Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Monday 22nd January 2024
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 292 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 211 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Claire Coutinho)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Britain is the first major economy to halve its emissions. That is an incredible achievement. How have we done it? We have increased our renewable electricity capacity fivefold since 2010—nearly half our electricity comes from renewables now, up from 7% in 2010—and just two weeks ago, I set out the largest nuclear expansion for 70 years.
We continue to have some of the most ambitious climate change targets of any major world economy. Here in the UK, we are committed to reducing emissions by at least 68% by 2030 from 1990 levels. Where is everybody else? The EU is committed to 55%, having recently rejected a move to 57%, and the United States is at just 40%. It is clear that, when it comes to climate change, we can be proud of our record and the work that we will do.
We have managed to achieve that while acting to help families with their energy bills. We stepped in to help families struggling with energy prices after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and our total support for the cost of living stands at £104 billion—a package that is among the most generous in Europe. Last year, we passed the landmark Energy Act 2023, which lays the foundation for a cleaner and more secure energy system. Our changes to competition, to managing energy consumption and to incentivising investment in new technology will mean billions in savings for consumers as we work towards net zero. We have overseen a huge increase in the number of energy-efficient homes from 14% in 2010 to almost half today, and we are investing more over the next Parliament to continue that important work.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State paints a very rosy picture, particularly on renewables, so why has her own energy tsar resigned in protest?
Claire Coutinho
We do not actually have an energy tsar, but we have an energy Secretary of State. I respect the former Member for Kingswood and wish him well in his next job, but if we care about reducing emissions, the question that everybody in this Chamber needs to answer is, “Why would you import fuel with higher emissions from abroad?”
We are investing in more renewable energy, we are starting a nuclear revival, and we will support new technologies, such as hydrogen, carbon capture and fusion. This is our plan to have a balanced energy policy. However, we need to ensure that the transition works for the British public and the British economy. Our plans cannot be based on ideology; they must be based on common sense.
Even the Climate Change Committee’s own data shows that when we reach net zero in 2050, we will still be using oil and gas for a significant portion of our energy. That is because it is not absolute zero; it is net zero. In other words, while our use of oil and gas will diminish rapidly, we will still need both for decades to come. Our Bill will improve our energy security and that of Europe. In the past two years, Europe has had to wean itself off Russian oil and gas. We have responded by tripling gas exports to the continent, and we were a net exporter of electricity to Europe in 2022 for the first time in more than a decade. We do not live in a world in which we can simply turn off oil and gas.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Lady saying that the only licences the Government intend to issue are for gas and oil destined for the British market?
Claire Coutinho
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because the Labour party has been spouting an awful lot of nonsense when it comes to this area. In the UK, we are blessed with the geological gift that is the North sea—it is an incredible national asset. Virtually all the gas produced there goes straight into the UK gas transmission network, and it is equivalent to about 50% of our overall gas needs. When it comes to oil, 90% of what is refined abroad is refined in Europe. We are a net importer overall.
The question that the hon. Gentleman should answer is this: if Europe did not get that oil from the UK, where would he like Europe to get it from—from Russia, or from further afield? That question is at the heart of the Bill. We know that we are going to need oil and gas—where do we want it to come from? Only an ideologue would argue that we are better off importing dirtier fuels from abroad than using what we can produce at home. However, it is not just energy security that dictates that we should use our own resources; the economic case also shows that introducing annual licensing is the right thing to do.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the right hon. Lady accept that, despite the way in which some Members of this House have tried to rubbish that idea and argue that having our own oil and gas does not mean any energy security for the UK, 88% of the gas that we extract at present stays in the UK? Would they prefer to import that?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Not only is it better for energy security, but gas that we bring in from abroad in the form of liquefied natural gas has emissions four times higher, so if Members care about the environment, they should back this Bill.
Domestic oil and gas production adds about £16 billion to the UK economy annually and brings in tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue. To give an example of how that has helped support families with the cost of living, we raised £9 billion in tax revenue last year from the oil and gas sector. That is money that we can use to support families, as we did last winter, paying half the average family’s energy bill, which amounted to roughly £1,500 per household. If we had no oil and gas sector, £9 billion more would have fallen on taxpayers’ shoulders. Why should we concede that tax revenue to other countries? What possible benefit could the British public feel from billions of pounds in tax revenue that could be raised here being sent abroad, all to import fuel with higher emissions?
I now turn to perhaps the most important reason to back this Bill: the workers. There are 200,000 people supported by the sector, in communities such as those in Aberdeen, Grimsby and the north-east of England, and including 93,000 people in Scotland, over 10,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber, and 14,000 people in the north-west.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that most of the gas we import comes from Norway, where gas production is half as polluting as it is in the UK, so let us not have all this nonsense about imports being so much higher in carbon intensity, because those from Norway certainly are not. Does she accept the fact that most of the emissions are produced when we consume the oil and gas, and therefore will she start looking at scope 3 emissions and not just the production emissions, which are not the greatest emissions in question?
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I think it fundamentally misunderstands the energy market. When we cannot get Norwegian gas and when we have made the most of all of our gas, what is the marginal gas that we use? It is LNG, which produces emissions four times higher than the gas we can produce here. If we produce less UK gas, we will need more LNG.
Coming back to what is a really critical part of the Bill—the workers—a recent report from Robert Gordon University found that a faster decline in our oil and gas sector, which the Opposition are proposing, could halve the workforce by 2030, leading to a significant loss of skills for the future energy sector. Those are the workers whose skills we will need for our future energy production. The same report found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have skills that are transferable to the offshore renewables sector. However, if we do not manage that transition correctly—everybody in the Chamber today agrees that we need to transition—we will lose those very important workers and their skills. It is the same people who are working on oil and gas rigs today who we will need on the offshore wind farms of tomorrow: our subsea installation engineers who lay cables, our technicians who remotely operate subsea vehicles, our divers, our project managers, and our engineering specialists servicing our offshore rigs. Those are all essential oil and gas jobs that we know will be critical in the roll-out of our low-carbon technologies. If we do not protect our world-leading specialists, we will see communities decimated, and ultimately a skills exodus that would put at risk the very transition that we are working so hard to achieve.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful point about both energy security and getting those jobs—those British jobs. Recently, I visited the Falkland Islands with a cross-party delegation, and when we met the Falkland Islands Government, they said that they are desperate to unlock the Sea Lion oilfield and to get British workers to operate that field—obviously, the Falkland Islands is a British overseas territory—yet they are being stymied by the UK Treasury, which will not underwrite it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the next thing we should do is back overseas territories by developing their oilfields, so that we can have good British overseas territories oil and gas in the UK and British jobs in the overseas territories, and support our one big happy Commonwealth and overseas territories family?
Claire Coutinho
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Let me turn to investment in the sector. I think we agree across all parties in the House that we want to be a world leader in clean energy technologies. Here in Britain, we have many competitive advantages, and we want to exploit all of them to have a brighter energy and economic future. Right now, the oil and gas sector is investing in hydrogen, carbon capture and offshore wind. A well-managed transition helps ensure that as we get more investment and grow these sectors people can transition alongside in an orderly and organic way. To shut down the oil and gas sector too soon would not only risk that investment, make it harder to do the transition and see those sectors grow more slowly, but risk people’s livelihoods.
The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will give the industry the certainty it needs to invest in this important sector. If we need oil and gas in the decades to come, it should come from Britain where it can. Using the resources on our doorstep to benefit Britain is simple common sense. This new legislation will require the North Sea Transition Authority to run an annual process for new exploration and production licences on the UK continental shelf, subject to key tests being met: first, that the UK is projected to remain a net importer of both oil and gas; and secondly, that carbon emissions associated with UK gas are lower than for imported liquefied natural gas. These tests are in place to provide assurance that proceeding with annual licensing remains the right thing to do.
This Bill will provide the industry with certainty on the future of licensing rounds, increasing investor and industry confidence. It will increase our energy security, protect 200,000 jobs, secure tens of billions in tax revenue and help us reach net zero. Members should not just take my word for it; voices across industry recognise the need for new licences for net zero and for our energy security. In fact, Stuart Payne, the chief executive of the North Sea Transition Authority, recently wrote that
“producing as much of the oil and gas we need as possible domestically is the right thing to do, for security and the economy.”
Offshore Energies UK has said:
“The UK needs the churn of new licences to manage production decline”.
National Gas has said that by backing gas today
“we can create jobs, secure energy independence, deliver net zero, and keep costs down for households and businesses.”
The general secretary of the GMB has said that not proceeding with new licensing risks
“leaving the UK even more dependent on energy imports to heat homes and power industry in future. That’s bad for our national security and prosperity.”
I have no doubt that the Opposition will whip their MPs against the Bill. They want to shut down new oil and gas licences, and they have been very clear about that. I suspect there are many in the Labour party who understand what turning off the taps would mean for British workers, and they will vote against this Bill with a heavy heart. They know that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has got this wrong. Is it not just common sense that, if we need oil and gas, it should come from UK waters rather than from foreign and often unreliable regimes abroad? Is it not better to produce our own gas instead of shipping in liquefied natural gas that has four times the production emissions of our own? Is it not right that the billions of pounds in tax that we raise from this sector stays here rather than being sent abroad? Is it not the position of an ideologue to say, “We will not support 200,000 British workers, but we are happy for those jobs to go to Russia or further abroad”?
The position of the Labour party and the SNP is not right for the environment, not right for the economy and not right for the energy security of this country. As the head of the GMB warned this weekend, it would be “exporting jobs” for the sake of “importing virtue”. It would mean thousands of jobs lost, communities decimated, tax revenue forgone, and all so that the right hon. Gentleman can appease his friends in Just Stop Oil. They are putting the interests of extreme climate ideologues over those of ordinary workers.
What of Labour’s wider energy policy? The truth is that, when it comes to this critical policy area, its policies are as clear as mud. We know that it hinges on borrowing £28 billion, which would mean thousands of pounds in extra taxes for every family. While we are cutting taxes, the Opposition would see them soar, which is not what the people of this country need. The right hon. Gentleman should level with the British public: what taxes would he raise to pay for this extra £28 billion of borrowing? When he was shadow Business Secretary, he said that £28 billion is the “scale of investment required”. The Opposition have said that they need to spend £28 billion to meet their 2030 decarbonisation ambition. So why will the right hon. Gentleman not set out which taxes he would raise? How is he going to squeeze more money out of hard-working families to achieve his 2030 pipedream? If he really thinks £28 billion in extra spending is essential, he should have the courage to explain how much worse off taxpayers will be.
While the Labour party struggled to back its own plans, over the past few months we have secured £30 billion-worth of private investment in clean energy. That is the difference between them and us: we know private investment is key to transition, but they would rather taxpayers shoulder the costs alone through more borrowing and higher taxes.
That is the choice the House must make today: do we support the oil and gas sector and the private investment that comes with it or do we leave taxpayers to foot the bill? We cannot afford to lose the skills, the revenue or the investment the sector provides; to do so would put net zero in jeopardy. We must deliver this transition in a proportionate, pragmatic and realistic way, ensuring that we make the most of the energy we produce right here in the UK.
That is common sense, and that is what the legislation represents. With this Bill we will protect 200,000 jobs, strengthen our energy security, secure tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue, ease the transition to renewable energy, and supply ourselves with gas that has only a quarter of the production emissions of LNG imports. Or we could follow the approach of the Opposition and decimate communities that rely on the oil and gas sector, rack up borrowing by £28 billion a year, send taxes soaring to pay for it and send British jobs and tax revenue abroad, all to import fuel with higher emissions. The choice is very clear: we are on the side of common sense, not ideology, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while affirming the need for urgent action to tackle the UK’s energy insecurity, the cost of living crisis, and the climate crisis, and for a managed, fair and prosperous transition for workers and communities, declines to give a Second Reading to the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill because mandating annual oil and gas licensing rounds will not reduce energy costs for households and businesses as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has stated, will not enhance energy security, offers no plan for the future of the UK’s offshore energy communities, will ensure the UK remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets, is entirely incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments and is a totally unnecessary piece of legislation which will do nothing to serve the UK’s national interest.”
I want first to express my deep condolences to the families of the two people killed by storm Isha and my sympathies to all those facing power cuts and disruption from the storm.
The proposed legislation we are considering today will not cut bills or give us energy security, drives a coach and horses through our climate commitments and learns nothing from the worst cost of living crisis in memory, which the British people are still going through—a cost of living crisis caused by our dependence on fossil fuels. Since the launch of the Bill two months ago, the case for it has disintegrated on contact with reality. Let me remind the House of the series of unfortunate events that has befallen the Bill since its publication. On day one—launch day—the Energy Secretary went on TV with the big reveal, telling the public the Bill would not cut bills. Next we discovered from confidential minutes of the North Sea Transition Authority that it thought the Bill was unnecessary and compromised its independence. [Interruption.] The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says from a sedentary position that that is not the case. He is wrong and I will read him the minutes:
“the Board expressed a unanimous view that such a proposal was not necessary for the NSTA…The Board noted that the proposal would significantly challenge one of the tenets of independence for the NSTA”.
Claire Coutinho
As the right hon. Gentleman is enjoyably quoting the NSTA minutes not its on-the-record comments, will he also support its position that we should maximise all of the oil and gas production in the North sea?
Edward Miliband
That is not the NSTA position, as I have discussed with it.
Next, Lord Browne, the former CEO of BP, attacked the Bill and said it was
“not going to not make any difference”
to energy security. Then Britain’s most respected climate expert, Lord Stern, pilloried it as “a deeply damaging mistake”. Then on the eve of COP—the conference of the parties—the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who signed net zero into law, said she disagreed with the Bill; to my knowledge, she does not support Just Stop Oil.
Edward Miliband
Of course I don’t.
Then the former COP president—[Interruption.] Let’s be serious. Then the former COP president the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), a man respected around the world who we were lucky to have playing that role at COP26, said the Bill was
“smoke and mirrors…not being serious…the opposite of what we agreed to do internationally”.
Finally, their own net zero tsar—the man they trusted to guide them on questions of energy—is so disgusted by the Bill that he is not in the Chamber today. In fact, he is so ashamed that he has fled to the Chiltern Hundreds. That is certainly getting a long way away from the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State and her policies. It shows how far people will go. It is not so much the oil and gas extraction Bill but the Conservative MP extraction Bill that she is putting forward today. The former net zero tsar said:
“I can no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm.”
We should take all these voices—Lord Browne, the former Prime Minister, the former net zero tsar and the former COP President—[Interruption.] I will come to all the arguments that the Secretary of State made, if she will give me a minute, as I develop my argument. The bigger point is that we face massive challenges as a country, but it is not the scale of our problems that is so apparent today, but the smallness of the Government’s response. We have a risible two-clause Bill that she knows will not make any difference to our energy security, because everyone who knows anything about this subject says so.
As the Bill has fallen apart, the Government have thrashed around to try to find a rational justification, and they have made one futile argument after another. Let us take each in turn. The first argument was that the Bill will cut prices. In case the House is thinking, “Did they really make that claim?”, the claim was made by the Prime Minister in a tweet. At 9.57 am on launch day, he said that the Bill will
“help reduce energy bills as we’re less exposed”—
Edward Miliband
The Secretary of State nods, but I put on record my thanks to her, because she has been an internal one-woman rebuttal unit against the Prime Minister. She went on breakfast TV—before the tweet, so we might call it a prebuttal—and said that the Bill
“wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down, that’s not what we’re saying.”
She is right, because oil and gas is traded on international markets.
Claire Coutinho
If the right hon. Gentleman had read the full quote, I said that indirectly, through support to the renewables sector, the Bill brings down bills. The fact that we can raise tax to help people with the cost of living also brings down bills. If he would like to bring down bills for people in this country, he should back this Bill.
Edward Miliband
That is great, because the Secretary of State anticipates my rebuttal of the second bad argument for this Bill, which is the argument she has just gone on to make. She said that the tax revenues we get from fossil fuels justify this policy, and we have heard it again today. If anything, that is an even more complete load of nonsense than the Prime Minister’s argument, because these are the facts: it is our reliance on fossil fuels that has caused rocketing energy bills. That meant that the Government were forced to step in to provide support for households and businesses [Interruption.] Ministers should just listen.
The cost to Government of the support with bills has far outweighed any tax revenues. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the windfall tax receipts from oil and gas companies raised £25 billion, and the cost of Government support is more than £70 billion or, the Government say, £104 billion. The idea that our dependence on fossil fuels can be justified by the tax revenues we get, when they have spent £100 billion trying to help people, is obviously nonsense.
There is a third bad argument, and again we heard it today, which is that somehow this Bill strengthens our energy security. Again, it is important to have a few facts in this debate. Here are the facts: the UK’s North sea gas production is set to fall with new licences by 95% by 2050, or without new licences by 97%. That is the equivalent of four days of our current gas demand. All this absolute codswallop about the Bill guaranteeing our energy security and somehow guaranteeing 200,000 jobs is risible nonsense.
Here is the thing. We have had a real revelation in this debate—the Government have admitted the truth—which is that the vast majority of oil is not used in this country; it is exported elsewhere, and 70% of our remaining reserves are oil, not gas. The idea that this makes any difference to our energy security is nonsense—these are private companies selling on the private market—and the Government have absolutely no response.
The fourth bad argument is that the Bill will somehow protect jobs. That is wrong. We owe it to oil and gas communities to protect them in the transition, but given the Conservatives’ record in constituencies such as mine, we will not take lectures from them on just transitions. We should admit a truth: the fossil fuel market is not just deeply unstable for consumers, as we have seen over the last two years, but deeply unstable for workers. It is a total illusion that new licences will somehow guarantee jobs for North sea workers. In the last 10 years, the number of people working in oil and gas has more than halved. The International Energy Agency predicts a peak in fossil fuel demand by 2030. That is why its head said:
“New large-scale fossil fuel projects not only carry major climate risks, but also business and financial risks for the companies and their investors.”
That applies to workers, too.
The right way to have a managed transition in the North sea is to carry on using existing fields—a Labour Government will do that—and to have a plan for North sea workers by driving forward with jobs in the industries of the future: offshore wind, carbon capture and hydrogen. But that is not what the Government have done. We had a graphic example of that last week. The world’s largest floating wind prototype sits off Peterhead—that is a good thing—but it needed maintenance, so where did the maintenance happen? Not in Scotland, and not anywhere in the UK; it has been towed back to Norway. That is the scale of their industrial policy failure; we know it very well.
The Government have not generated the jobs that British workers deserve, and their fossil fuel policy and net zero roll-back has sent a terrible message to investors around the world. This is what Amanda Blanc, the chief executive officer of Aviva and the head of its UK transition plan taskforce, says about oil and gas and the Government’s position:
“This puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate-ready.”
It is Britain losing the global race in clean energy jobs that will destroy the future of oil and gas communities. The Government have no proper plan for those workers; Labour does have a proper plan.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is an absolute disaster for climate diplomacy, turning diligent negotiators into hypocrites and trashing our international negotiations and international reputation? Is it not clear that without proper diplomacy, future generations will be left with a much more dangerous and less stable world?
Edward Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She takes me to the fifth and final bad argument that the Government are making for the Bill.
Edward Miliband
In a moment.
The Government argue that the Bill can somehow be justified on climate grounds, which demands a level of absurdity that should make even them deeply embarrassed. Let us get this straight. We signed a global agreement at COP28 for a transition away from fossil fuels in line with the science. That science is unequivocal: we must leave the majority of fossil fuels in the ground. But at home, their domestic policy is what they call “maxing out” the North sea.
Let us get this clear: in the crucial coming two years, Ministers will travel around the world to try to turn that COP28 agreement into reality, but how will the conversation go? The UK Minister will say to other countries, “We want you to leave your fossil fuels in the ground, because that is the agreement from COP28.” The country we are trying to persuade will say to us, “Hang on a minute. You’re saying we should leave our fossil fuels in the ground, but you’re planning to extract all yours.” What will we say, other than, “Yes, the Government are practising total hypocrisy, but please do as we say, not as we do.” That is the truth. The science is unequivocal.
Douglas Ross
I was hoping to intervene when the right hon. Gentleman was talking about jobs and investment, because he quoted an awful lot of people. Why did he not quote Sir Ian Wood, who said that Labour’s plans for the North sea oil and gas industry would
“place in jeopardy tens of thousands of jobs”.
David Whitehouse, the chief executive of Offshore Energy UK, said that Labour’s plans would “create a cliff edge”, deterring investment and heightening our risk of energy shortages. Why did he not mention those people?
Edward Miliband
I am very happy to talk about Ian Wood. We had a good roundtable with him in Aberdeen in November. I totally accept that it is for a Government of either party to show that there is a proper transition plan. I firmly believe that we can do it, but honestly, the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not the case that new licences will somehow guarantee a future for those North sea workers. How could he possibly say that four days’ worth of gas demand in 2050 will guarantee a future for those workers?
