← Back to House of Commons Debates
Biomass Generation 2025-02-10
10 February 2025
Lead MP
Michael Shanks
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
No tags
Other Contributors: 28
At a Glance
Michael Shanks raised concerns about biomass generation 2025-02-10 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Government has concluded that Drax power station, which plays a crucial role in delivering security of supply and offering value for money to bill payers between 2027 and 2031, must be supported on new terms. These include operating at significantly lower levels than before (maximum load factor of just 27%), providing better value through reduced subsidies (equivalent to a saving of nearly £6 per household per year), and implementing stricter sustainability measures with penalties for non-compliance.
Andrew Bowie
Con
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Biomass from Canada is neither clean nor cheap. Drax's role should be limited, but not with subsidies that are higher than before (£160 per MWh). Gas power plants would offer a cheaper and cleaner alternative without the need for unsustainable biomass practices.
Inquires about the sustainability criteria for Drax’s wood imports, seeking clarity on whether wood from primary forests is unsustainable and will be banned. Asks if the Government has confirmed receipt of a KPMG report regarding subsidies. Questions the cost implications of BECCS technology and requests analysis of alternatives to this technology.
Michael Shanks
Lab
Acting Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Defends the Government's deal with Drax as a significant improvement over previous deals, highlighting lower subsidies, sustainability improvements, profit clawback mechanisms, and better energy security.
Bill Esterson
Lab
Sefton Central
Compliments the Minister on his analysis of energy policies and asks if the cuts in subsidies and reliance on Drax will contribute to reducing bills and enhancing clean power plans.
South Cambridgeshire
Critiques the Government's decision to extend biomass burning, questioning its sustainability and carbon emissions. Questions NESO's advice on Drax’s necessity and calls for transparency regarding KPMG reports.
Minister emphasises the importance of the agreement with Drax, highlighting that it costs £170 million less than building new gas-fired power stations. The deal ensures dispatchable power when needed and halves subsidies to bill payers.
Roger Gale
Con
Herne Bay and Sandwich
Conservative MP criticises the agreement, stating it is a half-baked solution that relies on importing pellets from Canada with high carbon costs. He questions the sustainability of the deal.
Minister addresses concerns about Drax's sustainability and compliance with new 100% criteria. Highlights the role of an independent adviser to ensure full compliance and audit trail for sustainable wood burning. Also mentions plans for long-term clean power mix.
Alex Sobel
Lab/Co-op
Leeds Central and Headingley
Labour MP raises concerns about the impact of Drax's operations on North American forests, questioning whether the company can be trusted to meet sustainability requirements. Asks for details on audit trail and powers of independent adviser.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Bromsgrove
Conservative MP requests that the full analysis comparing support for Drax with alternatives be published, emphasising transparency in decision-making.
Barry Gardiner
Lab
Brent West
Labour MP welcomes the Government's actions against Drax, cutting subsidies and setting a clear exit strategy. Questions the role of Ofgem in ensuring proper reporting on sustainability issues.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Scottish National Party MP criticises biomass burning as a temporary solution that allows for high CO2 emissions, urging significant direct investment in long-term energy storage such as pumped hydro and green hydrogen production.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Labour MP welcomes the drastic reduction in subsidy and increased sustainability criteria. Questions why previous Government failed to achieve a similar deal with Drax.
Martin Vickers
Con
Brigg and Immingham
Conservative MP highlights the economic impact of the deal on his constituency, urging for consideration of local supply chain jobs as long-term solutions are developed.
Luke Murphy
Lab
Basingstoke
The Minister is commended for ending a deal that led to higher bills, excess profits and poor sustainability standards. The opposition criticises the hypocrisy of Conservatives who oppose Drax after supporting it previously.
Defends the government's decision to end subsidies to Drax, stating they inherited an energy system without long-term planning and that Drax did not have a deal good for climate, security or citizens. The new management wants to move past coal-fired power generation.
Lee Anderson
Reform
Ashfield
Critiques the net zero policy, stating it is staggering and counterproductive as Drax is now transporting wood from 3,000 miles away instead of using locally sourced coal. The Reform party opposes the current subsidy system.
Johanna Baxter
Lab
Paisley and Renfrewshire South
Thanks the Minister for imposing strict new sustainability rules on Drax, which will mean no payment for unsustainably sourced biomass. Questions the role of an independent adviser to monitor compliance.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Welcomes the emphasis on energy security and asks about the timetable for small modular nuclear reactors, preferably those built by Rolls-Royce.
Joe Morris
Lab
Hexham
Welcomes news of a windfall tax on Drax, which was welcomed across his constituency. Asks if this will be the end of grotesque profits for Drax at the expense of taxpayers.
Carla Denyer
Green
Bristol Central
Critiques Drax as a clean energy scam that has received £6 billion in subsidies since 2012. Questions if clawback applies to past profits or only future ones.
Tom Collins
Lab
Worcester
Welcomes the revision of Drax’s role, reducing biomass and ensuring it displaces gas rather than excess wind and solar. Asks for exploration into hydrogen as a dispatchable power source.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Questions whether credible low-carbon alternatives to burning biomass should include energy from waste plants or if these should be subject to a moratorium on construction like in Scotland and Wales.
Hitchin
Critiques the last Government's deal with Drax as shocking value for taxpayers and bad news for the environment. Asks for assurances that this new approach will be better for bill payers, workers, and the green transition.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Warns against cheerleading renewable energy as Drax’s subsidies have led to high consumer costs (£1 billion a year), chopping down habitats 3,000 miles away, and increased CO2 production.
Defends the decision to give Drax a subsidy, arguing it is important for energy security and delivers value for money. He outlines plans for cheaper bills and industrial jobs in the future.
Tom Hayes
Lab
Bournemouth East
Commends the statement for capping Drax’s output, introducing a windfall tax, halving subsidies paid by constituents, and improving sustainability. He supports it as a pragmatic solution to a disastrous inheritance.
Paul Waugh
Lab/Co-op
Rochdale
Welcomes the move to slash Drax's subsidy and enforce 100% sustainability targets on its supply chains, urging the Minister to call it a windfall tax openly.
Government Response
Government Response
The Government proposes to support Drax under new conditions that include operating at lower levels, providing better value for money through reduced subsidies (£6 saving per household annually), and implementing tougher sustainability measures. The agreement aims to ensure security of supply while addressing concerns about biomass sustainability. Defends the Government's deal with Drax as more sustainable, less costly to bill payers, and essential for energy security. Explains that subsidies have been halved and mechanisms are in place to claw back excess profits from Drax. Emphasises short-term measures needed until 2031 due to previous government's lack of long-term planning. Government minister emphasises halving subsidies and ensuring dispatchable power through strict sustainability criteria. Outlines independent audits and new long-duration energy storage plans. Defends the government's decision by stating they inherited an energy system without long-term planning. Halved subsidies to Drax and ensured excess profits are returned. Emphasises moving past coal-fired power generation, implementing strict sustainability rules, looking into small modular reactors, windfall taxes on Drax for future profit clawback, hydrogen exploration, carbon capture alternatives, and ensuring no credible low-carbon alternatives include waste incinerators. Defends the decision by limiting Drax’s expected rate of return below Ofgem regulations, halving subsidies previously given by all parties saving £170 million annually, and introducing a windfall tax with clawback rates. Emphasises better value for money for taxpayers and consumers.
Shadow Response
Andrew Bowie
Shadow Response
The shadow minister criticises the new deal with Drax, arguing that it is neither clean nor cheap. He points out that gas power plants are a cheaper and cleaner alternative to biomass from Canada, which he describes as unsustainable.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.