infrastructure projects have to address the cumulative impacts to which my hon.”
“Just last week, we hit the huge milestone of £100 billion of investment in clean energy since this Government came to office almost exactly two years ago. That is creating jobs and boosting our energy security. As I have said, every wind turbine, every solar panel, every nuclear power station and every bit of transmission line that we build helps to create a more secure and resilient energy system now and in future. I do not say that lightly, as if building those projects does not come at any cost for people locally. New infrastructure does mean difficult decisions, and there will always be local impacts. I fully recognise that will bring concerns for local residents, just as much as it brings huge opportunities nationally. My hon.”
“Infrastructure does matter, and I am not going to shirk away from making the argument that after a long period of not building the infrastructure this country needs, we have to build it. But communities have to be at the heart of that decision as well. It is great to see that some young people have joined us for the debate, because at the heart of our reason for building this infrastructure is the future of our planet, as well as our energy security right now. For decades, we have not done enough to tackle the climate crisis, but neither have we done enough to safeguard ourselves from the volatility of fossil fuels, which has put all our bills up year after year. That is what this is all about, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal absolutely supports that point. It is also an economic opportunity.”
“Communities that host nationally significant infrastructure obviously experience disruption and change, and that comes with real consequences. I understand the challenges that such infrastructure places on communities at a local level, and it is right that we not only take account of those concerns when they are raised but do everything we can to provide those people with the community benefits. They are hosting infrastructure on behalf of the nation, and they should benefit from that. This important debate also comes to the heart of the broader question facing the country, and why we have, as a Government, decided to move even further and faster to deliver the infrastructure that not only delivers economic growth and energy security, but gets us off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) not only for securing the debate but for all the conversations we have had. She should never fear repeating the same message; it is important. She does a great job championing her community in this place; she has always sought to do so, in all the meetings I have had with her. I might add that she has also sought to be constructive, as she reflected in her opening remarks. Her constituents are not against the move to clean power, and know how important it is, but they recognise that there are impacts locally. That is a really important place to be on this issue.”
“The balance that we are trying to strike, as a Government determined to tackle the cost of living, is to have communities benefiting as much as they possibly can but without putting up bills significantly for all bill payers across the country, which would be a disproportionate impact at a time when the affordability crisis is our No. 1 priority.”
“The minimum standards should be there to make sure that the process is transparent, with communities and not developers in the driving seat, and that there is long-term certainty. I do not think that we should say that play parks and cycle paths are bad things to invest in, but there should be some long-term investments alongside them. I have seen some good examples, just in the past few weeks, of that being done well. We need to separate out those two things. I have wrestled with the cost point as well. In principle, I would like to see communities having even more community benefits, but we have to recognise that the cost of them will be borne by bill payers right across the country.”
“Let me come to both of those points. First, we are potentially confusing two different things. Community benefits for transmission infrastructure are mandatory; we have separately consulted on whether community benefits for wider energy projects should be mandatory, and we will respond to that consultation soon, because I recognise many of the points that have been made. What we do not want to do, though, is create one-size-fits-all solutions in Whitehall that will work differently in different communities. As a Minister, I do not want to sit here and say: “This is how your community benefit will work in your community.” Instead, I want to empower communities to figure out how that works best in their local area. I have seen models of that in all the visits that I have made across the country.”
“With something like the Sea Link offshore cable, it is sometimes hard to look at what the community around it would look like. We have wrestled with how to define it: there is a danger that if we have too broad a definition, the community benefit funds will not get to the people who would benefit most. There is probably more that we can do on that, and I am very open-minded about contributions from hon. Members on that point. On the level of benefit—I know that these points have been raised before—the electricity bill discount will give the people living closest to the infrastructure money off their bills. We are seeking to remind people that the more of this infrastructure we build, the fewer constraints we have on the grid and the more we can get cheap, clean power into homes and businesses and bring down bills for everyone.”
“I totally accept the hon. Member’s point, although the point has been rightly raised that the impact of building these projects is often felt by a much wider community, which is why the community benefits are wider. I should also say that we have to separate questions of compensation from questions of community benefit. Compensation is paid, as part of a process, to those who have been significantly disrupted or whose land has been changed in whatever way: that is a contractual negotiation between a landowner or resident and a developer, and it is not for the Government to intervene in it. Community benefits are about a much wider view of how these projects benefit the wider community. I take the point about the design of the community, which is really important.”