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that 10% of our current oil consumption is used in the manufacturing industry—not to be burned but for things such as lubricants, solvents and electronic components. That does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Is it acceptable to extract it from UK waters?
Edward Miliband
Eighty per cent. of what we get from UK waters is exported, not used here. We said clearly that we would continue with existing oil and gas fields. There must be a transition, and we cannot carry on regardless and max out the North sea. I know the right hon. Gentleman cares about the climate. It is important to listen to the respected authorities on climate. There must be a reason why the International Energy Agency, the Energy Transitions Commission, the Climate Change Committee, the former President of COP26 the right hon. Member for Reading West, and Lord Stern all say that the world is genuinely on a burning platform, and unless we address the issue of fossil fuels, we will head not to 1.5° but to 3° of warming.
That is the truth. It is incredibly hard, but the idea that we will say, “Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway”, is climate vandalism. I genuinely say that to the right hon. Gentleman. He shadowed me 15 years ago, and I know that he cares about these issues, along with the right hon. Member for Reading West. People who really care about these issues have wrestled with this question. We have listened to the experts and we have thought to ourselves, “What does the science tell us on the one hand, and what difference will this make on the other?” Fair-minded people have reached the conclusion that I have reached, as has Lord Stern and all the other authorities.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I previously raised the progress report from the Climate Change Committee, which said that the Government were off track. The Secretary of State then assured the House that the Government remain extremely ambitious about climate change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that she must have meant that she supports causing climate change, given she is pressing ahead with new oil and gas licences?
Edward Miliband
I do not believe that it fulfils the kind of climate leadership that we pride ourselves on in this country. Here is another interesting fact for the House. UK Export Finance, I think with the guidance of the right hon. Member for Reading West, decided at COP26 that we would not finance oil and gas projects abroad. Now, there must be a reason why UKEF decided that. Presumably, the reason is that we want to make the transition away from fossil fuels. At the same time as UKEF decided not to do that, we will look like hypocrites if we do this by saying, “We’re just going to carry on maxing out at home.”
I know there are a lot of other people who want to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have a Bill—
Edward Miliband
Oh go on. That is very tempting, so I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Drax
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has spoken for an awfully long time and I suspect he is coming to the end of his speech so that Back Benchers can participate. Not one idea has he put on the Floor of the House about what Labour would do were it to take over from us.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what we would do. I am really grateful to him for intervening, but I am sorry he has lengthened my speech. We would establish a national wealth fund to invest in British jobs to give a future in steel and automotive, and to invest in our ports. We would set up GB Energy to generate wealth for our citizens. If it is good enough for countries abroad, why is it not good enough for us? We would insulate homes across the country. We would finally lift the disgraceful onshore wind ban that is adding £180 to every family’s bills. That is just the start. I do not want to detain the House for too long, but there is plenty more where that came from.
Edward Miliband
I will not give way.
The truth is that there are two roads for Britain’s future: driving to clean energy by 2030 to cut bills and make us energy independent, and GB Energy to bring jobs in clean energy here at home and be a climate leader; or a Government who take the wrong path, cling to expensive and insecure fossil fuels, and make the British people pay the price, as they have for the past 14 years. The truth is that the Bill speaks volumes about a Government out of ideas and embarked on that second path. The Bill is one of the last desperate acts of a dying Government. I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment and vote against the Bill tonight.
Sir Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I agree with the Secretary of State, who I hold in high regard, that the United Kingdom has been a leader in climate action internationally. We have cut our emissions in half over the past 30 years, faster than any other major economy in recent years. We have set ambitious domestic emission reduction targets, in particular ahead of COP26. Through our COP26 presidency, we managed to get over 90% of the global economy signed up to net zero. Just about every G20 nation signed up to a net zero commitment. We led on climate action domestically and we translated that into leading the world on climate action.
Just a few weeks ago at COP28, the UK, alongside other nations, signed up to transition away from fossil fuels. On his return from COP28, the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) welcomed that global agreement from the Dispatch Box. He spoke about the importance of listening to the voices of the most climate-vulnerable island nations, who, as we know, wanted the world to agree to stronger language to phase out fossil fuels. Indeed, my right hon. Friend himself tweeted at COP28:
“There must be a phase-out of unabated fossil fuels to meet our climate goals.”
I commend the work that he and the whole UK team did in Dubai.
But today we have a Bill before the House, the sole purpose of which is to double-down on granting more oil and gas production licences. I do not believe, and it pains me to say this, that the Bill will advance that commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. I also do not believe that those climate-vulnerable nations my right hon. Friend referred to will think the Bill is consistent with the pledge that we, along with every other nation, made in Dubai.
As for the substance of the Bill, I think that, as currently drafted—and it pains me to say this—it is something of a distraction. I do not think it is necessary. The North Sea Transition Authority can already grant licences annually, or, indeed, when it considers it necessary. It has been doing that regularly for the past few years. The Department’s own explanatory notes make that clear by stating:
“ The NSTA will remain free to grant licences outside this new annual duty in the usual way, whether or not the new statutory tests are met.”
As for those two statutory tests, they seem to override the already non-binding climate compatibility checkpoint, and I have to say that I think they have been designed in such a way that the computer will always say yes to new oil and gas licences. Overall, the ability of the NSTA to grant new licences will not change materially as a result of the Bill.
Sadly, however—this is my opinion, and others will have theirs—what the Bill does do is reinforce the unfortunate perception of the UK’s rowing back from climate action, as indeed we saw last autumn with the chopping and changing of some policies, and that does make our international partners question the seriousness with which we take our international commitments. I said “it pains me to say this” because I know that the Government have been coming forward, under this Secretary of State, with commitments to try to tackle climate change and deliver on a clean energy transition.
We have heard that the Bill is about improving domestic energy security, but I think we all understand that the oil and gas extracted from the North sea is owned by private enterprises and the Government do not get to control to whom it is sold. Moreover, I think it is acknowledged that the Bill would not necessarily lower domestic energy bills in the UK, given that the price of oil and gas as a commodity is set internationally. I think that the best way to enhance our energy security, and ultimately bring down bills, is for the Government to continue to deliver on their ambitious plans for expanding home-grown clean energy, to which I know the Secretary of State and her Ministers are absolutely committed. That means more wind power, more solar and more nuclear as part of a diversified clean energy mix, and I back the Secretary of State in the work that she and her team are doing in delivering that clean energy mix.
We have heard that the Bill will secure 200,000 jobs. Of course people’s jobs and livelihoods matter, and we must ensure that we secure those jobs, but we must recognise that we are in the process of an energy transition. I support an orderly transition; for me, this is not about turning off the taps overnight on oil and gas. We must also acknowledge that more than 200,000 jobs, supported by the oil and gas industry, have been lost over the past decade, despite hundreds of new drilling licences being issued. We know that many of the skills used in the oil and gas sector are transferable to clean energy—to offshore wind and geothermal. If we want to truly turbocharge a clean energy transition, we need to help, support and retrain the workers who are making the transition, over time, from the fossil fuel sector into the many tens of thousands of jobs that are being created in clean energy as a result of the work that the Secretary of State and her team are doing.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points, and I have huge respect for him when it comes to this topic. Does he agree that we are in real danger of turning off the interest and the investment appetite among many other nations, such as Korea and Japan, which see the UK as having vast expertise in offshore wind development sites, and that legislation of this kind will undermine that market?
Sir Alok Sharma
There was some commentary expressing concern about investment appetite following some of the statements that were made in the autumn, but I think we must acknowledge that, over the last few months, the Government have managed to secure billions of pounds of extra investment committed within clean energy to the UK.
Turning to the carbon intensity test for granting new licences, I have to say again that I am not sure that the Government recognise the whole picture of where we get our imports from. The majority of the gas that the UK imports comes via a pipeline from Norway. It is not imported LNG. The carbon intensity of Norwegian gas production is around half that of UK domestic gas. If that is the test that the Government want to apply in deciding whether to issue new licences, I think they should take into account the average carbon intensity of all imported gas, not just LNG. Given that around 70% of remaining North sea reserves are oil, perhaps the tests should also include the carbon intensity of UK-produced oil, which is higher than the global average.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I put that very point to the Secretary of State in our Select Committee, and her response was that because almost all our oil is exported out of the UK for processing, we do not know what its full carbon intensity is. Is that not a great example of why our oil is not used in Britain and why this will not help British people?
Sir Alok Sharma
The Secretary of State has set out her position very clearly and eloquently. I am trying to set out my position on the Bill.
The Government said that the independent Climate Change Committee’s own data showed that we were going to need new oil and gas in the decade ahead, but I respectfully say that that is not the same as saying that new licences should be granted. The weekend before this Bill was originally due to have its Second Reading, the interim chair of the committee put out a tweet to reconfirm the CCC’s position. He wrote that
“@theCCCuk evidence is that continued expansion of new oil and gas reserves is inconsistent with our climate commitments, especially more so in light of the recent Global Stocktake COP agreement we just signed.”
For the reasons that I have outlined, I will not vote for this Bill today, but assuming that it proceeds beyond its Second Reading, I hope that it will be possible to work with like- minded colleagues—and indeed the Government, the Secretary of State and her Ministers—to amend and improve the tests that are required to be met before any new oil and gas production licences are granted in the future.
In conclusion, delivering on the UK’s clean energy transition matters on many levels: for jobs, for inward investment, for lower bills, for real energy security and of course for the environment. We see the impacts of the changing climate around us daily: 2023 was the hottest year on record globally, and in recent weeks many people have faced flooding again in our country, including in my own constituency. We really should not need any more wake-up calls to put aside the distractions and act with the urgency that the situation demands.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
The Scottish National party declines to give this Bill a Second Reading—[Interruption.] Would the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), like to intervene already? I would be happy to take it. This Bill is as unnecessary—much like the chuntering from a sedentary position—as it is unwelcome. The Prime Minister, no less, claimed that these measures would reduce energy bills, but of course that is untrue, and the Secretary of State was well advised to distance herself from that fantasy. It is claimed that the Bill will assist with the UK’s energy security, but of course it will do no such thing, given the combined effects of an international energy market and the vagaries of the UK’s refining capacity, which is increasingly and substantially incompatible with oil extracted from the North sea basin. The Government seek to gaslight us with claims that there are strict tests to be met in order to issue any new licences, when in fact these Potemkin tests will inevitably be met for each and every licence application in the future, should the Bill pass.
The Bill will not provide an evidence-based assessment of all licences on a case-by-case basis, and as a matter of actual fact, 27 new licences were granted in 2023 alone in the absence of any legislation of this nature and a licensing round has been held by the North Sea Transition Authority every year and a half since 2016. This proposed legislation will, in effect, undermine the NSTA by placing a statutory obligation on it to hold new licensing rounds every year, rather than as and when it deems them necessary in its professional capacity, as is currently the case. Moreover, the NSTA board unanimously agreed that the legislation requiring annual licensing rounds is unnecessary, but the Government are advancing it as a means to guarantee unfettered access to continued hydrocarbon extraction. That is not what we need.
The Bill’s proponents would have us believe that having more licences will deliver lower energy bills, but it will achieve no such thing. We all recognise that oil and gas will continue to be an essential part of our energy mix and, as the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) said, we use oil and gas—certainly oil—for more than combustible uses, so we will need a measured and qualified licensing regime to accommodate an ongoing reliance on oil and gas as a source of energy and much else, but that is not what the Bill proposes.
The thing that is pushing up the price of household and commercial energy is not a lack of licensing but the price of gas on the international market that consumers are forced to pay not just for heating but for electricity, given the bizarre pricing structure and how the UK is set up to favour gas. That energy pricing disaster is compounded by this Government’s failure to invest properly in alternatives such as large-scale, long-duration storage solutions, which would dial a considerable amount of gas out of the system and dial down prices, too.
Fourteen years of Tory mismanagement of our energy security have seen barely sufficient investment going into renewable generation to meet the demands of the climate emergency, and practically no investment going into the network to transmit this new energy. That means consumers are denied access to large swathes of cheap, green, renewable energy because of a lack of grid capacity. Renewable energy, once switched off, to compensate for a 1960s network, is substituted by gas. I appreciate that the Government are improving and investing in capital infrastructure, but it is 14 years too late.
The Bill will not deliver energy security. Indeed, the former chief executive of BP, Lord Browne, said that the Government’s decision to expand North sea drilling is
“not going to make any difference”
to Britain’s energy security, and the former head of the NSTA, Andy Samuel, said in 2022 that the introduction of new licences will make a difference only “around the edges”.
What we need from the Government is a bold plan to further accelerate the electrification from renewables of our domestic energy market. What we are presented with is a backward-looking cash grab for Scotland’s hydrocarbons, which comes at the cost of a just transition. Scotland will lose out by having our energy policy dictated by a remote, luddite Westminster Government who are relentlessly focused on the rear-view mirror, rather than on the future and job security.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman is talking about energy policy being directed by other people. Does he share my concern about our continued membership of the energy charter treaty, which means that any deals signed now will have to be fully remunerated on their potential hope value, not their actual value, even if they are phased out or cancelled by a sovereign Britain or by a sovereign Scotland? I am neutral on the latter issue. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that, like our European partners, we should withdraw from the energy charter treaty to allow ourselves true energy independence?
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s ambitions on the energy charter treaty. It is about time that the Government got off the fence on the issue and made a decision.
On job security, let us be clear that this Government care for oil and gas workers in Scotland every bit as much as they cared for the miners and the manufacturing workers in Scotland who were put to the sword in the 1980s, every bit as much as they care for our service personnel living in squalor, every bit as much as they care about the Post Office staff thrown into the privatisation mincer, and every bit as much as they care for junior doctors in England.
Alexander Stafford
On my previous intervention, I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on my Falkland Islands trip paid for by the Falkland Islands Government.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the miners. In Rother Valley we were hit hard by the closure of the mines, which is why we need a transition. Keeping the new licences going will make the transition slightly longer and keep more people in work. Surely it is a good thing to diminish the negative impact that net zero will sometimes have on certain people.
Dave Doogan
The premise of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is that by delaying things, and maximising oil and gas production, we somehow maintain this link. We could just as easily deliver the same thing by accelerating the delivery of renewable energy and the infrastructure to transmit it to where it is needed. That would have the added benefit of introducing lower bills for consumers and industry, and making sure that we are not reliant on petrostates from far away with questionable regimes. I am looking through the right end of the telescope, whereas the hon. Gentleman and his Government are looking through the wrong end.
In short, the Tories could not give a flying fig for any worker on these islands—as long as their share price remains healthy, to hang with the rest of us. If the question is “How do we protect and transition oil and gas jobs into renewable energy production?”, the answer is definitely not to overstimulate unlimited offshore petroleum licensing. According to industry data, 441,000 jobs were supported by the oil and gas sector in 2013, but that number has already fallen to 215,000—so we are talking about 200,000 fewer jobs in 2022. The Government have issued approximately 400 new drilling licences, in five separate licensing rounds, in that period. The claim that there is a direct and proportionate relationship between the amount of licences issued and the amount of jobs sustained is entirely spurious.
Douglas Ross
Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House and, importantly, his constituents in Angus, many of whom are employed in the industry, what the Scottish National party’s current position is on the issuing of new oil and gas licences? At the moment, does it support them? Or is there is a presumption against them?
Dave Doogan
What is important is the understanding that we will be reliant on oil and gas. This Government are creating a false dichotomy between having unlimited new licences and having an oil and gas sector in Scottish waters and within the UK; the two things are not related in the fashion that they are setting out. The hon. Gentleman should be asking why the UK Government will not match the Scottish Government’s ambition for the just transition and our half a billion-pounds of investment, but I will get on to that in a second.
Dave Doogan
No, I am not.
Where is the guaranteed ringfencing of revenues from North sea oil and gas production to develop more renewable energy and accelerate the just transition? Accelerating the just transition—not unduly sustaining legacy energy production—will make the difference and deliver real jobs with sustainability, in terms of both the carbon outputs and how those jobs will last into the future. Where is that support?
The Government have claimed that the circa £50 billion in tax revenue over the next five years “could” be used to support the shift to cleaner forms of energy—we are used to jam tomorrow from this Government—but any other form of fiscal revenue could be used to support the future development of renewables. The vacuous observation that the Government have made is so unconnected to reality, unconditioned and unqualified as to be meaningless.
It would have been an uncharacteristically elegant solution for this Government to have ringfenced future oil and gas revenue for the green transition, to marry the endowment of the legacy hydrocarbon industry to the priming of the pump of opportunities of the next renewable industry, but this Government are at least consistent in their ability to disappoint.
To the casualty of the climate from this Bill, which is an inevitable consequence of this course of action, we can add the pace of delivery for the new net zero economy opportunities in Scotland. When oil and gas opportunities go to a plateau of exhaustion in Scotland, as everyone knows they will, what will be left in the cupboard to support communities such as those in Banff and Buchan, Angus, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and elsewhere in the north-east of Scotland? Why are the revenues from the historical exploitation of oil and gas not going into accelerating renewable opportunities and making sure that we deliver jobs for the future?
As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the Scottish Government have invested £500 million into the green transition for Scotland—[Interruption.] Well, unlike anything to do with this Bill, that funding is allocated and is there to be invested. I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker, this Government are nervous of that figure: because if the UK were to match Scotland’s ambition in the just transition, it would be £5 billion across the UK, but we see no such commitment, vision or climate ambition. What we see is a Tory Prime Minister who cannot effectively lead his party, let alone the UK state or an energy transition, seeking to divide people on the climate, and rolling back on climate action commitments and signals given to industry on electric vehicles and boiler replacements, while over-exploiting Scotland’s legacy hydrocarbons and dragging his feet on carbon capture, usage and storage, especially Acorn.
The picture is revealed even for those with the largest blinkers. The hallmark of failure is stamped on this Tory Government, who will politicise anything, even the climate consensus, in a vain attempt to stem their electoral destruction. The Bill fails to outline a transition away from fossil fuels as per the agreed resolution at COP28, on which the ink is barely dry. The UK delegation signed up to that agreement in the full knowledge of this Bill’s impending passage. We all know that the UK has a questionable approach to its international obligations, but this is plain bad faith.
Finally, the Bill does not acknowledge the climate emergency. In fact, with this Bill the Tory Government are thumbing their noses at the climate challenge that we all face together and should address together. In the Bill, the Government seek to over-capitalise on legacy energy production rather than invest in the renewable energy jobs of the future. Much of that employment and enterprise will be in demand mitigation, with thermal insulation, equipment upgrades and new technologies. As a result of the ambition that drives the Bill and the warped thinking behind it, jobs, the economy, bill payers and the climate will suffer, so I urge Members to decline to give it a Second Reading.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Energy production, either offshore in the form of oil and gas production and offshore wind, or on the coast in the form of nuclear, is of specific interest to the Waveney constituency that I represent. The oil and gas industry has been a significant employer locally for nearly 60 years, one of the largest clusters of offshore windfarms in the world is located off the East Anglian coast, and Sizewell C will bring significant job-creation opportunities to the area.
To realise the full potential of the opportunities, both nationally and locally, we need the right policy, fiscal and regulatory frameworks that satisfy the three criteria of energy security, affordability and decarbonisation. It is also necessary to provide investors with the confidence and certainty to invest in the UK. It should be borne in mind that the market for energy capital is global, footloose and highly competitive.
It is against that backdrop that we should judge the Bill. There are reasons for supporting it, but we must not lose sight of the need for long-term stability and consistency in energy policy that is required to attract the enormous amount of private investment that we need to modernise and decarbonise our energy system and to make it more secure and resilient.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the British offshore oil and gas industry, and I highlight three factors that should be borne in mind in setting energy policy. First, we are moving away from businesses, wherever they are in the supply chain, that specialise in a particular sector, whether that is oil and gas, offshore wind, carbon capture or hydrogen. Such businesses are increasingly becoming all-energy companies that work in a range of different sectors.
Secondly, as I have mentioned, many such businesses are globally footloose and will operate anywhere in the world. If we have policy, regulatory and fiscal regimes that are continuously flip-flopping, they will go elsewhere.
Thirdly, it should be emphasised that the vast majority of these companies—I highlight those operating in East Anglia—are committed to net zero. They regard it as both a moral and a legal obligation from which we should not be distracted.
As I have mentioned, there are reasons to support the Bill and I shall briefly highlight them. First, our energy policy is determined by the trinity of energy security, affordability and decarbonisation. Recent geopolitical events, in particular the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the middle east, have created major concerns with regard to security of supply and unpredictability of price. We have felt the backlash of the latter very harshly in the past two years and its impact has hit hardest the poorest and most vulnerable. It is against that backdrop that it is sensible for the UK to be more energy independent and to use our own energy supplies—whether that is offshore wind, nuclear or oil and gas.
Secondly, we need to reduce our reliance on oil and gas, and, indeed, we have made good progress in doing so, as the UK has decreased oil production by 66% since 2003. At the turn of the century, we were producing 4.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Today, that figure is below 1.5 million and still falling. However, we still rely on oil and gas for much of our energy needs and shall continue to do so, albeit on a significantly declining trajectory in the coming decades. It is in that context that it is logical to use our own oil and gas. It should be pointed out, as others have done, that the carbon footprint of domestic gas production is around a quarter of that associated with imported and energy-intensive liquefied natural gas.
Thirdly, at a time of global economic uncertainty as well as geopolitical instability, we need to have in mind the huge benefits that the oil and gas industry brings to our country. Domestic oil and gas production provides many jobs and adds approximately £16 billion to the UK economy each year, while tax receipts are significant—£33.7 billion since 2010 and an estimated £50 billion over the next five years.
Fourthly, as I have mentioned, today’s energy companies operate across a variety of sectors and there is a risk that, if we close down the North sea too quickly, we will imperil investment in new low-carbon sectors. Many companies investing in nascent opportunities require a cash flow from a stable and predictable oil and gas business. Moreover, freedom to explore can be a major driver for investment on the UK continental shelf not only in oilfields and gasfields, but in carbon capture and hydrogen production. Closing the door on exploration reduces the option value of the UK as a destination for overall investment.
Finally, it should be pointed out that most of the new licences that would be granted are near fields adjoining existing ones. That means that there would be a lower incremental emission intensity as production will take place using existing facilities.
It is important to emphasise that the Bill is not a panacea for the future of the North sea. There is other work that the Government must carry out alongside it. One of the most notable achievements of the Conservative Government in recent years was the creation in 2016 of the Oil and Gas Authority, which now operates as the North Sea Transition Authority. It is a regulatory authority that has achieved a great deal and that has also recognised the vital importance of net zero.
The NSTA’s great advantage over its predecessor, which was embedded in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, is its independence of Government. There is a worry that the Bill undermines that independence, and I hope that, in his summing up, my right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board and allay that concern. The Government should also consider providing the NSTA with an enhanced role. As the transition has become centre stage to the authority’s work, the authority has taken on additional regulatory responsibilities—for carbon capture, usage and storage and hydrogen. Consideration should be given to adding to that the oversight of the emerging geothermal sector, an increased focus on the offshore energy supply chain and maximising the future use by low-carbon technologies of the infrastructure that has been laid down in the North sea over the past 60 years.
We are at times in danger of talking glibly about a just transition and the creation of new jobs. We can help to achieve that in a meaningful way by focusing more strategically on skills and infrastructure. I am mindful that the regulatory space on the UK continental shelf is crowded. As well as the NSTA, other organisations, such as the Marine Management Organisation and the Crown Estate, are carrying out important work. We must ensure that all that work is properly co-ordinated, is effective in its precautionary objectives, and is not so overly bureaucratic as to deter investment.
I mentioned that the majority of businesses working in the North sea are committed to the transition. Yes, they want the Government to be realistic and pragmatic about the future of the domestic oil and gas industry, but they are also ambitious. They want to be part of an industry that is in the vanguard of the transition from fossil fuels to renewables—global leaders on the road to net zero. That should mean, for example, a more ambitious climate compatibility checkpoint, and bringing forward the ban on routine venting and flaring.
The Bill has merit, but it needs to be accompanied by other measures, some of which I have outlined, to maximise the enormous amount of private investment that is required to decarbonise. We also need to dispel any false notion among investors about the UK’s commitment to delivering on our net zero targets. As the Government have stated, there is a need for pragmatism, proportionality and realism, but that must be accompanied by ambition, consistency and clarity.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am very concerned that the Bill will do much more harm than good. Members should not be fooled that it will help with energy prices or our commitment to net zero. The Energy Secretary is quoted as saying that new production of oil and gas
“wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down”
but could do so “indirectly” if the money raised in taxes was then used for renewable energy projects. I do not understand the logic of that. Countless people, including many of my constituents, are in desperate need of lower energy bills, and are struggling to make ends meet because of the endless price hikes, which the Government have done little to abate. I do not believe that the Bill will have any impact on that.
If the Secretary of State knows that renewables are the answer, why is she not prioritising them rather than pushing forward with this illogical and damaging Bill? Worse than not prioritising them, she is making the situation worse. Ernst & Young has found that the UK has become a less attractive place to invest in renewables, partly due to a recent “diminishing of green policies”. Currently, three quarters of North sea oil and gas operators invest nothing in UK renewables. Although we will all end up dealing with the consequences of climate change, it is other nations’ homes and livelihoods that will be destroyed first. The International Development Committee, which I chair, conducted a report on debt relief that found that lower-income countries are more vulnerable to loss and damage from climate change than higher-income countries, even though they contribute the tiniest proportion of emissions.
In our current inquiry into small island developing states, we have heard that SIDS are particularly at risk from climate shock. In this century alone, two SIDS could disappear forever due to rising sea levels. Lower-income countries are being forced to pay for damage that they did not cause and have the least ability to cope with. Meanwhile, the Conservative Government want to hand out more licences in the North sea with no regard for how that could impact other countries, our own climate financing, or marine life. There is currently no provision in the Bill to exempt marine protected areas from oil and gas exploration. I find that an extraordinary omission. It is absolutely crucial that no MPAs are put at risk because of the Bill. By ignoring that, the Government are jeopardising their own Environment Act 2021 targets and their commitment to protect nature effectively in 30% of the sea by 2030 under the global biodiversity framework.
MPAs are designed to safeguard some of the most vulnerable marine habitats and species from irreversible damage. As it stands, only 8% of English MPAs offer effective protection for nature, and 56% of features within them have been assessed as already being in an unfavourable condition, and that is before the Bill goes forward. How will the Government enhance the existing MPAs when they cannot even guarantee that they will not be destroyed by this nonsensical Bill?
An effective MPA framework would ensure that UK seas perform their vital function in the fight against climate change and boost biodiversity, which is essential for a functioning and sustainable fishing industry. It would improve the resilience of marine species to changing conditions and would continue to support the economic and recreational activities that are essential to so many people in the UK. All those benefits would be jeopardised by allowing oil and gas drilling within MPAs.
The Bill must be amended to ensure that MPAs are completely off the table when oil-and-gas search and production blocks are considered. Whether it is oil spills, underwater noise pollution or the direct destruction of habitats, there is no doubt that there will be a severe risk of harm to individual creatures across populations of marine wildlife and, ultimately, of disrupting entire ecosystems. Yet it appears the Government are happy to do that if it means even more profit for private industry.
We are supposed to be a leader on the global stage. We signed up to the Paris agreement and agreed to loss and damage funds, but this Government are destroying our international reputation and any ability they may have had to encourage other countries to fulfil their climate obligations. It saddens me that it has come to this, and I urge the Government to think again, listen to their own MPs, especially the wise words of the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), and stop the Bill now.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in the debate about the oil and gas sector, the industry and the jobs that rely on it. Certainly, in my Moray constituency, many people are employed in the sector. They travel through to Aberdeen to go off shore, and it is a regular commute for many people. That is the case in towns and villages throughout Moray, such as Buckie.
Since I have been able to get Buckie into this debate on oil and gas, it hopefully allows me the opportunity to put on the record my appreciation to the club for an outstanding match against Glasgow Celtic yesterday at Parkhead in the Scottish cup. They sadly lost 5-0, but it was an outstanding game for the highland league team. Graeme Stewart and his players did not just do the club, the highland league community and Buckie proud, they came away with an absolute host of new fans, because of what they achieved over the weeks since that game first came into the public domain. It has been great to see cup fever in Buckie and to see stalwarts of the club, such as Annie Jappy and Sandra Paterson, recognised for everything they have done for the club over many years. I am sure the congratulations of everyone in the House go to Buckie Thistle on their achievements.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I of course join my hon. Friend in congratulating Buckie Thistle, but will he answer just one question: which side played in the home strip?
Douglas Ross
Of course, they both play in green and white hoops. Celtic played in green and white, and Buckie were in yellow.
As I say, this is an important debate for many towns, villages and communities in Moray, because a large number of people living in that area are employed in the oil and gas sector. It is important for my constituents in Moray, and I have been clear that it is right that we continue to grant new oil and gas licences to continue the exploration in the North sea while there is still a demand that needs to be supplied, but people will be left wondering what is the current position of the SNP. That is why I put a very direct question to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan). Normally at this point I would say that I will give way to any SNP Member willing to intervene if they are able to answer, but there is only one here. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene and say very simply, to the people of Angus and the people of Scotland, what his party’s position is and what his personal position is? Does the SNP support the granting of new oil and gas licences —yes or no?
Dave Doogan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for this opportunity to reiterate what I said previously. There is a fundamental understanding of the ongoing role of oil and gas in meeting our energy needs. Whether that is dealt with and satisfied through existing licences or future licences is a moot point, and I will tell him why: I have already demonstrated, in as simple terms as I can, that the implication that there is a direct and proportional link between job security and licences issued is spurious. I am aware of the point he is trying to make, but he is not making it well. I have told him what the situation is, and he can either like it or lump it.
Douglas Ross
I would just like an answer. I have tried twice, and that was as clear as mud. I think people looking at that answer will actually be unable to tell what the hon. Gentleman’s personal position is and what the SNP’s position is. That is really important. Maybe it is telling that only one SNP MP has turned up to a debate about the oil and gas sector—
Douglas Ross
I have seen the weather. I saw the weather when I left Inverness airport at 6.45 this morning. I know what the weather is like in Scotland, but it is important that when we are debating the oil and gas industry, which is crucial to Scotland and the United Kingdom, the SNP can find only one MP to turn up.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for the 90,000 employees of the oil and gas industry in Scotland and the 200,000 across the United Kingdom, an answer that says it is a moot point is hardly the right one to give? It looks more like a mute position adopted by some of the opposition Members in this debate.
Douglas Ross
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. People should watch closely what the hon. Member for Angus said on his own behalf and on behalf of the SNP—as I say, SNP MPs are speaking with their actions tonight by not even turning up to the debate.
Opponents of this Bill—the Labour party, the SNP and others—try to present our energy transition and support for oil and gas as a binary choice. They say that we cannot achieve our net zero goals while at the same time supporting new oil and gas licences and projects, but nothing could be further from the truth. The oil and gas sector in Scotland and across the UK is essential to delivering and achieving net zero.
The investment in green energy infrastructure that will allow us to build our renewables capacity is coming from the revenue from oil and gas extraction. The businesses that are looking to expand offshore wind and the windfarms for tomorrow are staying solvent today because of their revenues from North sea oil and gas. The people with the skills and expertise that we have heard about throughout this debate, which will be required to secure our offshore renewables going forward, work in our oil and gas sector today. That is why it is so important that I made the point to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that people such as Sir Ian Wood are saying that Labour’s plans and the cliff edge that Labour would impose on the sector would see job losses. That is why that position is frankly unacceptable and is not supported by many people, if any, in the north-east of Scotland.
The businesses, the investment and the jobs that make Scotland and the UK a world leader in oil and gas are the same skills, businesses and jobs that are going to drive forward the green agenda and our renewables future. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot tell investors, businesses and workers who pause their plans for the UK’s energy infrastructure due to an artificial ban on new fields to come back when the green technologies have become cheaper or more viable, because those investors, those businesses and those workers will go elsewhere. I say to the hon. Member for Angus that that is not a moot point. That is the reality if we do not continue with the exploration of oil and gas in the North sea and the granting of new licences.
David Duguid
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the vast number of offshore wind projects being developed off the coasts of our respective constituencies—as well as that of the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan)—and the operations and maintenance facilities in Buckie in his constituency and Fraserburgh in mine, which are entirely dependent on those offshore wind facilities. As much as people from the oil and gas industry are moving into them, there are just not enough of those jobs to make up for those that we would lose in oil and gas. Does he agree that a lot of the people who work in oil and gas would not go to renewables if there were no oil and gas jobs, but would just go where there is oil and gas overseas?
Douglas Ross
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a base at Buckie harbour that is supporting a number of jobs and will continue to do so for decades to come—it is a small number of jobs at the moment, with opportunities to grow—but at the moment the vast majority of the workforce is employed in the oil and gas sector. I agree with him that they will go elsewhere, shifting their jobs and expertise to other countries, and another city will become Europe’s offshore energy capital. That would be devastating not just for our net zero ambitions and for Aberdeen, but for the economy of Scotland and the UK as a whole.
We have already heard in the debate that 90,000 Scottish workers are employed in North sea oil and gas. It has been for decades, and will continue to be for some time to come, one of the most important sectors in Scotland’s economy. Yet I believe that it is the position of the SNP—it would be if more SNP Members than just the hon. Member for Angus had turned up to state their case—to put those jobs on the scrapheap. The SNP wants to have a cliff edge in our oil and gas sector and exploration because it is in government with the Greens in the Scottish Parliament. It is supporting Green Ministers who want an immediate end to the extraction of fossil fuels from the north-east, and that is putting those 90,000 jobs, and the Scottish and UK economies, at risk. That is viewed extremely dimly in many parts of Scotland, particularly the north-east, which the hon. Member for Angus represents.
Dave Doogan
It is a bit rich listening to a Scottish Tory MP talk about the bountiful experience of North sea oil and gas for Scotland. If we had been independent in the ’70s, we would be embarrassingly well off compared with our neighbours elsewhere in these islands. The hon. Member says that we want to throw workers in the oil and gas industry in Scotland under a bus, and that we want to see a “cliff edge” where those jobs disappear. What is his evidence for that? We are investing in a just transition. Whereas he is trying to pursue an endurance of legacy opportunities for employment, we want to turbocharge new opportunities for jobs over 150 to 200 years.
Douglas Ross
My evidence is very clear; in fact, it is the hon. Gentleman’s own words. When he cannot even tell this House or his constituents about the SNP’s position on the presumption of new oil and gas licences, that is an answer in itself—not a moot point. The SNP clearly does not support it, and he cannot quite find the words to say it yet. That is the SNP position because it is in office with the Greens in Holyrood, and they are increasingly abandoning the north-east oil and gas sector and the jobs that rely on it. As I say, that is viewed extremely dimly not just in the north-east but right across Scotland.
Caroline Lucas
Nobody is talking about turning off oil and gas taps overnight—nobody; not even Just Stop Oil—so will the hon. Gentleman cut the amount of rubbish coming out of his mouth? He is criticising people who are not here in any numbers to be able to defend themselves. Why does he not focus on his own record rather than attacking others in such an erroneous way?
Douglas Ross
It is not erroneous, because we know that the co-leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, has said that he would like to stop oil and gas exploration overnight. That is the Green position: they do not want oil and gas to come out of the North sea, and that will affect jobs there right now. That is the point that I, and indeed other hon. Members, have been making.
Douglas Ross
I have already given way to the hon. Lady, and I can see that she has copious notes in her hand, so she will be contributing to the debate. I have already taken some time, so I will continue my speech.
The SNP will put those jobs on the scrapheap and turn its back on the north-east of Scotland. Yet, at the same time, Humza Yousaf is telling the people of Scotland that oil and gas revenues will pay for an independent Scotland. The SNP does not want to take the oil and gas out, but it wants to get the benefits to pay for failing public services in Scotland, which it has let down during its 17 years in power. Of course, Labour and Scottish Labour are also opposed to the Bill. Frankly, it is quite derisory that MSPs and the Scottish Labour party will not stand up for the north-east of Scotland and will allow those jobs, skills and the expertise gained over decades to be lost. The stark reality is that the Opposition parties are putting tens of thousands of Scottish jobs at risk, and putting the UK’s energy security in jeopardy when we need it most.
When illiberal, violent regimes such as Putin’s Russia are using energy resources as a means of funding their destructive wars, we cannot close our eyes and ears and pretend it is not happening. The UK will still have a demand for oil and gas products—and not just in energy but, as we have heard, in plastics and medicines, to name just a few. That demand will not go away in an instant; many of the homes that rely on those products and heating will require them for many years to come. Why should we not try to deliver on as much of that demand as we can through domestic production? Importing our energy will only increase emissions further and help those intent on manipulating energy markets for malign purposes.
I urge Members to support the Bill. Let us secure the UK’s energy future and deal a blow to the regimes that are intent on using energy as a weapon. Let us protect our economy and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of Scottish and British families across the country. Let us choose common sense—a practical transition to net zero—not naivety and wishful thinking. Let the Labour and SNP Members present explain in their speeches why they will join together to try to vote down the Bill and the opportunities that oil and gas will continue to bring Scotland and the UK for decades to come.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the Government’s Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, for which there is absolutely no need. It will do nothing to bring down people’s energy bills, either domestic or business, and will severely damage the UK’s reputation in the world. Moreover, as I understand it, production from the new fields would be exported.
When Labour was in government, I was privileged to have the opportunity to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the Climate Change Act 2008—a ground-breaking world first that led the way on tackling climate change. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) became the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and he worked hard not only on renewables at home but on ensuring that the UK was taking the lead on the world stage in respect of climate change.
Now, just as there has been growing consensus around the globe on the urgent need to tackle climate change, it seems that we have a Government who no longer want to give that leadership. Even petroleum-producing countries such as Oman are now investing heavily in renewables, but we have a Prime Minister who was not even sure if he wanted to attend COP meetings, we have vacuous anti-green rhetoric, and now we have this Bill. It makes the UK look ridiculous on the world stage, not to say hypocritical, that with our proud history of urging other nations to do more to tackle climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels—and signing agreements to that effect, including recently at COP28—the UK is now prioritising a Bill to promote the exploration of more oilfields with production at who knows what future date.
What the Government should be doing is prioritising the roll-out of renewables. So often during oral questions we hear the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero boasting about the roll-out of renewables, but he should reflect on how much more the UK could and should have done by now. First, there was the wind farm ban in England. Even now, when the Government talk as if they are planning to lift the ban, the situation is completely ambiguous, and they have not promoted wind power enthusiastically. Just think: if there had not been a ban in England, we would have had additional capacity on top of what Wales and Scotland provide, nearer to the big centres of population. We all know that the Government have not moved fast enough to strengthen the national grid to transport the electricity from the wind farms where it is produced to the centres of population.
Then, we have the fiasco of the last auction process —allocation round 5—where the Government did not receive a single bid for floating offshore wind because of their stubborn refusal to sit down with the industry and recognise the huge impact of inflation, and the need to alter the price structure accordingly. The Irish Government listened to the industry and conducted a successful auction. We also saw the complacency of the Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), when he came to this House and said, “Oh, well, there’s another chance to bid for next year”, losing valuable time and sending worrying signals to the industry about the Government’s commitment to developing floating offshore wind. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), investors now lack confidence in investing in the UK because they simply do not know which direction this Government are going in.
I could go on. We could have seen a lot more progress on solar and marine technologies—those are some of the things the Government could be doing if they listened to the industry, instead of wasting time on this Bill. The UK Marine Energy Council has identified the barriers to the roll-out of tidal stream energy: a lack of clarity on future support, which is damaging investor confidence; a consenting process that is slow and onerous; a lack of innovation funding; the cost of setting up supply chains; and a lack of grid capacity. The same could be said about many other emerging renewable technologies, and that is where the Government’s energy should be concentrated, not on this ridiculous Bill.
On electrification of the railways, when Labour left government in 2010, there were plans to electrify the line from London to Swansea. We then had the ridiculous pantomime of the Tories cancelling Cardiff to Swansea, reinstating it, and cancelling it again. The right hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who was then Secretary of State for Wales and is now the Chief Whip, said that electrification was pointless as the nature of the track meant that trains would not go any faster, but that completely misses the point. As anyone who has been in the square in front of the station in Cardiff knows, the pollution, the carbon emissions and the noise from the diesel engines tell us exactly why we should be pushing on with electrification: to reduce our emissions. Instead, we have this Bill to extract more oil and gas from the North sea, rather than moving away by producing renewables and ensuring that our industries and our transport can operate on clean energy. That is what the Government’s priorities should be.
As for jobs, the people working in the oil and gas industry have valuable skills, and we must make absolutely sure that they have the opportunity to move across to other, similar industries: renewables and infrastructure. For that, the Government need a clear industrial strategy and to provide proper retraining opportunities for those who need to do so. Of course, the way to improve job opportunities is to ramp up the speed and scale of renewables development.