“It is also about how we get communities either owning the entirety of the infrastructure themselves and holding the wealth that is generated in their community, or at least owning a share in it. To their credit, in the Infrastructure Act 2015 the previous Government—although I suspect that they may not have realised this when they passed the Act—created a power to allow shared ownership. It was never enacted. We are now seeking to work out how to enact it so that communities can genuinely own a share. We know the difference that it makes: ownership matters, because it puts communities right in the driving seat when it comes to what they spend that money on. Whether they choose to make long-term or shorter-term decisions would be in their hands. That makes a hugely important difference to communities, as I have seen on visits.”
“I take that point, to an extent, although being off the gas grid does not mean being off grid from electricity, so those people will benefit from cheaper electricity bills. I think that electrification is the answer, to support households off heating oil wherever possible. I know that that is not possible in every case, but there will be a lot of households that we can move away from heating oil, which protects them in the long term. We have also provided support for people on heating oil in the ongoing middle east crisis. We have produced a working paper and a call for evidence on community benefits, which we are going through at the moment. We are also going further around shared ownership of low-carbon infrastructure. This Government do not see this issue as being just about community benefits.”
“Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal again for securing the debate. I look forward to meeting with her again; she should never fear bringing up these issues with me again and again, because they are hugely important. I take them seriously, and so do the Government. I hope that together we will find a way through. Question put and agreed to .”
“Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) made a point about pumped-storage hydro, which is an example of the infrastructure our country needs. We need to get the community benefits right that come with these projects. We have made huge progress in two years, but I am not going to stand here and say that the job is done. We need to continue to make sure that communities benefit as much as possible—not least because, in a fractured debate on the energy transition, we have a job to do to convince the public that this is a journey that benefits all of us. It will bring down bills and protect us in an uncertain world. Fundamentally, if communities are hosting it, they are doing the country a favour and we thank them for it, but they should also get some benefit. I thank my hon.”
“We want to see much more community and shared ownership as well as partnerships with communities, but the Government are also unashamedly building the energy infrastructure that this country needs to weather the uncertain world we live in today. That will protect us in the future and unlock huge economic benefits from electrification and the industries of the future. That means building things, and they have to be built somewhere. My hon. Friend has frequently made the point that she agrees, but that she thinks Suffolk Coastal has faced a disproportionate number of those projects. I have some sympathy with her. We have to do everything we can to make sure that her communities and others like them benefit. The hon.”
“We will shift that with the national strategic spatial energy plan and, from that, the centralised network plan. We should have been doing that years ago. We have built lots of renewables projects, but have not worked out how we are connecting them to the grid. That is costing us in constraint payments, but it also means that we do not have as strategically aligned a grid as we should have. Unfortunately, we have to start from where we are. We will plan it more strategically moving forward, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s points. Returning to the central point of this debate, I recognise that communities should absolutely be at the forefront of the energy transition.”
“I do not think we are disagreeing. Energy generation projects are infrastructure projects: whether the community owns them or not, the infrastructure still needs to be built. I would just like to see more communities owning those projects. We said in the local power plan that we want to make it possible to sell power locally, which would actively bring down bills, and for that wealth to be held locally. The grid and network infrastructure has to be built alongside that, which in previous years has not happened as much as it should have. One of the biggest changes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, has been about the cumulative impact and the sense that there has not been sufficient planning or a strategic approach.”
“The new hourly rates are expected to be brought into effect at the beginning of July, in line with rate changes in previous years. OPRED concluded that failure to implement the revised rates would result in costs falling on the taxpayer, rather than on those benefiting from its services. OPRED determined that the rates should be increased in accordance with the proposals in the consultation. A formal response was published in April 2026. OPRED’s fees regime guidance will be revised to reflect the new hourly rates. I conclude by emphasising that the revisions to the hourly rates introduced by the draft regulations will allow OPRED to recover the eligible costs of providing regulatory services from those who benefit from them, rather than those costs falling on the taxpayer. I hope that all hon. Members will support the measure.”