There was a question earlier about Labour’s policy. I will not detain Members by reading all 22 pages of our plans to make the UK a renewable energy superpower, which can be found on our website, but to be brief, we are absolutely committed to slashing people’s energy bills by making the UK a renewable energy superpower, creating the new green jobs of the future and ensuring a just transition. If we win the next election, we will create Great British Energy to be a publicly owned champion of clean energy generation. We have plans for a national wealth fund that would invest alongside the private sector in the jobs of the future, such as in clean steel plants, and our plans are underpinned by a proper industrial strategy that will give investors confidence. On that note, I suggest that the Government drop this Bill, and turn their attentions and energies to developing our renewables sector and making sure we can proudly lead the world on a just transition to a fossil-free world.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
We all want a healthier planet and a sustainable future for the next generations, but no one wants the heating to go off, the lights to go out, or our energy security to be at the mercy of foreign players in an ever more unstable world. This Bill recognises that doing nothing and increasing our reliance on imported gas, including gas with four times the emissions, is not the solution. As such, I am glad that the Government acknowledge the need to move away from oil and gas production, and I welcome our long-term commitment to drive down the use of fossil fuels and the significant and growing investment in the renewables sector, which is the only way to guarantee our energy security for the future—but it is for the future. As a country, we are now home to five of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, diversifying our energy supply and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Renewables gained enough power in 2022 to avoid the need for five times as much gas as the UK imported from Russia in 2021.
However, as we discuss the Bill, we should reflect on how we make that transition while preserving our reputation as a global leader in the fight against climate change. I am keen to see further efforts to reassure the international community, and our constituents who care about the environment, that we are not rowing back on our climate and environmental commitments. Our current requirements are lower than recommended pathways to reach net zero, so I suggest that we continue to strengthen the operational emission requirements for UK oil and gas producers. A recent report from Robert Gordon University found that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce had skills that were transferable to the offshore renewables sector. A well-managed transition helps ensure that more investment, and more of those jobs, stay in the UK.
Opposition Members have no plan. Labour and the SNP are ignoring the country’s energy needs in their opposition to the Bill, which seeks to enable a transition pathway for an industry that, last year, produced an average of 42% of gas on an average day in Britain. Without new development, we will be more reliant on imports, which is unwise at best given the instability in the European market as a result of Putin’s war. Labour talks about expanding renewables and reducing usage through measures such as insulation. The Government share that ambition, but it is impossible to deliver at speed and in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen, I will give them the reason why. There are many terraced houses in those areas, where the cost of insulating a property to the highest energy performance certificate standard can be greater than the value of that property.
For that reason, there needs to be a broader discussion about housing—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently visited Norway with the Conservative Environment Network to see how that country is using the skills and expertise of the oil and gas industry to develop a carbon capture and storage facility at the Northern Lights project. For the world to achieve the goals to which we have committed ourselves in the Paris agreement, we need large-scale carbon capture and storage. Not all emissions can be cut by applying renewable energy. Oil and gas will be needed for the foreseeable future; however, reducing fossil fuel demand is key to reaching net zero. In several industrial processes, such as the production of cement, carbon capture and storage is the only technology that can cut emissions, reduce the need for imported energy, and benefit households through less volatile—and, ultimately, lower—energy costs.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Lady talks about the enormous cost of insulation, but is she clear that carbon capture and storage is also enormously expensive?
Jo Gideon
I am clear that lots of things have a cost, but we must also look at the cost of not doing them. We are not talking purely about financial cost.
To return to what I learned from my trip to Norway, about a fifth of emissions from North sea oil and gas production activity come from flaring. We could follow Norway’s ban on those activities—I am sure the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) would agree with that—using the Bill to bring forward our commitment to stop flaring.
Jo Gideon
I would like to get on, if the hon. Lady does not mind. [Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position. Removing gas is necessary for safety; however, it can be captured rather than burned. That is my argument.
We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in the production, storage and supply of energy, and we are faced with a range of innovative options to decarbonise while maintaining an adequate energy supply and reducing usage. None of this will happen overnight, and while we welcome the possibilities of innovations such as less energy wastage through battery storage, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, future solutions such as the expansion of nuclear and alternatives such as tidal and geothermal energy, we do need this transition position. I will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading, but on Report I will look at possibilities for reconfirming our commitment to minimise environmental damage and continue focusing on the end game of cleaner solutions to our energy needs.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you were not around at the time, but you will know that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and the oil age will not end because of a lack of oil. It will end because decent people of all political persuasions, such as the former right hon. Member for Kingswood, are farsighted enough to recognise and brave enough to stand up against the vested interests that would consign our children and the natural world to a costly, disruptive and, frankly, terrifying future. He was right to say that history will judge harshly those who continue down the reckless fossil fuel path that this Bill represents.
This Bill is founded upon a lie—in fact, several lies. The Government say it will safeguard our domestic energy supplies and boost investment; it will not. They say it will enhance our energy security and reduce our dependence on imports from overseas; it will not. The truth is that it is a political distraction that will reduce investment in and delay our transition to the clean energy that is the only sustainable and secure future both for our country and for the global community. This Bill is not a credible plan to fix Britain’s broken energy system; it is a sad attempt to sew division and polarise our politics. It shows that the Government have given up governing and are out of step with the British people’s priorities. When 6 million people live in fuel poverty and when 4,700 people died last winter as a result of living in cold, damp homes, this Bill falls well below what our constituents deserve.
As the world’s hottest year on record was concluding, nearly 200 countries agreed at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels. The contrast between the promise made in Dubai and what the Government seek to do today could not be more profound, nor more depressing. By inviting Parliament to enable annual licensing rounds for offshore oil and gas extraction, the Government are failing to understand that to transition away from fossil fuels, we have to stop producing them. The Government argue, “But it is still a declining field.” “This simply slows the rate of decline,” they say. The problem is that it also slows the rate of investment in a just transition that will unleash the power of wind, solar, tidal and energy efficiency.
The North sea is a declining basin. Its reserves are predominantly oil, not gas. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide just 103 days of gas, which is four days of gas on average each year. The Government know that once oil and gas is licensed, it belongs to the companies that hold the licence. As the Government recently admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), 80% of UK oil reserves are sent abroad by these companies and sold on the international market to the highest bidder. No wonder the former executive director of BP said last year that the Government’s decision to expand North sea drilling is
“not going to make any difference”
to Britain’s energy security.
If the Government’s ambition is to minimise gas imports, there is a very simple solution—insulate homes. The best way to cut imports is to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption by building renewables and insulating homes. This would have the additional benefit of reducing people’s energy bills and tackling fuel poverty. By channelling investment into oil and gas, the Government are heading precisely in the wrong direction. I do not deny that there is a role for existing oil and gas, but it is in the journey to a clean energy economy. What there is not a role for is the production of new oil and gas. We already know that to stand a 50% chance of keeping below the 1.5° threshold, 90% of the world’s coal reserves and 60% of oil and gas reserves would have to stay in the ground.
David Duguid
Is the hon. Member aware of this? He mentioned the pathway to the 1.5° target, and the IEA’s description of what is required is a 3% to 4% reduction in oil and gas production year on year between now and 2050. Does he agree with the assessment of the NSTA itself, which expects that, even with the new oil and gas licences, North sea oil and gas is predicted to decline by 7%, or twice that amount?
Barry Gardiner
I am well aware of that—of course I am—but the hon. Member will have heard the discussion that took place earlier about global leadership. He will know that other countries around the world are not declining at the required rate, and leadership is about taking a lead.
The logic of drilling for more when the world has already more than it can safely burn is that of the myopic salesman, not the visionary politician, or to use the Prime Minister’s words, it is the logic of the zealot. The Government’s actions are already making the UK a less attractive place for green investment. Three quarters of all North sea oil and gas operators currently invest nothing at all in UK renewables. The largest operator, Harbour Energy, has ruled out such clean investment altogether, yet last year the five oil super-majors—BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies—rewarded their investors with record payouts of more than £79 billion, so we know the money is there to do it.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Barry Gardiner
The Minister is asking whether I will give way. The right hon. Member has long confused the scoring of party political points with the ability to debate an issue to arrive at the truth and get decent policies out the other end. However, if he has changed the habit of a lifetime, I will happily give way to him.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned a specific company, Harbour Energy, and it is absolutely investing in the Viking carbon capture centre and playing a positive role. That is true of the whole oil and gas supply chain in this country, which the hon. Gentleman, if he went to visit them, would find are working right across the energy sector. Weakening one part, as he would with no new licences, would damage the new clean emerging sectors, too.
Barry Gardiner
I recognise the work that Harbour Energy is doing and I also recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to attract more investment into green energy and renewables, and I welcome that work. I want us to have a cross-party consensus around getting to net zero. The trouble is that—and the Minister knows this to be true—he and many people on his side, including the Prime Minister, have tried to make this a wedge issue, a political issue to divide people. I think he really does need to step up to the plate. If he wants cross-party consensus, he has to try to build it, not score cheap political points.
Wera Hobhouse
The Liberal Democrats were actually introducing an amendment to stop flaring and venting of methane. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has just said it would be a very good thing to do yet the Government opposed it. That is an example of where we could have reached cross-party consensus.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I listened to her attempt to intervene on the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). We need to build a cross-party consensus and this shows how it can be achieved: there are concerned Members on the Government Benches who want to do the right thing, and we all know that sometimes the Whips make sure that they do not, but if we really build this consensus, we can get to the right place.
Another lie at the heart of this Bill is to say it will protect British jobs. It will not. Over the years there have been hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain. They have kept our lights on and our industry moving for decades just as the coalminers did before them. But pretending that employment in oil and gas can last forever fails to properly prepare those workers and their families for the inevitable transition that the world is making.
Despite sustained support for the North sea basin over the past 14 years and despite 400 new drilling licences being issued across five separate licensing runs, the fact is that more than 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and its wider supply network have been lost. Today 30,000 hard-working people are directly employed in the industry. Those workers and the local economies they uphold need a coherent plan to move past fossil fuel production towards clean energy. The trouble is the Government have not developed one.
A further 100,000 individuals are supported through the supply chain and are waiting for a signal from Government so that they can seize the opportunities of the clean energy revolution. This Bill offers them nothing. It seems to override the already weak non-binding climate compatibility checkpoint. The production emissions reduction target set out in the North sea transition deal is already weak, setting a cut of only 50% by 2030. This Bill seems to weaken it even further. It includes no reference to how annual licensing will be judged against the NSTD targets for production emissions let alone emissions from combustion.
Critically, the Bill ignores the wider environmental consequences of the development of new fields and puts marine habitats at risk. Over one third of the 900 locations in the latest licensing round overlapped with marine protected areas, yet this directly contradicts the commitment the UK made at the convention on biological diversity conference COP15 in Montreal where we promised to protect 30% of UK waters for nature by 2030.
The Rosebank field that was recently licensed sees a pipeline run through the Faroe-Shetland marine protected area, which threatens ocean life. If a major oil spill from Rosebank were to happen, 20 MPAs could be seriously impacted. This Bill is an attack on nature both by its indirect impact through increasing emissions and its direct impact on the marine environment. The Government appear to believe that they know better than the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Secretary-General, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of the world’s leading scientists, all of whom are clear that new oil and gas licences jeopardise further the goal of 1.5°C. This Parliament’s own independent adviser, the Climate Change Committee, confirmed to Parliament only last year that the expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero and that the oil and gas field that is required in the UK as we make that journey to net zero does not require the development of any new fields.
But what I find most depressing about this Bill is not its arrogance or its ignorance, it is the way it seeks to break with the cross-party consensus for the sake of creating a party political dividing line in advance of a general election. That dividing line pretends that the rational, informed scientific view is held only by what the Prime Minister calls climate zealots and it tries to establish the recalcitrant fossil fuel lobby that is endangering all we hold dear across the globe as the reasonable middle ground. It is not. As the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said:
“the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”
The fossil fuel lobby is behaving like the tobacco lobby did when all of the medical evidence was against it. First, deny the science outright. When that is no longer credible, pretend that the concern is exaggerated. And when that is no longer credible, reframe the issue as one of personal choice.
Government is about establishing a framework of regulation for the public good; it is not about facilitating the freedom of those who would undermine the public good. That is why this Bill is bad for democracy. That is why this Bill is bad for our global standing as a country that has previously been regarded as a leader on this issue. That leadership is now passing to others who are responding positively to the pledge in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels by joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.
The floods that we are seeing devastate communities and lives around the country are but a foretaste of the terrifying impacts of climate change beyond 1.5°. This Bill does nothing to mitigate them. It does nothing to support the billions of people across the world who live on the frontlines of climate breakdown. It ignores the plight of millions of bill payers who find themselves priced out of our broken energy system. And it ignores the workers who power our country.
This Bill endangers our natural world and future generations. I cannot support it; I will consign it to the same vote of no-confidence that I predict awaits this Government later on this year.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I want to start by reminding the House, in the interests of transparency, that for 25 years prior to being an MP I worked in the energy sector, specifically the oil and gas sector—I have not made a secret of that in the past, by the way. Also in the interests of transparency, I note that I have a close family member who has a financial interest in that industry, although I feel keen to point out that that interest is below the threshold required for registering interests. I can also assure the House that that interest has never had any bearing, and will not have any bearing, on my contributions in this place.
We are not a nation that needs to be convinced of the need to transition away from oil and gas. The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), said on his return from COP28 that he
“was proud to represent a country that has cut greenhouse gas emissions more than any other major economy since 1990; that has boosted our share of renewable electricity from a rather dismal 7% in 2010 to almost half today”—
I think we have exceeded 50% since he said that—
“while almost entirely phasing out coal power; that has led the world in mobilising green finance; and that is now ensuring that we bring the British public with us on the transition to net zero”.—[Official Report, 14 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 1032.]
We have essentially transitioned away completely from coal and continue to reduce our demand for oil and gas, but not as fast as our own domestic supplies continue to decline, even with new production. One of the critical points that needs to be made when considering this proposed legislation is that new oil and gas does not mean more oil and gas.
It is important to state a few basic facts that will hopefully help people understand why this Bill, aimed at promoting and facilitating new oil and gas production in this country, is not in contradiction to delivering on our net zero targets and global agreements and commitments. We are today 75% dependent on oil and gas for our energy needs, not just for electricity generation but for heat and transportation as well. Of that 75%, about 50% is produced domestically with the rest needing to be imported, including from Norway, as has been said. Even by 2050 we will be at net zero and still up to 25% dependent on oil and gas. Even with new oil and gas exploration and production, coupled with that decline in demand, we are extremely unlikely to have a net surplus ever again. The UK has been a net importer of oil and gas since 2004, long after our own production profile peaked in the late 1990s.
There are currently 283 active oil and gas fields in the North sea, and the Offshore Energies UK trade body estimates that by 2030 around 180 of those—that is more than 60%—will have ceased production due to natural decline. If we do not replace those depleting oil and gas fields with new ones, production will decline much faster than we can build low-carbon sources to replace it.
It is worth remembering, as I pointed out earlier, that even with the new oil and gas fields and wells, we can reasonably predict that we are still looking at a 7% year-on-year reduction in UK production, according to the North Sea Transition Authority. That is twice as fast as the International Energy Agency recommends. It suggests that the global reduction of oil and gas production needs to be about half that, at 3% to 4% a year, to stay within our 1.5° target.
In line with the Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway, the UK’s demand for oil and gas will reduce over time, and is forecast to be approximately 16 billion barrels of oil equivalent cumulatively over the period through to 2050. However, existing domestic fields are expected to deliver only between 4 billion and 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent, so we can see the gap. That is the import gap, which we need to fill through imports.
New field developments and licenses are required to reduce our reliance on overseas imports. Without new investment, it is predicted that reliance on overseas imports will increase from 50% today to closer to 80% by 2030. If demand for oil and gas is to continue—which it will, albeit it will be declining—in the coming decades, it makes sense to get it from as close to our own shores as possible.
Reducing demand for oil and gas is key, not reducing supply. I think we can all agree that we need to do that. Simply reducing or cutting off our domestic supply will not help net zero to happen any faster or any more successfully; it will only make us more dependent on foreign imports.
There are other factors to consider. We have all heard today about the 200,000 or so jobs dependent on the oil and gas industry. Those people are directly employed by the oil and gas industry, and protecting those jobs and livelihoods and understanding the impact that an industry has on communities and societies, as well as on our local and national economies, is extremely important.
My biggest worry goes beyond that. It is not necessarily that those people will become unemployed—some of them may find jobs in the burgeoning renewables sector, and as I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), we are seeing that in our constituencies, although in the short to medium term there are not enough of those jobs to go around—but about the potential loss of precisely the skills, technologies and supply chains that will be crucial to the delivery of the energy transition. If we shut down this critical industry too soon, those skills and supply chains will merely go overseas and deliver someone else’s energy security and transition.
For the past 50 years, the North sea offshore industry has been seen as a centre of excellence in the global oil and gas industry. Nowhere in the world is oil and gas produced more safely, efficiently, cleanly and environmentally responsibly. The former right hon. Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) have said that we are a clean energy superpower that has decarbonised faster than any other G20 nation. We have reduced our emissions by 50% at the same time as growing our economy 70% above 1990 levels. To quote the former right hon. Member for Kingswood:
“That is a paragon and a model that all other nations look to”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 301.]
Where the former right hon. Member for Kingswood and I do not agree is that far from damaging that reputation we have built over decades, we have the opportunity to maintain and build on that perception as a centre for excellence for producing oil and gas better and more safely and cleanly than anyone else and for decarbonising faster than anyone else, rather than for virtue signalling better than anybody else, as the Opposition appear to be seeking to do.
I welcome the Bill and the increased certainty that it brings to the offshore energy industry, businesses and the people with the skills and talent who work in those companies. They will help to deliver not only our energy security for years to come but a successful energy transition to net zero. We can not just show the world that it can be done, but lead the world in showing how it can be done.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said, even though I disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which seems to me to be political grandstanding indicative only of it being an election year. It entirely fails to meet the significant needs of those who are currently struggling to heat their homes in Scotland, of the Scottish economy, which should be basking in all the glory and wealth that has been created through oil and gas, or of our wider planet.
We need to transition; that is self-evident. It is not simply about the global warming that Members have been talking about. Trains in my constituency were cancelled today and the A1 was closed because a lorry had overturned. It was a heavy goods vehicle, but not a high-sided one. The strength of the winds that battered the communities in my constituency and elsewhere did that. We have serious problems coming down the line, and we require to change, but it requires to be a just transition, at a pace that allows us to change, because we have to ensure that we keep the skills. We cannot do to those in the oil and gas sector what was done by Thatcher to the miners and simply close them down and throw them to the wolves.
We have to ensure that we transition to renewables, but oil and gas are required for us to make that journey. I can see it in the hills of the Lammermuirs, and I see it on a daily basis as increasing numbers of wind turbines go into the firth of Forth. At the end of the day, the ships putting in the columns for the turbines run on marine diesel. A lot of the turbines require plastics to be constructed, and we also need the vehicles simply to get them there.
We have to get to that renewable future. The tragedy in Scotland is that we are already there, as we produce almost as much energy as we require. Our people just do not get the benefit of it, because it is transmitted south and charged at an appalling rate when it should be almost free, given that people can see it from their homes, on their hills and off their shores. There has to be a change.
There is also a perversity. Although I agree with new licensing, Rosebank will be operated and owned by Equinor, the state energy company of Norway, so the profits will go to Oslo. Scotland and Norway discovered oil at the same time, because we share access to the North sea basin. Those in Norway have a standard of living and an economy that those in Scotland can only look at and weep with envy. They also have a futures fund, because they put the money away rather than allowing the super-rich to get even richer and invest in foreign bank accounts or highland estates. Norway has a futures fund and Scotland has precisely nothing.
We have to continue to build and to continue extracting oil and gas. That has to be at a significant pace for Scotland, while taking into account the need to meet the requirements of the planet. Two particular aspects are needed. First, as per the amendment in my name and that of my group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), we must have a commitment to a net zero carbon footprint.
In particular, that means taking into account the needs of carbon capture. Scotland has had the bounty of North sea oil and we need to ensure we continue to get benefit from it. We have coming the bounty of renewables, and we see that with offshore wind, both floating and fixed, but we also have huge potential with carbon capture, because the geology of the North sea provides something like 30% of the opportunities in Europe. Yes, carbon capture is untested, but our society and our planet need it.
More importantly, we must have a commitment to retain a refinery at Grangemouth. It is absurd, as others have said today, that the oil from the North sea is shipped abroad in the main to be refined, and then we import from supertankers coming in. Those ships pass on the high seas, and that is simply absurd. As we have a worsening planet crisis, it is perverse. It is not good enough to say, “It’s the wrong type of oil,” just as we would not accept a rail operating company saying that it was the wrong type of leaves on the tracks.
Yes, our refineries are not at the capacity for the engineering or technical skills to refine it, but that should be done. The first place to do that is Grangemouth. Why? Because the Forties pipeline comes into Grangemouth. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows, it lands at Cruden bay in his constituency, but it is piped down to Grangemouth. It is absurd that Grangemouth should be closing when the oil—both past and present, and indeed future—is coming in from the North sea. So if there is to be the continued extraction of Scotland’s need, which we have not benefited from because we do not have the wealth or savings of Norway, we must at least ensure that we save Grangemouth.
I call on the UK Government first to ensure that they provide the funds for the hydrocracker that will increase the profitability of the existing site threefold. If that is done—that would cost a fraction of the billions the UK has got from North Sea oil over the years, and a fraction of what it will continue to take in petroleum revenue tax and other benefits in coming years—we must ensure that we get the profitability up. Then, in a couple of years, we must take the engineering, the skills and the technology so that the oil from the North sea can be refined in Grangemouth. It is absurd and perverse that that is not done.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Member accept that one of the reasons why we have not had investment in the refining industry in the United Kingdom for decades is precisely because the net zero policies that are being followed, with the costs and charges for carbon, the emissions trading scheme and other carbon taxes, discourage any investment in the very production facilities we use to process the oil that we bring out?
Kenny MacAskill
I think there are a variety of factors, and I have no doubt that some of those factors are there. There has also been a failure to invest. Where the blame does not lie is with a workforce who are skilled and who presently have to work with a refinery that is past its sell by date and requires to be invested in. Even the union and the workforce recognise that investment is required to get the hydrocracker going and to get the technology to ensure that we refine the oil there. It is probably not the current owner Petroineos but previous owners who have taken the benefit for themselves and invested it in their shareholders rather than putting it back into either the workforce or, indeed, capacity at the refinery. Tragically, that happens across so much of UK industry, whether the shipyards, the steelworks or whatever else.
We see a Government who will benefit from North sea oil’s continued extraction, so the least that Scotland is entitled to expect is its refinery to be at the heart of that. Especially when the oil will flow down that golden thread in the Forties pipeline down to Grangemouth, we require to ensure that Grangemouth will refine it. Yes, that requires technical changes, and yes, that will come at a cost, but that is a small fraction of what the UK will take from the benefit of that North sea oil. That is why the Alba party’s support is conditional on carbon capture and the net zero footprint, and also conditional on Grangemouth being at its heart.
It is absurd that Scotland is not getting the wealth from the oil off its shores. It is absurd that while countries have seen their desert redeveloped and bloom because of the oil they have had, what we have seen with North sea oil is an industrial desert created. Having been brought up only 10 or 15 miles from Grangemouth, I know the devastation that will come to that community unless there are the changes required to ensure that Grangemouth does the refining for North sea oil. We cannot afford to have Grangemouth thrown to the wolves. As I said in last week’s debate, we cannot have “Grangemouth no more”; we require to ensure a refinery capacity.
It would be absurd for Scotland in the UK to have in Grangemouth no refinery capacity. Scotland would be ranked 21st in the nations that produce oil, and the only one in the top 25 without a refinery capacity. The only other countries that tend not to have refinery capacity are the likes of the Republic of Congo and Trinidad and Tobago. I wish those countries no ill—I am sure they are fine countries—but they do not produce the same level of oil, and they are not developed industrial economies. The fact of the matter is that Scotland should not be in that same position of being an oil-producing nation without a refinery capacity. On that basis, Grangemouth must be retained. I call on the Government to do that.
My only additional point is that the Scottish Government, too, require to step up to the plate. The fact that the business and economy Secretary in Scotland appears to be accepting the closure of Grangemouth as something that just will happen and is maybe a matter of regret is simply unacceptable. He may be in coalition with the Greens, but he cannot have them wagging the SNP dog. It is simply unacceptable that we see Grangemouth close without a fight. The Scottish Government should be leading the demands that the refinery is changed, that we do ensure the hydrocracker, that we do provide the changes to refine in Scotland, and that we do move towards biofuels. What they should not be doing is wringing their hands and selling out the Grangemouth workforce. We require a refinery capacity in Scotland. The UK Government have had the benefits of Scotland’s oil and should pay for it, and it is about time that the Scottish Government stood up for industrial Scotland and the workers who at one point put their trust and faith in them.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We are no strangers to hyperbole in this Chamber, but I think the exaggeration of the importance of this Bill in the debate has surprised even Government Members. To hear Opposition Members, we would think that the Government have made a bold announcement to reject their policies on climate change, to deny the science and to minimise the impact of climate change, and to say that we are no longer committed to decarbonising by 2050. None of that is even remotely true.
Nothing has changed in relation to the Government’s policy on climate change, and decarbonisation in particular. In fact, the Prime Minister recently reaffirmed that. The United Kingdom recently passed the substantial marker of being the first of any major economy to more than halve its emissions. That is a huge milestone, and that is the kind of climate leadership that is important; not making virtue-signalling announcements in this Chamber or elsewhere. Countries around the world look at us because of what we do, and we are decarbonising and leading by example.
I will take no lessons from the Labour party. I looked this up during the debate: in 2010, on Labour’s watch, the economy emitted 495.8 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent; now it is 320 million tonnes and declining. That is as a result of Conservative policies in action, where we accept the science on climate change but take positive actions on the really important thing: it is the amount of oil and carbon we use that is important, not where it comes from.
The Conservative record is incredibly strong, but we still recognise, as does the Climate Change Committee, that we need oil and gas as part of our long-term future. Currently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) pointed out, about 75% of our energy comes from hydrocarbons—oil and gas. That is reducing, but it is on a trajectory to get to about 25% even in 2050 and beyond.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member is taking the Climate Change Committee’s name in vain. It does not say that we need new oil and gas. It says categorically that new explorations of oil and gas are not compatible with our net zero obligations. I do not understand why he is claiming something that is different from what the committee says. He compared emissions under a Labour Government with those under a Tory Government. I am no apologist for the Labour Government, but I wonder whether he put consumption emissions into those calculations. Did he work out whether emissions have gone down in the UK because we have outsourced even more of our manufacturing to countries on the other side of the world?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. The Climate Change Committee gives us the science, and the political decisions are taken in this House. We are not talking about an increase in exploration; we are talking about a managed reduction of 7% per annum.
Moving on, the question is not whether we have oil or gas, yes or no. We need oil and gas, certainly for the transition period between 2024 and 2050, and even beyond—according to the Climate Change Committee, around 25% of our energy will still come from oil and gas. The question is: where should that oil and gas come from? If we need to supply this economy with oil and gas, it is my belief that we should use UK oil and gas, and there are reasons for that. The first is that the industry employs 200,000 people. I would prefer that employment to remain in the UK economy, rather than export it to Russia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or other oil and gas producing countries. That is a reasonable position, given that our consumption is required for the future.
The second reason is geopolitical. We need an alternative to Russian gas, and not just in this country. I accept the point made earlier by Opposition Members: that oil and gas is a global market, and that 80% of North sea oil is exported to Europe. But emissions are global and so are the geopolitics. It is right, and in our strategic interest, that Europe should have a viable alternative to Russia for the supply of hydrocarbons. We have seen in the last two years the awful consequences of an overreliance on the Russian supply of hydrocarbons, and more so in Europe—Germany, in particular—than in the United Kingdom. We have become a net exporter of gas to mainland Europe—a little from the North sea, but a lot from Milford Haven. Qatari liquid natural gas is imported into our country and transported by the connectors to mainland Europe. The Europeans are sucking up very polluting liquid natural gas because they do not have a viable, cleaner alternative, which North sea gas would provide.
David Duguid
It has been pointed out to me that gas in Qatar is produced at a broadly equivalent carbon footprint to ours, but the compression into liquid, the transportation and the de-liquefaction when it gets into this country quadruple that carbon footprint.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members have no answer to that. In Germany in particular, misguided green policies have led to the extraordinary decision to decommission the low-carbon nuclear industry and replace it with coal-fired power stations. I could hardly make it up. Germany is massively increasing its reliance on imported liquid natural gas, which is much more polluting than the cleaner, more local and geopolitically more stable alternative of North sea gas and oil.
The third reason why I would prefer that we used UK oil and gas is that it pays UK tax. I am not ashamed to say that I welcome that. If we are to extract hydrocarbons that will be taxed, I prefer for that tax to be paid in the United Kingdom, rather than in some other country. Just between 2023 and 2028 it is estimated that those tax receipts will amount to £30 billion. We know how much trouble Opposition Members have trying to explain where they will get their £28 billion of borrowing each year, and how that will raise interest rates, debt and inflation. That would be more than doubled if they got their way and their policies destroyed the North sea oil and gas sector.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman mentions what the Government are spending, not spending and taxing, but could he mention how much they actually spend on subsidies for the oil and gas industry—just a number?
Jerome Mayhew
A number was mentioned earlier in the debate, but I did not catch it. I am sure that the hon. Lady might have that number in mind. It is right that we support industries in this country, because they create employment, generate economic activity and, in turn, pay taxes. I am not ashamed of that, because it is a good thing.
The final reason why I want oil and gas extraction in this country, if we are to use it, is the balance of payments. That used to be a fashionable economic argument back in the day. When I was a teenager, we used to have announcements on the news about the balance of payments month by month. What has happened to that? The balance of payments is every bit as important economically today as it was back in the 1980s. We run a current account deficit in this country of about £150 billion. That is a huge number, and it will be exacerbated if we choose—and it would be a political choice—not to generate and export a product from this economy to a third economy, but instead choose to import one, exacerbating the balance of payments deficit twice over.
For those four reasons, I am wholly in favour of the ambitions behind this short Bill. Climate change will be solved by reducing demand for hydrocarbons, not by reducing supply. We will solve the demand problem by providing cheap alternatives, which the Government are doing. Members who have contributed were quite right to highlight that. We need renewables.
Matt Western
I agree with the hon. Member’s point about reducing demand. The great travesty is that we are still seeing houses built today—I am sure he does in his constituency—where the insulation is not at all deep. That is ridiculous, is it not?
Jerome Mayhew
I could not agree more. The future homes building regulations, which require a significantly decreased carbon footprint for modern buildings, come into force in 2025. It is deeply frustrating that they were not brought in earlier. The sooner they come in, the better. We also have the challenge of retrofitting insulation in the 28.5 million existing houses in Britain. Some good points have been made by Opposition Members about the need to improve retrofitting, and there is scope for the Government to incentivise further insulation of private houses, to go with the successful scheme in place already for public sector buildings and housing.
We must also increase our wind power. We have an extremely ambitious target of 50 GW by 2030. The current rate is about 17 GW of renewable wind power generation capacity. We must also increase solar and nuclear, including small modular reactors. We need better technology for carbon capture, usage and storage. We need to accelerate our use of electric or hydrogen vehicles—or, frankly, any other kind of technology that solves the problem—and we need to incentivise the market to step into that area.
We need to take a step back and look at buildings. It is about not just about the operating carbon costs of existing infrastructure, which we are focusing on in both commercial buildings and the residential sector; it is also about the embodied carbon in our construction processes, hence my private Member’s Bill on the measurement of embodied carbon in large buildings and developments. About 50% of the carbon associated with building is in its construction, not its operation.
There are areas where the Government are either ahead of the game or moving in the right direction. They have already been successful in reducing demand for hydrocarbons. I do not understand why Labour appears to put virtue signalling before the economic impact and 200,000 local jobs. I support this eminently sensible Bill.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In my four years as a Member of Parliament, I keep coming back to this question: whose interests does this place serve? Do the laws we pass and the structures we maintain serve the interests of our constituents? Are they designed to enrich and empower them? Or do they deepen inequalities in wealth and power, serving the interests of the super-rich and the companies that dominate our economy? I say that because with this Bill, the question feels more relevant than ever.
The Bill, which scales-up fossil fuel extraction in the North sea just as we should be rapidly scaling it down, is obviously not about helping our constituents. It is not about bringing down energy bills—even the Secretary of State admitted that—and it is not about energy security. A former BP boss said that new North sea drilling is:
“not going to make any difference”
to energy security. That is no surprise, since fossil fuel companies are given ownership of what they extract and then sell it on the world market. The Bill is the very opposite of tackling the climate crisis. That is a blatant truth recognised by the Government’s own Climate Change Committee, which said the Bill is not in line with net zero.
If the Bill is not about energy bills, energy security or tackling the climate crisis, what is it about? The answer is simple. It is about maximising profit for fossil fuel giants, guaranteeing that they can extract every last bit of oil and gas, no matter the consequence for people and planet. These companies are the last that need our support. As energy bills soared last year—our constituents know that reality far too well—BP’s global profits hit £23 billion. Shell reported its highest ever profits: a whopping £32 billion. This year, the world’s five biggest oil companies are expected to hand investors more than £80 billion. Record bills for my Coventry South constituents have meant record profits for fossil fuel giants.
Eye-watering North sea oil and gas profits are not an accident, but by design. They are aided and abetted by Government choices. The Government’s North sea tax and subsidy regime is so skewed in the interests of fossil fuel companies that for years Shell and BP got away with paying zero tax on North sea production. It is so rigged in these companies’ interests that the company developing the Rosebank oil field will get a £3 billion tax break to develop the site, meaning our constituents will pay 91% of the cost of developing it. The public pays the costs, the company creams off the profits and then we all face the consequence of its climate-wrecking activity. And there is no doubt about that, because the science is clear: developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with our climate commitments.
More oil and gas extraction may be good for fossil fuel companies and their shareholders, but it spells disaster for the rest of us. If we continue to let the climate crisis deteriorate, we condemn our constituents to a world where extreme weather patterns become more common and more severe; where there are more Storm Henks and more Storm Ishas, and where their winds blow harder and their floods get deeper. We condemn young people across the country to a world where droughts destroy crops and food systems break down, where sea levels rise and millions are displaced.
That is the world that this climate-wrecking Bill is helping to create, but there is an alternative. It is called the green new deal. It is a programme of state-led investment in green industries, rapidly replacing fossil fuels with renewables, creating millions of good unionised green jobs, taxing the richest, and redistributing wealth and power in favour of ordinary people. Unlike the Bill, it is a plan that puts people and planet before profit. There is no time to waste. I urge colleagues to vote against this climate-wrecking Bill and build that brighter alternative.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I suspect that for many Members, there are times when votes in this place can cause a sleepless night or two. For me, this vote has caused a number of sleepless nights. There is a dilemma: on the one hand, the responsibility to care for the lives and livelihoods of those people we represent today; and on the other, the responsibility to care for those who will come in the future and to leave the planet in a better place for generations in times ahead.
On the one hand, there is the risk to our energy security, a much greater risk than any of us would have predicted just a couple of years ago, due to the war in Ukraine, the situation in the middle east and in the Red sea, and who knows what next. The Government are right on energy security that we cannot move away from fossil fuels overnight. We need to prioritise energy security for as long as we need fossil fuels. Importing LNG involves much greater emissions than using gas extracted here. Relying on overseas energy means jobs overseas, not British jobs.
On the other hand, there is the risk of climate change. In my Essex constituency, the summer before last we saw at first-hand how real that risk is, with a really hot summer and raging fires. Recently, across the UK, so many people have witnessed awful floods. We know that the warmer the weather, the wetter it will be. A couple of years ago, I saw at first-hand the true devastation when I went to the eastern part of Ethiopia, a region that a few years ago was teeming with wildlife. They used to say you should never ask a herder how many animals he had, because you would never be able to stop counting. Right now, that land is totally devastated by consecutive years of drought. Millions of people will no longer be able to live in the lands where they have lived for generations. The impact of that climate change will mean more people will be forced to leave their countries. There will be more migration and that will impact us here at home.
Unless there is action to tackle emissions and climate change, we will see those impacts accelerating and worsening. We also know that actions to tackle climate change need to be global. The Government are right that the UK has done more than any other G7 nation to reduce emissions. They are right that other countries also need to play their part. Incidentally, I get really cross when people say to me, “Countries like China and India are doing nothing.” Actually, China is now investing in more renewables than any other country, and more than the US and Europe put together. India is on track to deliver 500 GW of renewables by 2030, which is absolutely massive. Countries are moving. At COP28 just last month, which I attended, countries all over the world signed up to the pledge to transition away from fossil fuels. We signed that pledge, too.
The Government will rightly point out that even with these new oil and gas licences, the North sea will continue to be a declining basin and that we are transitioning away from fossil fuels, but the perception internationally is that by granting these licences the UK may be walking away from our promises on climate change. When encouraging other countries to do the right thing, leadership matters and the UK has a key role to play. We hosted the world in Glasgow at COP26. If we, the UK, are seen or perceived to be walking away from the promises we made to the world, then other countries might walk away from their promises, too. That is why it is vital that we are seen to be keeping the promises we make.
We must continue to cut energy waste and reduce our emissions. I am very proud to be a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. As one of only two members of the Committee contributing to the debate, I will talk about some of the things that have been done and that we must do more of.
Millions of homes have become more energy efficient. We should continue to do more, especially in owner-occupied homes. The priority has been social rented homes, which has been very successful, but we must to do more to help owner-occupied homes. We have unlocked massive amounts of renewable energy, but we can unlock more. It is really important that we get it connected to the grid more quickly—the Government are working on that. I would also like to see more local energy networks, so we can have local energy production nearer to where we have high energy risks and then we would not need quite so much extra grid transmission.
We need to accelerate new nuclear. There have been some good announcements about that this month, but, especially in respect of the small modular reactors, can we go faster? We need to remove barriers to more innovations such as hydrogen, especially for heat, and we need to support the transition to more zero emission vehicles, especially for those in terraced houses. I say to the Minister that we need to get rid of the “pavement tax” so that charging is affordable for all. On all those matters the Government have made great progress, but we need to do more. Incidentally, I will take no lessons from Labour Members on this, because in their 13 years of power they did so little to cut emissions.
The Government are right to say that the transition to net zero needs to be affordable, practical and pragmatic, but it should also involve being honest with people. It is estimated that even the new gas licences will provide only 103 days’ worth of gas—1% of today’s demand—between now and 2050, so let us have an honest discussion about the fact that this Bill will not do everything. However, it is important for energy security that we continue to look at how we can best meet our local energy needs. On offshore oil and gas, I have first-hand experience of how important being a respected world leader on environment issues can be in persuading other countries to change their behaviour.
Members will recall that 10 years ago the world watched in horror when the Deepwater Horizon explosion caused an environmental catastrophe in the gulf of Mexico. At the time the European Union had a knee-jerk reaction, and produced draft legislation that would have banned all deep-water drilling. As a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, Research and Energy at the time, I was appointed by MEPs to lead the work of the European Parliament in scrutinising that directive. I met offshore safety experts, environmentalists, geologists and regulators, and it became clear to me that the European Commission’s proposals were not the right way forward. Time and again I was told that not all deep-water drilling was dangerous and not all shallow-water drilling was safe. I remember tabling more than 300 amendments to the European Commission’s text, changing it paragraph by paragraph so that instead of banning all deep-water drilling the Commission would take a site-specific approach, looking at the risks of every single proposal.
I persuaded the British Labour Members of the European Parliament that that was the right thing to do, and I persuaded the British Liberal Democrat MEPs that it was the right thing to do. I persuaded parliamentarians from 27 countries that it was the right thing to do. They agreed because they knew that the UK was the world leader when it came to the environmental and safety standards of the offshore oil and gas industry.
Vicky Ford
I am going to carry on.
My point is that maintaining our leadership in environmental standards in the North sea is key to persuading other countries to think about their energy in the future. The Government say that they want this country to continue to be a world leader, but at this point we have lost a bit of leadership to Norway, where gas is produced in a way that is 50% less carbon-intensive than the way in which gas is produced in our North sea. Measures such as banning flaring, electrifying the production process with the use of floating wind and working with neighbouring countries to see how our carbon capture capacity can be used to decarbonise the refining processes could make a huge difference to the carbon emissions that are caused and used when we are producing oil and gas in our North sea. As we make the transition away from fossil fuels, I should like to see the world move towards considering how we can make that industry as low-carbon as possible.
Some of my colleagues have talked about amendments relating to some of these issues, and I hope the Minister and the Government will be open to any such amendments. I think that, as currently worded, the Bill does not really let the Government do anything that they cannot do already—they can already grant these licences—but it does give us an opportunity to show that this country has the ambition to ensure that any carbon emissions that come from fossil fuels during this transition are as low as possible, and that our industry is as clean as possible. That would help the UK to maintain its world-leading voice in environmental negotiations and encourage other countries to clean up and decarbonise their production, thus helping to ensure that the global transition away from fossil fuels takes place in as clean a way as possible. I believe that we should be able to do all that while also addressing those other priorities such as delivering and improving our energy security, and delivering and improving job security here at home.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The proposed legislation before us is an outrage, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity today to discuss in detail what it means. It has been a relatively good-natured debate, but it has shown very clearly where the political choices are, and I find the political choices of the Conservatives unacceptable.
New licences for new oil and gas fields in the North sea are in direct conflict with our national and international net zero commitments. We must get away from our dependence on fossil fuels, not extend it. At COP28 the Government signed an international agreement to phase out fossil fuels, but we are doing the opposite in this country. It is just not acceptable for us to do one thing abroad and another at home. As has already been said so many times this afternoon, this is losing us our reputation for good leadership, and losing any credibility that the Government could have at home or abroad.
The Government’s claim that the Bill ensures our energy security is complete fiction. Recent analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found that oil from new licences sent to UK refineries would account for less than 1% of fuels used in the UK in 2030. The Bill would make little or no difference to UK energy security, and the Secretary of State herself admits that it would do little to cut bills. Furthermore, on the basis of past records, new licences issued since 2010 have produced only 16 days of extra gas supplies. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide an average of only four days of gas per annum. Is it really worth it to lose our reputation, our commitments and our path to net zero for that? The vast majority of this new oil and gas production would not stay in the UK; it would be sold on global markets for consumption abroad. No government should want a repeat of the energy crisis of last year, which was brought on by the crisis in global fossil fuel supplies and soaring prices on the global oil and gas market. Only by moving away from fossil fuels can it be guaranteed that such a crisis will not be repeated.
However, this legislation is not just stupid and unnecessary, but dangerous. It breaks down a decade-long cross-party consensus that every Government must be seriously committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and must provide strong, unflinching leadership to help people, organisations and businesses along the road to a successful energy transition. As we have heard today, there is a fair amount of consensus, so why should it be broken? That is really not understandable. Undermining this consensus is hugely irresponsible and sends entirely the wrong signals to the international community. The latest COP28 negotiations have shown how rocky the path to net zero is and how important the leadership of the developed nations remains. I was at COP28, and it is really sad to see how that leadership has been lost and how many nations look at us and shake their heads. They cannot understand what has happened to the UK in the last year or two.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just at COP28, the climate COP, that there is an issue. I was at Montreal at the nature COP, and we were in the vanguard of agreeing that 30% of waters should be protected for nature. These additional drilling rigs cause havoc in our inland waters, but 15 % of new licences were declared in marine protected areas, so we are seeing a nature crisis being caused by this as well as a climate crisis.
Wera Hobhouse
Yes, indeed. Many organisations that campaign to protect nature and the oceans have written to me—and probably to many other Members of Parliament—about how extremely dangerous and damaging this is to marine wildlife.
The UK is in a strong position geographically to cover its future energy needs from renewables and from cutting energy consumption. The Minister well knows my position on this: diverse, home-grown renewable energy and a significant home insulation programme are key to the solution. The energy efficiency of our homes is among the worst in Europe, and yes, if we are talking about jobs, we are lacking so many of the jobs that we need in the retrofitting and upgrading sector. We need a new workforce in the new technology for the net zero future of our UK economy. That is not looking back at past fuels. They have powered the world, yes, but we need to transition and we cannot keep on with business as usual. That is the problem and the opportunity. It is deplorable that the Government have finished embracing this new future and broken the consensus that we had across the House.
Where is the legislation to address all that? Failed project after failed project alongside acute underfunding means that people continue to live in cold homes with sky-high energy bills, so where is the legislation to revolutionise our home retrofitting agenda? The problem needs long-term policy and funding commitments rather than the stop and start of this Government. While offshore wind is no doubt a success story, we must move faster. Onshore wind development has been slow, and solar has been particularly off-track. In fact, we are going backwards. The proportion of renewable projects that are being delayed is on the rise.
Last year the Government’s predictable failure to contract new offshore wind lost 5 GW of renewable energy and the opportunity to save consumers £2 billion a year. Renewables developers still face a planning system that is stacked against onshore wind, and community energy providers still face enormous start-up costs. Rather than a petroleum Bill, why are we not debating a marine energy Bill today to incentivise investment in the various new technologies in marine energy and facilitate the fast roll-out of installations? The Government are wasting time and money on the fuels of the past. Instead, they should champion UK technology and innovation.
So, why this Bill? My suspicion is that it is an election year Bill to drive division and fuel the culture wars. For too long, working people have been made to worry that the green energy transition is a punishment for them and that it will cost them prosperity, livelihoods and the way of life that they are used to. But there are countries who have successfully turned the negative narrative into a prospect of hope and major opportunities. The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s green industrial plan will together see over $600 billion of green investment creating new and exciting jobs and careers. Even Canada, an economy smaller than ours, has announced a package that offers nearly £50 billion-worth of tax credits for green technologies. Green investment will be worth a potential £1 trillion by 2030. Uncertainty over this Government’s commitment to reach net zero means that investors are looking the other way.
Oil and gas are energy sources of the past. Putting our political future towards them only amplifies how seriously out of touch and out of ideas this current Government are. The Bill is misleading and counterproductive. It flies in the face of our net zero commitments and will do nothing to ensure our energy security. Indeed, it will do the opposite. We Liberal Democrats will support the Labour reasoned amendment and oppose this Government Bill, and I call on all colleagues across the House with an ounce of honesty and integrity to do the same.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The irony is not lost on me in this debate that every single one of us in this place wants the same thing. Normally when the whole House agrees on something, I think that something is wrong, but in this case I have no doubt that the whole House is right: we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. What we are debating today and arguing about in this place is how we can get there in the most pragmatic way. This Bill is another example of the Government trying their best to do what is right at this moment in time, but I fear that the punitive taxes—I will ask the Minister more about those in a minute—will not help the investment that the Government say is so needed.
To rely more on our own gas and oil from the North sea is a necessity and full of common sense. It is a fact that we will be relying on fossil fuels for decades to come—a point that no one in this place denies. The UK has made some impressive advances in wind and solar, and a new generation of nuclear is on its way, although I have to say that we and the Opposition have been talking about nuclear investment for years, yet so little has been done. Wind and solar are excellent ways of generating power. I have not yet heard anyone here today say that when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine—[Interruption.] I will come to tidal in a minute, if I may. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has just joined the debate, I think, but I will answer her point; Portland in my constituency has a huge tidal race. But it is a fact that when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, we do not get the energy we need. Also, as we have heard many times, we have cut our emissions by half; we are a world leader and have a record to be very proud of. Just touching on what the hon. Lady said about tidal, yes of course we have huge tidal races in this country, including in Scotland and in Portland off the coast of South Dorset in my constituency. If we can explore this and harness it to make it work—there are major technical issues, not least with sand and with salt water, which is very destructive—then she is absolutely right, it is a way of generating energy that I am sure everyone would support.
I have heard from several speakers today about the instability of the world we live in. That is very true and I do not have to rehearse why I feel that in my lifetime we are facing the most dangerous times on our planet. If we do not have the power to drive our economy and our homes, it would be strategically—quite apart from anything else—insane. We are an island nation, and I do not have to remind anyone in this House how significant energy independence is going to be in the event of a catastrophe. Here we have a Bill that will allow companies to apply for licences to safeguard domestic energy supplies. The Bill says that this will safeguard more than 200,000 jobs, enhance our security, reduce dependence on higher-emission imports from overseas and significantly prevent families and businesses from being unduly burdened, which to a certain degree they already are through the green taxes that everyone faces. So what’s not to like, you may ask—
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am very convinced by the arguments that my hon. Friend is putting forward, but he has missed one useful point. Does he not agree that the generation of oil and gas in the North sea will generate tax receipts that can then be used to subsidise green energy production in other parts of the British economy?
Richard Drax
That point has been raised several times, and I totally agree that the tax receipts from investment in oil and gas play a huge part in our economy.
I might have this wrong, but as I understand it these companies will face 50% corporation tax and a 35% windfall levy. I would be grateful if, in his summing up, the Minister could say whether that is true. I am not an expert in the industry, but I think that chief executives, board members and shareholders would wince if, having been told that they have to do all this, they have to pay all that punitive taxation. They might say, “Why on earth should we do this in the first place?”
David Duguid
Not to step on the Minister’s toes, but my understanding is that even before the 35% energy profits levy, the oil and gas sector was, at 40%, already the most taxed sector in the country—40% plus 35% is 75%. I stand to be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong.
Richard Drax
I hope my hon. Friend and I can be corrected by the Minister because, as the House has just heard, the tax rates are punitive. If we are going to do this for all the common-sense reasons that the Minister and the Government say we should, why on earth are we raising taxes to such a point that it discourages and disincentivises all those who need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds, or more, to get the oil and gas out of the ground?
The powerful Climate Change Committee, which operates outside this place, is mentioned occasionally but, frankly, it is pretty unaccountable. It is very influential, and it has now set our fourth carbon budget, which can be legally challenged once it is in place. I wonder whether the Government fear that they could find themselves in the courts as they rightfully plough on with this Bill, to which many people object.
It shocks me to the core that it has taken a war in Europe for the west to prioritise both energy and food security. For how many decades have we been talking about nuclear power, and what has happened? Very little. Nuclear will be a vital component of keeping the lights on and keeping this country safe. Globalisation has softened our resolve to stand alone, if need be, when hard times hit, in whatever shape they come. The Bill has a lot going for it, not least a most welcome return to our old and absent friend: common sense.
I urge the Government to find pragmatic solutions to the transition to net zero and allow the private sector to do what it does best, which is provide jobs and prosperity, not least in Scotland. The search for alternatives to fossil fuels will continue and, as we have heard, the tax receipts will be used to invest in green energy. I have no doubt at all that an affordable, reliable and plentiful solution will be found—the human race has a remarkable ability to survive—but, in the meantime, will the Government continue to work in the real world to keep the lights on, the economy running and the country strategically safe?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).
The irony will not be lost on you of all people, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are reduced in number in Parliament today by the impact of Storm Isha, the origins of which lie in climate change, yet we are debating the Government’s desire to increase the global supply of oil and gas. It is also damning that the Government’s net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, felt compelled to resign, having spent three months researching his report and travelling the length and breadth of these isles. He said that he could
“no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know…will cause future harm.”
To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset, 10 years ago, when I was a councillor, I was talking about how we needed to create energy resilience in Warwickshire, how we needed to consider the future needs of our communities and how we could best use our pension funds to help to drive that agenda.
The Government claim that the Bill will not add undue burdens on households. “Undue burdens” is a pretty strange phrase. The Secretary of State has also admitted that new licences will not necessarily bring down energy bills. Let me put that into context. This is the same Conservative Government who ripped up the zero carbon homes policy announced by Chancellor Gordon Brown in 2006 and produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).
That legislation would have meant that all new homes built from 2016 onwards were zero carbon. Just imagine: we would have built 1.2 million zero-carbon homes by now. There would be thousands of new zero-carbon homes in my Warwick and Leamington constituency on the Mallory Grange, Priors, Montague Point, Myton Gardens, Chesterton Gardens and Victoria Point estates, and many others. My constituents would be benefiting from next to no energy bills, and they would be doing the right thing, but they were denied that choice by the Conservative Government who ripped up that legislation.
The next generation will not thank this Government for what they have done. They will not be thankful for one of the highest levels of debt we have ever seen, the greatest tax burden since the war, the stagnant economy and, I dare say, the moral bankruptcy of this Government.
We have had nine named storms so far this year, with the 10th coming down the track. We had just 11 named storms in 2015-16. The flooding is reaching into all corners of the United Kingdom, creating economic damage, damage to people’s homes and businesses, and distress to all. There has been damage to infrastructure, crops and food production. Waterlogged soil means that seeds and crops cannot be harvested.
A report from Ernst & Young says that last year was the worst year for insurance underwriting in decades, pushing up premiums by at least one third in the next two years—an expected increase of 36%. Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, has said that new oil and gas drilling
“puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate ready.”
Today, the country is plunging further into chaos and economic damage. Our transport is disrupted and our businesses are impacted. Colleagues have been unable to get to London to attend Parliament. Two weeks ago I requested a debate on floods and flooding and, on my journey home, my train was delayed by a landslip caused by climate change—yet more irony. We need a wider debate on the impacts of climate change, which is causing not just floods but tidal surges and strong winds.
The Prime Minister speaks of climate “zealots”. Well, the public, and young people especially, must be climate zealots because, I am afraid, they are deeply concerned. They are not zealots. They are realists about the future we face. On my recent visits, nearly every primary school—St Margaret’s, All Saints, St Paul’s, Heathcote, Woodloes, St Peter’s, Coten End and Bishop’s Tachbrook; I could name them all—has raised the critical importance of climate change and how they want us in this place to bring about immediate action.
The young people studying in our colleges understand the future. They can see what is happening, and they have said to me, “The future is electric. That’s why we are training for these skills.” They get it; they can see the future.
We know that 2023 was the world’s hottest on record. Last year was about 1.48°C warmer than the long-term average before humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels. The eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2014. The global average sea level has risen by 8 to 9 inches. Flooding across the UK, including in my constituency, has damaged 2,000 properties across the country, and 5.7 million properties were at risk of flooding in England in 2022-23. Those facts underline just how irresponsible this Bill is.
We are 18 years on from the Stern report and “An Inconvenient Truth”, which was told like never before by Vice-President Al Gore. Two years ago, the report by the UK’s independent Climate Change Committee said that the best way to ease consumers’ pain from high energy prices was to stop using fossil fuels, rather than drill for more of them. That is part of the great deception that is this legislation: the best way to bring down prices is to reduce demand and the Government are doing next to nothing on that. We also need to bring in cheaper energy sources and to reduce demand by insulating homes. We can put in energy insulation panels that are really not very thick.
The approach being taken in this legislation is a crime and an obscenity, and it is happening because the Government tore up the legislation of the last Labour Government. We need to bring in cheaper energy sources by allowing onshore wind, which is currently the cheapest form of electricity generation. In the 12 months to the end of September 2023, total consumer expenditure on electricity, gas and other fuels used in the home was £62 billion, a figure almost double that of two years before. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said,
“it is precisely our dependence on fossil fuels that has led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.”
It was clear from the King’s Speech that this Bill will not take even a penny off energy bills. Lord Browne, of all people, the former chief executive of BP—he is also a highly regarded individual across the industry and in the other place, where he is a Cross-Bench peer—said that the proposals are
“not going to make any difference”
to the UK’s energy security. That point was echoed by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
In conclusion, energy security has to start at home, but not the home of the international oil and gas majors and their market preferences, and instead the homes of the British people—homes that are better insulated and that can generate and store their own electricity and power. The only thing holding back the British people is this Government, who are weak and capable only of short-term decisions. That is why the country needs Labour’s clean power mission: to make the UK a clean energy superpower.
We have a plan to make energy cheap and secure so that the British public never again face spiralling bills. It is a plan to boost jobs and investment in every region and nation of the country. It is a plan to cut energy bills for good, taking up to £1,400 off annual household bills; to create good jobs by rebuilding the strength of our industrial heartlands and coastal communities, creating more than 1 million jobs in 10 years; and to deliver energy security by using our abundant natural resources for our own citizens. We will do that by establishing “GB Energy”, a new home-grown publicly owned champion in clean energy generation to build jobs and supply chains here at home.
We will also set up the national wealth fund, which will create good, well-paying jobs by investing, alongside the private sector, in gigafactories, clean steel plants, renewable-ready ports, green hydrogen and energy storage. We will also do this through a warm homes plan. The Bill is yet another reason why this country is desperate for a general election and I will be voting against it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill, even though it may well be a belated acceptance that some policies they had been following in pursuit of net zero had to be revised. We know that because of the energy security issues and the dramatic rise in the cost of energy in response to the fall in supply resulting from the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed in Russia, as well as the impact on the supply chain after covid, the supply of energy, especially oil and gas, to an economy that still depends heavily on those kinds of sources is very important. Let us not pretend that we are on the verge of not having to use oil and gas any longer, because 75% of our energy comes from oil and gas, and 5% comes from renewables. Even those who want us to rush headlong towards net zero, such as those in the Climate Change Committee, accept that we are still going to have to use fossil fuels well into the next decade and for decades after. Therefore, it is important that we examine how we generate those resources.
The Bill is also an acceptance by the Government—or there should now be an acceptance—that as we have pursued the net zero agenda we have been putting people’s jobs at risk. We have seen that just in the past week, with 3,000 jobs going in south Wales. Most of the energy-intensive industries in this country have been decimated. We proudly beat our chests and say, “We have reduced our carbon emissions,” but if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that all we have done is steal jobs from this country and move production for vital materials overseas, to a place where environmental and work standards, and standards on pollution, are far lower than ours in this country. So I welcome the fact that the Government are belatedly looking again at some of the policies they were pursuing.
I do not know whether the Bill will increase the number of licence applications that are made. It may well be that since the processes are already there, it will be as easy as it has been in the past for companies to make an application, but at least this signals to companies that have reduced their investment in these vital industries that they can, at least with this policy, have some more confidence when they make investment decisions. However, I doubt very much, given the Labour party’s attitude and the fact that we are in a general election year, that that confidence will be engendered as much as the Government hope it will be.
I do not want to go through all of the arguments that have been made, including on the balance of payments. As a result of the natural decline in the North sea and the fact that we have also discouraged investment, between 2019 and 2023 we have doubled the value of energy imports per household into the UK, from £2,100 per household in 2019 to £4,200 per household in 2023. We cannot ignore the impact that that has on the balance of payments or security of supply, because those imports are coming from countries that are sometimes less stable than we need them to be for energy, which is such a vital resource. The Labour amendment states that this policy
“will ensure the UK remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”.
Where is the logic in that?
For example, if we do not get it from the North sea, we will get it from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries that use oil as a political weapon, and that are not always well disposed towards us. By diminishing our dependence on the oil and gas we can extract from our own territory, we put ourselves at the mercy of those who politicise one of our energy resources. We have to be cognisant of that.
The second reason is that we have 200,000 jobs in the sector across the United Kingdom, including, strangely enough, 90,000 jobs in Scotland, which the SNP appears to be quite happy to sacrifice. We have sacrificed jobs in many energy-intensive industries already. Are we now going to sacrifice these often well-paid jobs and say that there will be a just transition? Many times in this House I have heard the argument that, “Oh, all these people who are employed in the oil and gas industry will go into renewables.” Well, let us look that.
The Government tell us that we have had a huge increase in renewable production. Has it resulted in jobs for workers in the United Kingdom? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] No, of course it has not. Where are the windmills made? Where is the steel for the windmills made? Not in Port Talbot, and the steel that is still made there will not be made there for very much longer. Boats bring it half way around the world from countries that make it cheaply, because they use the cheapest form of energy.
The idea that we would suddenly have all these people employed in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of solar panels and windmills, EV battery factories all over the place, and graduates employed in finance and everything else for the offshore industry has not happened. The just transition is not going to occur. Why would we transition when there is still a resource to be exploited by the people who have the skills to do that, and for the benefit of the country?
The third argument I wish to make in favour of the Bill is its necessity. Some 84% of our domestic heating is currently provided by gas, with 5% from oil; some 97% of our travel is driven by fossil fuels; and some 40% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. That will continue into the future. Quite frankly, I doubt whether the arguments we have heard about us having to be a global leader in getting to net zero ring true with ordinary people who want to heat their houses efficiently, cheaply and securely; drive their cars; get on buses, trains and aeroplanes, or however they decide to travel; or ensure that electricity can be supplied.
We might fool ourselves that we are global leaders, but the truth is that we produce 1% of global emissions. Other countries that, quite rightly, want to industrialise do not heed us. They are going for the cheapest form of energy available to them. In some countries in Africa, for example, 85% of people are not even connected to an electricity grid and they do not have the benefits we have, such as turning on a light at night or having a fridge to keep their food fresh and stop it from deteriorating in the heat. It is a bit arrogant of people in the House to say, “And by the way, you might have plenty of coal and oil, but we don’t want you to use it. We don’t want you to have the benefit of the cheap energy that gave us our prosperity.”
Cheap energy is the grounds of economic growth. I can understand why people do not follow our lead and do their own thing. The idea that because we pass the Bill the whole world will say, “Oh, this is terrible. Britain is no longer committed to net zero and we are now going to do our own thing.” They are doing their own thing anyway. The question many people in the United Kingdom have is what their Government are doing to maintain their standard of living—the idea of global leadership is not at the forefront of their thinking.
I have some reservations about the Bill. The first, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, is the question of whether the Bill is designed to engender confidence. Many companies looking at whether they should put money into applying for licenses and exploring for oil will wonder whether they will find their way blocked, even with the legislation. They will be asking themselves whether their economic opportunities will be blocked by judicial review, and by people who simply say, “The UK’s target for global emissions was going to be met, in part, by reducing oil production in our own country, and as a result of the Bill and granting licenses, the targets will be missed and we will judicially review it.” I doubt very much that the Bill will engender the confidence the Minister is hoping it will if there is likely to be a judicial review, or if there is a path open and the basis upon which to make a judicial review.
Secondly, as hon. Members have argued, if we are going to exploit the oil we have and benefit from it, then it is better to keep it in our own country and ensure that it is used in our own country. Some 88% of the gas we extract is used in the UK because we have the network for it to feed into, so it can be used and sold in the UK. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) raised the issue of Grangemouth, which is not the only example of the fact that we do not invest in facilities for refining oil in the United Kingdom. Why not? Because oil refining is an oil-intensive industry, so given all the carbon taxes and the barriers put in the way of carbon-intensive industries, no investment is taking place, or has taken place for decades. So what do we do? We extract it and send it elsewhere. We bring it back, most often, but would it not be of benefit to ensure that it stays in the United Kingdom because we have the facilities for processing it here?
My final reservation is that when those who might form the next Government of the United Kingdom are determined to undo all this legislation, how will that engender confidence? I know that I am probably in a minority when it comes to the debate, but there is a debate to be had with the ideologues who are driving a policy that most people in this House can well afford. People may say that the cost of energy will not go up as a result of renewables, but just this week the chief executive of Siemens, the biggest producer of electricity from wind in the United Kingdom, said that higher bills are inevitable as we grapple with the huge costs of generating wind power because of inflation and the cost of maintenance, faults and breakdowns. He said:
“Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful. And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector—governments—don’t really want to hear.”
Unfortunately, that is the battle that we face. There are those in this House who are wedded to an ideology and will drive it through regardless of the impact that it has on our constituents. How many crocodile tears have been cried by Members in this House when they see people lose their jobs in energy-intensive industries and then, in the next breath, say that the Government are not going hard enough to reach net zero? There is a divide between those who are driven by this ideology and the ordinary people in the country who live with the consequences of it. If this Bill is at least a start in trying to redress that imbalance then I welcome it.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Just last month, COP28 made history by acknowledging for the first time the need to transition away from fossil fuels. It should not have taken 28 COPs to accept what scientists have known for decades. Despite all the vested interests at play, the efforts of hundreds of lobbyists, and the huge sums poured into preventing climate action, the truth became impossible to ignore. The effects of climate chaos are now in plain sight: 10 of the hottest years on record, as mentioned previously in this debate, all happened in the past decade, and the speed of change is only increasing. To avert catastrophe, we must work now towards a fossil-free future.
Why do our Government insist on keeping us in the past and trying to build our recovery on a resource that the world has formally committed to moving away from? The Government claim that it is about lowering household bills, but even the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has admitted that it will not do that. The energy generated from new oil and gas would not belong to the British people, powering our homes for cheap, it would be in the hands of private companies and sold on the global market for internationally set prices. It would be owned by those same energy companies that have already made record-breaking profits in the cost of living crisis, while 13 million households sat in the cold last winter, too scared to turn on the heating.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those corporations do not need any more state handouts. If the Government really cared about energy bills, they would be funding a mass programme of insulating homes, which the Tories slashed support for in 2013. If they cared about securing our future, they would be focusing on investing in publicly owned home-grown renewables, which have never been cheaper. They would be delivering a green new deal to protect our living standards and our planet for decades to come. Therefore, if not to lower our bills now, to ensure energy security in the future, and to enable a green transition, why are the Government pushing through this dangerous and unpopular Bill? Is it just to annoy environmentalists and turn climate policies into a wedge issue? Or could it have anything to do with the fact that the Conservatives have taken £3.5 million in a year from big polluters, climate deniers and fossil fuel interests?
Madam Deputy Speaker, when justifying this act of climate vandalism, the Government like to reference the Climate Change Committee. Unfortunately, though, they have misrepresented the advice of that Committee to the point that its chair, Piers Forster, has been forced to speak out. In response to the Government’s false claims, he said:
“UK oil and gas consumption needs to fall by over 80% to meet UK targets. This and the COP… decision…makes further licensing inconsistent with climate goals.”
It is not only embarrassing, but deeply concerning that, on an issue as important as the future of our planet, the Government are either unable or unwilling to understand expert advice. It is not just the Climate Change Committee that has warned against new fossil fuels, so, too, has the UN Secretary-General. [Interruption.] Conservative Members would do well to listen to this. He called on all nations to
“cease all licensing or funding of new oil and gas.”
In addition, the International Institute for Sustainable Development has said that “no new oil and gas development is possible if the world is to stay within the Paris agreement temperature limit.”
The director of the International Energy Agency said:
“If Governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investment in oil, gas and coal”.
Moreover, more than 700 scientists wrote to the Prime Minister last year, asking him to halt the licensing.
Should we be taking advice from hundreds of leading climate experts or from lobbyists for fossil fuel industries? The Bill in front of us will not solve any of our problems. It will just contribute to wrecking the planet and undermine our climate creditability on the international stage. For the sake of our futures and our planet, I urge the House to vote down this dangerous Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). It was slightly less of a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson); I want to say a few words about the case that he made. It reaches new depths to suggest that the poorest people in the country will somehow be better off if we continue exploiting more oil and gas when clearly new and existing oil and gas are so expensive. He cited a comment by Siemens about the expensiveness of renewables, but that is precisely because they are linked to the price of gas. That is why we need to reform the totally out of date electricity and gas system that we have in this country.
It tells us all we need to know about this cynical and failing Government that the legislation they chose to debate first in 2024 was a Bill to mandate the annual licensing of oil and gas products in the North sea; not legislation that rises to the immediate challenges that we face as a society—from the cost of living scandal, which sees families unable to meet their basic needs, to the planetary emergency rapidly unfolding before our eyes—but instead a Bill that is frankly no more than a political stunt at home, yet at the same time a very dangerous signal to other countries abroad of a UK doubling down on the fossil fuel economy.
The reality, as many have said, is that the Bill is entirely redundant, with even the North Sea Transition Authority expressing its “unanimous” view that it is not needed. As the Minister knows perfectly well, there have been annual licensing rounds for most of the past decade, driven by the frankly obscene duty to maximise the economic recovery of UK petroleum. Despite the hundreds of licences that have been issued in that time, a paltry 16 days’ worth of gas has been produced. As others have said, it has been estimated that, between now and 2050, new licences would provide the equivalent of just four days’ worth of gas each year, so it is hardly the energy security that we have been promised and that we have heard so much about from the Conservative Benches over the past three or four hours. Of course, any oil and gas, which is extracted, will be owned by companies and sold on the international market to the highest bidder—unless the Government, unbeknown to us, have in mind the renationalisation of energy, which would be a very interesting conversation to have, but when I last checked, that was not their policy.
This oil and gas in the North sea does not belong to the Government and it will not bring down bills. Let us not forget either that 80% of UK oil is currently exported, as was the equivalent of more than 60% of gross gas production last year.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. One such example is Gazprom International UK, which continued to produce gas from the North sea last year. This subsidiary company paid a €1.7 million dividend in June 2023. Does she not think it hypocritical of this Conservative Government to talk about this Bill in terms of national security, while, simultaneously, allowing a Russian energy giant to extract gas from the North sea and pay taxes in Moscow?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Member for his point and it is incredibly well made. I shall say a little more on that subject very shortly.
Essentially, this Bill is nothing more than reckless political theatre. It is nothing more than a cynical attempt to stoke yet more division and weaponise much-needed climate action in some misguided sense that, somehow, this will save the Prime Minister’s skin.
While the Bill serves at home to highlight the impotence of the Government, sadly its international impact is far-reaching. Despite the Prime Minister’s fairly evidence-free claim at COP28 that the UK is leading by example, the reality is that creating a climate culture war, scrapping vital policies and issuing new fossil fuel licences is the very opposite of climate leadership. The Bill sends a dangerous signal and undermines global efforts to address the climate emergency by hampering diplomacy and legitimising extraction in other countries. As Lord Deben, former chair of the Climate Change Committee, said:
“How can we ask other nations not to expand the fossil fuel production if we start doing it ourselves?”
It is frankly a scandal that the UK is among just five countries in the global north that are responsible for more than half the planned expansion of new oil and gas fields up to 2050.
While Ministers like to claim that, even with continued licensing, production from the UK continental shelf is projected to decline at 7% annually, what matters is not whether we are producing less relative to some previous time but whether the oil and gas that we are producing now is compatible with our climate goals. Clearly it is not, with the UN production gap report warning that Governments already plan to produce far more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5°. The Government’s defence of the Bill, and of the continued licensing of more oil and gas in the North sea as a whole, implies that somehow the UK operates in a vacuum, and domestic decisions have no bearing on our ability to meet our international climate targets. That clearly is not the case. It is no surprise, then, that Professor Piers Forster, the interim chair of the Climate Change Committee, has said:
“UK oil and gas consumption needs to fall by over 80% to meet UK targets. This and Cop decision makes further licensing inconsistent with climate goals.”
When talking about inconsistency with our climate goals, we could also talk about hypocrisy. Since a climate emergency was declared in this very Chamber in 2019, no fewer than 17 new fields have been approved: Laverda, Barnacle, Cadet, Sillimanite, Blythe, Elgood, Southwark, Evelyn, Abigail, Jackdaw, Tommeliten, Talbot, Teal West, Murlach, Alwyn East, Rosebank, and most recently Victory. Mentioning Rosebank gives me an opportunity to come back to an issue that has been touched on a few times tonight: the scale of fossil fuel subsidies. We have heard a load of guff from Conservative Members about the importance of tax revenues from oil and gas, yet look at the amount of money we are giving to the oil and gas industry. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) spoke about tax revenues going to Russia. We could also point out that the UK taxpayer will hand over no less than the equivalent of £3.75 billion to Equinor to develop the Rosebank site, because of the massive loophole in the windfall tax that means that for every £100 invested, £91.40 can be claimed back. A bit of clarity on these issues would help.
Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires that a statement be made on the front of the Bill saying whether it is in line with other environmental laws. The Secretary of State claims in her statement that
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
To me, that seems extraordinary because, even if one believed that the carbon intensity test would make a difference, the annual licensing rounds under the Bill could easily cancel out any predicted carbon savings and lead to an overall increase in emissions. I hope that she will tell us what modelling was undertaken to inform her section 20 statement.
Looking at its content more closely, the Bill proposes two so-called tests, which are set so ludicrously low they are impossible to fail. The first is the carbon intensity test, which is met if the carbon intensity of domestically produced gas is lower than that of imported liquefied natural gas. That test not only ignores the fact that more than half our gas imports come from Norway—via a pipeline, as we have established—where gas production is half as polluting as in the UK, but in only considering gas, it fails to take account of the fact that 70% of remaining North sea oil reserves are oil. In any case, comparing the carbon intensity at the point of production rather than combustion exaggerates the difference between different sources, given that the vast majority of emissions are produced when any oil or gas is burned. In other words, they are scope 3 emissions, which remain unaccounted for. The second test is the net importer test, which will be met if the amount of oil and gas produced in the UK is less than the UK’s demand for oil and gas. Surely that question would be much better addressed by reducing demand rather than producing more planet-heating oil and gas, yet the Government seem incapable of pursuing demand reduction in any meaningful way.
What should the Government do instead? If they were actually interested in cutting household bills and delivering energy security, they would be working to get us off expensive gas for good, rather than continuing to tether us to volatile international markets. The National Infrastructure Commission has been really clear:
“Reliance on fossil fuels means exposure to geopolitical shocks that impact the price of these internationally traded commodities.”
In its 2022 energy outlook report, the IEA reported that a higher share of renewables correlated with lower electricity prices in response to the energy crisis, with energy efficiency and heat electrification providing an important buffer for households. At a time when, as we have heard, 6 million families in the UK are living in fuel poverty this winter, we have to ask why the Government are doubling down on the very thing at the heart of the crisis.
The Government should instead be delivering a meaningful just transition that genuinely meets the needs of workers and communities, rather than temporarily propping up insecure jobs that we know will not exist in years to come. We have heard the rhetoric from Conservative Members pretending that those of us who want to accelerate a transition to a greener economy do not have people’s jobs in mind. That is totally untrue; it is precisely because we care about people’s jobs that we want them to have sustainable jobs into the future—good-quality, decent jobs—and are not pretending that draining resources in the North sea will somehow provide a sustainable livelihood in years to come.
There should be a massive scaling-up of renewables, and we should back cheap and abundant energy sources such as onshore wind, for which a grand total of zero applications have been submitted since planning rules were changed in September. There should be a nationwide, street-by-street energy efficiency programme to ensure that families have warm homes for the long term, rather than scrapping the upgrade in standards of private rented homes, which according to the Climate Change Committee could have saved tenants £250 a year, even at so-called normal prices let alone at a time when prices are spiralling. Again, what an indictment of the Government. Remember the green deal back in 2012? The Government set the interest rate so ridiculously high, as we all said at the time, that unsurprisingly the whole plan collapsed. Those homes were not insulated and plenty of energy companies, including in my constituency, went bust as a result. The Government are incompetent as well as totally ideologically driven.
The Government should be properly taxing the filthy profits of oil and gas companies rather than foisting the cost of new developments on to the taxpayer, and they should urgently withdraw from the dangerous energy charter treaty, which—it beggars belief—allows us to be sued by fossil fuel companies. A fairer and greener energy system is entirely possible, but it requires both imagination and investment—two qualities that I do not associate with the Government. The legislation makes it painfully clear that the Government are wilfully ignoring the lessons of both the climate and the energy crises, and are once again privileging their own interests above the wellbeing of people and planet. The Bill sends exactly the wrong signal at the wrong time, and actively undermines global efforts to address the climate emergency by hampering diplomacy and giving the green light to further extraction right around the world. It is not what leadership looks like, it is not what this moment demands, and all our constituents deserve better.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). While we do not always agree on everything, there are many things that we do agree on. I, too, would like to see the mass scale-up of renewables, but I also want to be pragmatic about where we are, some of things that we need to do, and what the Bill does.
The issue of energy is one that impacts every person in the UK, from the one-bed flat owner to the 200-bed hotel owner. The ability to secure safe and reliable energy is essential, and spiralling costs are having an effect on the day-to-day lives of people throughout the UK.
I think it is important that I make this point and perhaps explain where I am personally on the matter. I grew up, and others in the House are probably the same, in an age of throwing another jumper on. My children used to laugh at the stories I told them of how cold it had to be before the heating was turned on. For us today, it is no longer a laughing matter for many people. My researcher, who owns a modest home, had to put more than £250 of gas into her home in December. She was at home during term-time with the children. She tells me that the gas was not even running constantly; it was turned off whenever she went to visit her parents or her husband’s parents or went out. I thought of how much more a wee—I use that word often in the House as a descriptor—widowed pensioner would be paying in their home when they are there almost all day, every day. That figure is not one that their pension and a single winter fuel payment could cover. There are only so many jumpers that someone can put on, and a jumper does not help with a damp wall.
It is clear that the cost of energy dictates what steps we take to secure the current energy supply, while also striding for new alternative renewable energy sources. As many in this place will have heard me say on numerous occasions, tidal energy in Strangford lough and other such areas needs a great deal of funding. The pilot scheme worked, but it was at the wrong time because the cost of the energy that it produced was not financially feasible, but it would be now. If we can harness that power, which is as reliable as the sun rising in the morning, we are on to a winner. However, I understand that that is not the point of today’s debate and will leave it at that.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is in her place, and I know the Government have taken giant steps to meet the net zero targets and have committed themselves to green energy. I wish to put on the record that I am committed to the same targets as well, but we need to strike a balance. The balance that I put forward to the House—and I wish to make a declaration—is from my point of view as a farmer. We own land. My neighbours are all dairy men or farmers of beef, cattle and sheep. They are willing to commit themselves to the net zero targets because they see that net zero is something that must be done. As part of that target, they must reduce the number of their animals. That is not possible to do while continuing to have a feasible and financially viable farm. There are other things that the farmers wish to do.
In the countryside where I live there are not enough electric vehicle points, so people do not buy an electric or hybrid car, probably because all the EV points are up in Newtownards. I drive a diesel vehicle—have done all my days and, if I am spared, will probably continue to do so because I believe that it is a choice. It is a choice we may not wish to make every time, but is one that we have to make because electric cars are just not feasible because the EV points are just not there.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the National Farmers Union has been positive on many of these issues? Does he agree with what it says about hydrogen being a source of sustainable power in the future, and that it is coming soon?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend—I call him that because I have great respect for him—and agree wholeheartedly with what he has just said. The farming community, the NFU and the Ulster Farmers’ Union are clearly committed to the targets. They are committed to looking at the alternatives, but the alternatives have to be practical. The point I am trying to make is that it is about where things are practical.
There is no doubt that to meet not just our net zero target but, more importantly, our environmental obligations, we need to do a better job of accessing and using renewable energy fuels. However, the fact is we will simply not be there any time soon and, in the meantime, it is vital that we secure safety and security for our constituents. I support the aims of the Bill, which would enhance the procedures currently in place, and note that no financial hardship should be passed on through the Bill. That is vital as I know that households are struggling with the current pressures. No longer is it a matter simply for households in poverty, working families with decent wages are being affected.
It is a transition. It is about meeting our net zero targets and increasing green energy and renewables, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to. At the same time, the Bill gives us the opportunity to progress those renewables in a way that is positive in the short term.
The Library briefing makes it clear that licensing rounds are run when the NSTA decides they are necessary. However, it should be highlighted that they have been held broadly on an annual basis up to the 32nd licensing round, which opened in 2019. The latest—33rd—licensing round was launched in October 2022, following the introduction of a climate compatibility checkpoint in September 2022. In October 2023, 27 new licences were awarded as part of that licensing round. That is not onerous, but it is necessary not just to safeguard our industry by enhancing investor and industry confidence, as the Government have highlighted, but to ensure that we do not see families scraping pennies together to afford heat.
My contribution to the debate is clearly for those who are in energy difficulties. Today, the papers referred to food bank referrals being up some 30%. The food bank in my constituency of Strangford in my major town of Newtownards saw a 30% increase in referrals over December and early January from people who are middle class who are finding it difficult to deal with energy prices.
I know of several young families who usually enjoy a few days away when the kids are off at Christmas, and they told me that they were just not able to do it this year. People may say, “For goodness sake, they can’t go on holiday…” I am not saying that because it is their right to have that break, but I am highlighting the knock-on effect for families of increased prices is that they cannot afford to sow into the local economy in the way they used to. That means the little 20-bed hotel they usually visit does not get their business. The knock-on effect is that they do not hire the cleaner for as many hours. Her income drops, and she cannot spend the way she usually does, so the knock-on effects continue.
We need the people who spend locally to do so, and for them to do that, energy bills need to be manageable. We are failing when it comes to energy provision. If the Bill helps safeguard our provision as we continue to find better ways to source reliable renewable energy, I support that. When the Minister or Secretary of State sums up, if they could give us that reassurance, I would be a whole lot happier about this debate. Of course, we need to explore tidal energy, but safeguarding domestic production can go hand in hand with that. Indeed, it must do so. I am committed to renewables, green energy possibilities and net zero targets because the farming community that I live in want to commit themselves to that as well.
I support our families, our vulnerable, ill and elderly, and those living in cold, damp homes because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Therefore, at this stage, I support the Bill on behalf of all those struggling to heat their homes and keep their families warm. We must commit ourselves to more renewables and ensure that the renewables percentage rises. If it rises, we can reduce gas and petroleum usage. By doing so, we can balance the process. That is what I am hoping for from the Minister’s reply; I hope we can deliver that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to emphasise again, and I will do so when he has finished, how important it is for those who have contributed to the debate to be here for the wind-ups. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have had an excellent and pointed debate this evening. Certainly, Opposition Members have together pointed out the deficiencies in the Bill, pointed out what a specious and potentially damaging Bill it is and, indeed, questioned why the Bill was brought to the House in the first place. All that is what I very much want to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) called this Bill “illogical and damaging” and pointed out that it could put marine protected areas at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) pointed out that it makes us look ridiculous on the world stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) pointed out that the Bill itself was based on a series of lies and, indeed, quoted the UN Secretary-General stating that “the truly dangerous radicals” are the countries that are increasing their oil and gas output.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) pointed out strongly that this Bill, contrary to its claims, is not about energy security. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who reminded us of the real effects of climate change right now, pointed out that the future is largely electric and this Bill is a “great deception”. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) called it stupid, unnecessary and dangerous—she did not mince her words very much. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) laid many of the myths of the Bill to rest and questioned why the Government are pushing it in the first place. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out the “political theatre” behind the Bill and why it is completely incompatible with our climate change commitments.
This really is a reprehensible Bill. It is a Bill based on a number of myths and, frankly, lies, which require people to believe that there are people around really saying that oil and gas is going to be stopped immediately and will not continue to play a substantial role, as it will in the energy economy up to 2050. No one is saying that oil and gas will not continue up to a period of time and no one is saying that the existing fields in the UK will not continue to produce and contribute their products in the future. There will be jobs in that continuing North sea oil operation.
However, this is a one-clause Bill with effectively two sections in it. The first section ostentatiously requires the Oil and Gas Authority to do what it is already doing; indeed, both the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion reminded us that the Oil and Gas Authority has been carrying out regular licensing rounds every 18 months since 2016. It is required to do so because it is bound by the maximum economic extraction requirement. All that is already in legislation and the Oil and Gas Authority is already doing it.
The second section sets out an entirely bogus climate test, which by definition cannot be failed. That is achieved by skewing the test conditions to test UK gas production emissions only against aggregate liquefied natural gas imports, which are overall likely to be dirtier in production than UK gas, and not against pipeline-delivered gas that, in the case of our main importer Norway, is half as dirty in production as gas in the UK.
There is no emissions test for oil, despite its constituting 70% of North sea fossil reserves—80% of which, as we have heard, is shipped and refined overseas. For oil there is a “net importer” test, which requires the OGA to issue licences if the demand for oil and gas products in the UK is greater than the production—when that has been the case in the North sea for 20 years, with no prospect of reversal. It is a Bill built on completely bogus premises.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman is talking about bogus premises, but he just suggested that we could get more pipeline gas from Norway. Does he not recognise that if we do not produce as much gas here, it will not be gas from Norway that we can access but will inevitably be LNG with higher emissions? Will he please, for the benefit of the House, step up and be honest? We do not have the option to get massively more gas from Norway—if we did, we would have done it already.
Dr Whitehead
I think I am going to get injury time for that intervention. If the Minister had been listening to what I was saying, he would know that I was stating that the Bill, in a very bogus way, has deliberately sidestepped the fact that there is gas available for import that is much cleaner than ours in its production. We should use that as a test, but the only test carried out was on LNG which, conveniently, is a little bit dirtier than the gas we produce in this country.
The Bill is about not what it says as much as what it does. As the former Energy Minister and author of the Government net zero report, the former right hon. Member for Kingswood, said recently, the Bill goes against everything the UK is saying internationally about moving away from oil and gas, and it has already damaged our international stance by appearing to double down on precisely the thing to which we are saying the opposite on the world stage. The right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), the former president of Glasgow COP, said in a courageous and precise speech this evening that the Bill puts into legislation something that already happens under the agency of the OGA. He also stated that its sole purpose is to double down on more oil and that nations around the world will not take that very kindly as far as our commitments are concerned.
The OGA itself emphasised that the Bill was “not necessary”, but
“would significantly challenge one of the tenets of independence for the NSTA, to decide when to run a licensing round.”
Whatever the position in the North sea objectively, the OGA would be forced to scrape up at least a licence a year forever. We know the claim that that would somehow do something for energy security is also bogus. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) recently said that
“new oil and gas licences only provide for energy security if all that energy is sold into the UK and, actually, it will be sold on the world market”—
a point that a number of Members have made this afternoon.
The whole Bill appears to have come about as a result of a wheeze, cooked up by a couple of strategy advisers over a heavy lunch, to put the Opposition on the wrong foot—or, to put it another way, on the right side of history. Quite honestly, that wheeze should have been put down as soon as the effects of the heavy lunch wore off, but instead it has persisted through the corridors of power and has finally made it to the Floor of the House in the shape of this risible Bill, the contents of which evaporate on the first examination by anybody of its serious purpose.
That says rather more about the state of the Government than anything else. Where were the quality controls on policy making? How did something so evidently content-free and fact-averse as this piece of legislation ever make it so far? How did the present departmental Government Ministers, for whom I have a great deal of respect, allow it to happen on their watch, when they must know it is a load of hokum with no policy merit at all? Now they are forced to go out and try to justify it to the House. It is a very sad reflection of what a tiny, bitter and sad space the Government have retreated into, where serious policy development in the energy sphere—God knows we have enough of that to be working on—is replaced by such ill-advised emptiness. That is what this Bill is, in the end: just empty. If passed, it will linger on the statute book for a short period, make no difference to anything in the meantime and be rapidly overtaken by the reality of the forward march to decarbonisation in energy.
However, the Bill will have one lasting effect, as I have mentioned, because it signals strongly and, I am afraid, potentially lastingly that the UK is not serious about its climate and net zero ambitions and is prepared to say duplicitous things on both an international and a national stage. That is bad news for all the genuine work that has so far been done by the UK on net zero climate leadership. This Bill will not stick, but that charge might. For that reason, if for no other of the many reasons that have been put forward in this debate, it is best that we take this Bill no further than Second Reading and refuse as a House to let it pass to further stages.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Moray (Douglas Ross), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for their contributions to this interesting debate.
The UK is the global climate leader. It is under this Government that that position has been secured. How is it to be measured? Do we have objective measures? Of course we have. The central challenge is to reduce emissions, and under the Conservatives this country has reduced emissions by more than any major economy on earth. How have we done that? Has it been an accident? No, it has not.
We inherited an absolutely awful situation. We heard from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) about her time in government, and she talked strongly about the work that Labour did on renewables. Well, it did not add up to much under her and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Renewables were less than 7% of our electricity in 2010. Now, that has been transformed. Coal—the dirtiest of fossil fuels—is a further ghastly legacy of the Labour party. We hear so much piety from Labour Members, but what was their performance in government? I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker: it was failure. Nearly 40% of our electricity came from coal as recently as 2012. By October this year, it will be zero.
It is the Conservative Government who have stayed laser-focused on delivering climate leadership, and it is in that light that this legislation comes before the House. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), asked why we have introduced the Bill. The Labour party, the Scottish National party and, of course, the Liberal Democrats say that we must have no new licensing in the North sea, even as our production is expected to halve over the next decade, and despite the fact that if we fulfil our world-leading ambitions for 2030 and 2035, which we will, production of oil and gas in the North sea will fall even faster in the country that is decarbonising more than any other major economy on earth. That is the reality; that is the context for the Bill, which brings in annual licensing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
The Labour party will support oil and gas jobs—just not in this country. Not having new licences here will make no difference whatsoever to our consumption, but it will make a difference to how much we have to import, and our import dependency will go up. Worse than that for those of us who care about the environment, and to put in their place the pieties that we heard from Opposition parties, it will actually lead to imports with higher emissions than production here, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and other Labour Members know, and will worsen our ability to move to net zero in the short term. That is not to mention the 200,000 jobs supported throughout the country, 90,000-plus of which are in the north-east of Scotland and being abandoned by the Scottish National party.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
The measures will make no difference to our consumption and no difference to world consumption because we are net importers. We are not spilling our product on to global markets. Our oil, for instance, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) often mentions, is refined at European refineries. It is then turned into product that we can use here. It contributes directly to European and UK energy security.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
If Members oppose the Bill and allow no new licensing, the impact will be higher emissions, and they will not see the investment that we are seeing in new projects such as Rosebank. What is the carbon footprint of the product from Rosebank? It is expected to be much lower than the average across the North sea and what is expected globally. So, again, not only does closing off licensing mean that we will import more, but it will get in the way of investment into and transformation of our base.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I want to see far less imported LNG. Can the Minister give us some good news on what we might be able to achieve in getting more gas out, and will he ensure that many blocks—not just one—are put up for a licence round to get rid of that LNG?
Graham Stuart
The estimate from the North Sea Transition Authority is that a billion of barrels of oil equivalent, including gas, would be lost if we did not have new licences. That is lost tax revenue for this country, on top of the 200,000 jobs and lower emissions—[Interruption.] So far, I have not mentioned the tens of billions of pounds of tax. [Interruption.] It is not surprising, given how comprehensively easy it is to destroy the Labour party’s arguments, that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North keeps up his constant chuntering. He cannot win the argument while he is on his feet, so he sits there and tries interrupting those who can. If we do not have new licensing, which is Labour’s policy, we will see emissions go up in the short term; 200,000 jobs undermined; tens of billions in tax not brought into the public Exchequer; and—for those who care about dealing with the climate emergency—we will lose the very engineering skills and talent that we need to retain in this country in order to make the transition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart
In the time I have, I will try to respond to a few of the points that have been made by colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney highlighted the commitment of oil and gas companies to net zero. Oil and gas businesses are funding clean energy work. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) picked on one such business, and it turned out that it was investing heavily in our clean energy transition. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray talked about fighting for those 90,000 Scottish workers. I have already mentioned the hon. Member for Llanelli and her rather risible attempt to suggest that Labour had any sort of record on renewables. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central emphasised the importance of oil and gas workers to CCUS, which is absolutely essential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan said that we are reducing production at twice the rate required internationally. That is true, and it is why new licensing in the North sea is fully aligned with net zero; those emissions are part of that. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) talked about oil and gas being essential to deliver renewables, and supported new licensing. I thank him for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland said that what we use is what counts—that is so true. The most important thing is to look at demand: removing and changing vehicles, factories and homes so that they no longer use oil and gas is absolutely central.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford rightly said how important it was that we present this policy correctly. Of course, if only the Labour party was playing a proper and honest part in that, we would be able to champion the tremendous performance of this country in tackling climate change. I really do appreciate the speech that my right hon. Friend made.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about the zero-carbon homes standard, and the importance of improving the insulation and energy efficiency of homes. He is quite right; that is why this Government have gone from the terrible position of just 14% of homes having decent insulation—EPC rating C or above—when we came to power, to above 50% today.
I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about net zero, but he correctly highlighted that we would just be sacrificing well-paid jobs without making any difference to our emissions, apart from putting them up.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been in this House longer than most people, and it is a courtesy to the House in a winding-up speech to give way in an even-handed way. This Minister has given way to a Conservative Member, but he refuses to take any interventions from the Opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It is up to the Minister to decide to whom he gives way. It would be slightly more usual for him to give way to Members who had been in the Chamber throughout the debate. However, it is up to him to decide. And I really do not like points of order in the middle of winding-up speeches.
Graham Stuart
You have given your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is to give way to those who have been in the Chamber for the debate, not to Johnny-come-latelies who come in and want to usurp them.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim also highlighted an excellent point about the hypocrisy and humbug that is absolutely central to Labour’s response to this Bill.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who has hardly been here, would sit down, I will fortunately be able to come to a close.
The amendment put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition suggests that maximising the falling production from the North sea will put us at the greater mercy of petrostates. That is so obviously untrue that I hope they would hold their heads in shame about it. That has been at the heart of the Opposition’s approach to this Bill.
The Bill is designed to send a signal to the industry that we have its back. It is all about ensuring that we get to net zero in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and it will underpin this Government’s continued leadership on climate now and for many years to come. I urge the House to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Well, that was lively. [Laughter.] Now that I have Members’ attention, I want to emphasise how important it is for those who have participated in debates to get back in good time for the winding-ups speeches. When the wind-ups come up early, please just keep an eye out for them and make sure to come back, because people who have participated will be mentioned in the wind-ups and it is courteous to be here to hear them.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could I just make it clear to the House that I was not here for the main debate, but came in for the wind-ups, because I was chairing a committee looking at the future of hydrogen? I apologise to the House that I was delayed. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Nevertheless, it is true that it is up to the Minister to decide to whom he wants to give way.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Tuesday 20th February 2024
(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 February 2024 - (20 Feb 2024)
15:34 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 44 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:49 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Sir Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 12, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1ZA) The OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to new offshore installations other than that required in an emergency.
(1ZB) The Secretary of State must by regulation make such provision so that the OGA is only permitted to invite seaward area production application licences after 2030 once a prohibition is in place on routine flaring and venting for all offshore installations operating in UK waters.
(1ZC) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsections (1ZA) and (1ZB) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(1ZD) In subsection (1ZA) and (1ZB)—
‘flaring’ means the burning of hydrocarbons produced during oil and gas extraction;
‘venting’ means the release of un-combusted hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere.”
This amendment prevents the invitation of new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on flaring and venting by new offshore installations. It also requires the Secretary of State to prevent licensing rounds from 2030 if a wider ban is not in place.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1ZA) The OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a requirement that—
(a) all new seaward area production application licences require a specific field commitment of a net zero carbon footprint reached through developing the Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage network or such other means as deemed appropriate; and
(b) a percentage, to be specified in regulations but not less than 30 per cent, of all new seaward area production application licences specifically align petroleum extraction with the refining of petroleum at the Grangemouth oil refinery.
(1ZB) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsections (1ZA) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Amendment 7, page 1, line 4, leave out “in each relevant year” and insert “on a case-by-case basis”.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the climate test (see section 4ZD)”
This paving amendment, together with amendment 3, sets out the climate test to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the energy and job security test (see section 4ZD)”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 9, introduces a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the just transition test (see section 4ZD)”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 11, introduces a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 13, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the just transition plans test (see section 4ZD)”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 14, introduces a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 17, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the climate change test (see section 4ZD)”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 18, sets out the climate change test to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 22, page 1, line 6, at end insert —
“(aa) the home energy efficiency test (see section 4ZD).”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 24, introduces a home energy efficiency test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward area production licences.
Amendment 23, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the Energy Charter test (see section 4ZD).”
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 25, introduces an Energy Charter test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward area production licences.
Amendment 19, page 2, line 1, after “of” leave out “liquefied”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 20, would require the carbon intensity of domestic natural gas to be assessed against the carbon intensity of all natural gas imported into the UK.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 7, leave out “liquefied”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 19, would require the carbon intensity of domestic natural gas to be assessed against the carbon intensity of all natural gas imported into the UK.
Amendment 21, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(4A) Within six months of the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report on the effect of amending the definition of “carbon intensity” as set out in subsection (4) according to section 93 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report how the carbon intensity test is affected if the definition of carbon intensity were amended to include emissions of gases other than carbon dioxide in line with the carbon dioxide equivalent measure in section 93 of the 2008 Climate Change Act.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The climate test mentioned in s 4ZA
The climate test is met in relation to a relevant year if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that current global fossil infrastructure will not emit more greenhouse gases than is compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Amendment 9, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The energy and job security test mentioned in s 4ZA
The energy and job security test is met in relation to a relevant year if the OGA assesses that new licences will—
(a) lower energy bills for households;
(b) deliver energy security and reduce reliance on imported fuel sources for domestic consumption;
(c) enhance sustained job security for the oil and gas workforce in areas of the UK economically reliant on the oil and gas sector;
(d) guarantee funding for domestic refineries to increase capacity to process sustainable fuel sources; and
(e) help the oil and gas sector meet commitments set out in the North Sea Transition Deal.”
This amendment sets out a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 11, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The just transition test mentioned in s 4ZA
The just transition test is met in relation to a relevant year if the OGA assesses that—
(a) new licences will support the delivery of the North Sea Transition Deal’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 10% by 2025, 25% by 2027 and 50% by 2030 against a 2018 baseline, to meet the sector’s aim of a net zero basin by 2050; and
(b) the Secretary of State has provided funding to support the development of the renewable energy sector, in areas of the UK economically dependent on the oil and gas sector, equivalent to tax revenues collected from UK oil and gas production.”
This amendment sets out a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The just transition plans test mentioned in s 4ZA
(1) The just transition plans test is met in relation to a relevant year if the OGA assesses that all existing seaward area production licence holders have published just transition plans for their workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“just transition plans” refer to plans agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions in the workplace for consultation on policy;
“workforce” includes workers, directly and indirectly (sub-contracted or agency) employed, or engaged through day-rate or self-employed contract models.”
Amendment 18, page 3, line 23, insert—
“4ZD The climate change test mentioned in 4ZA
The climate change test is met in relation to a relevant year if the latest reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the mitigation of climate change find that the granting of additional seaward area production licences is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.”
This amendment sets out a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Amendment 24, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The home energy efficiency test mentioned in s 4ZA
The home energy efficiency test is met if the median rating in current Energy Performance Certificates in the United Kingdom falls within or above Band B.”
This amendment sets out the home energy efficiency test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward area production licences.
Amendment 25, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“4ZD The Energy Charter test mentioned in s 4ZA
The Energy Charter Treaty test is met if the United Kingdom has made arrangements to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty.”
This amendment sets out the Energy Charter test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward area production licences.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 2—Duty to introduce spatial prioritisation policy—
“After section 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998 insert—
‘4ZAA Duty to introduce spatial prioritisation policy
(1) Before the OGA invites applications for seaward area production licences under this Act the Secretary of State must publish a marine spatial prioritisation policy.
(2) The marine spatial prioritisation policy must establish a process for prioritising offshore renewables, marine protection, fishing activities, oil and gas licensing, and the achievement of relevant targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 in any relevant decisions relating to the marine environment made by a body undertaking public functions.
(3) The OGA must comply with the marine spatial prioritisation policy set out in subsection (1) when deciding applications relating to new seaward area production licences.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a marine spatial prioritisation policy, taking into account relevant targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021.
Sir Alok Sharma
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On Second Reading, I said that this Bill was something of a distraction and not necessary on the basis that the North Sea Transition Authority can already grant licences annually or, indeed, whenever it considers it necessary. That will not change with the Bill. I also noted at the time that the two statutory tests in the Bill have been designed in such a way that the computer always says yes to new oil and gas licences, but I also said that I would work with other like-minded colleagues to improve the Bill and bring in further tests that need to be met before any new oil and gas production licences are granted. That is what I and other Members have sought to do.
Amendment 12 seeks to do two things. First, it would stop the invitation of new production application licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on the flaring and venting of methane by new offshore installations. Secondly, it would require the Secretary of State to prevent licensing rounds from 2030 if a wider ban on flaring and venting is not in place. Along with other Members who have signed up to the amendment, I argue that this is an entirely reasonable ask that the Government and all Members should be able to get behind, given that all it modestly seeks to do is put into statute existing guidance on flaring and venting that was issued by the North Sea Transition Authority.
Let me set out the precise wording of the principles that the NSTA expects industry to follow in relation to flaring and venting across all UK continental shelf areas. First,
“flaring and venting and associated emissions should be at the lowest possible levels in the circumstances”.
Secondly, there should be
“zero routine flaring and venting for all by 2030”.
Thirdly,
“all new developments should be planned and developed on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.”
That is a set of NSTA principles with which amendment 12 in entirely consistent.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend explain why it would be better to import liquefied natural gas, with four times the amount of CO2 produced, rather than have our own gas? His regulations would not apply to the foreign-produced gas we import.
Sir Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend makes an important point: LNG has a higher carbon-intensity footprint. But the majority of the gas that we import comes by pipeline from Norway, and the production intensity of Norwegian gas is around half that of the UK’s.
Sir Alok Sharma
If I may, I will continue. In their response last year to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on accelerating the transition from fossil fuels and securing energy supplies, the Government doubled down on the NSTA position. Responding to the EAC recommendation, which called for the banning of flaring from UK installations, the Government noted that they had already signed up to
“make every effort to ensure that routine flaring from existing oil fields ends as soon as possible, and no later than 2030.”
The Government response went on to highlight the NSTA guidance that new developments are approved on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) raised the issue of imported gas. I will just point out to him that, unfortunately, flaring is still a common practice in the UK. By contrast, Norway banned routine flaring in 1971, and the carbon intensity of Norwegian gas production is around half that of UK domestic production.
John Redwood
The marginal gas we would import would come from Qatar or the United States of America. There is not an infinite supply of Norwegian gas, so my right hon. Friend is missing the main point.
Sir Alok Sharma
With respect, I do not think I am missing the main point. The point that the Government are pursuing is to ensure that we have less use of fossil fuels overall and that we expand our renewable capacity, including nuclear, which I know my right hon. Friend supports. That is where we should be going with this strategy. The ban on flaring in Norway is one of the key reasons that Norway has become a leader in the cleaner production of oil and gas, which this Government have clearly indicated that they also want for UK production.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response to amendment 12. I hope he will say that, given that it is consistent with Government policy and guidance, the Government will introduce a similar amendment in the other place. If they choose not to do that, I am pretty sure that a similar amendment will be tabled in the other place anyway, and that it is likely to be supported. I would just humbly observe that if the Government whip against this or any similar amendment, either in this House or in the other place, they will put colleagues in the absurd position of effectively having to vote against existing Government policy. I am really looking forward to listening to what the Minister has to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We are in Committee, so I remind Members that the Chair should be addressed by name or as “Chair” or “Madam Chair”, as Sir Alok Sharma did, and not as “Mr Deputy Speaker” or “Madam Deputy Speaker”.
Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to make it clear that I will be calling those who have amendments down first and I will then move on to others, going from side to side.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I would like to speak to our amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, to comment on other amendments before us today and then to place all this into the context of the Bill as a whole by way of what will effectively be a stand-part contribution. This Bill remains an ill-advised, pointless piece of political posturing—
Dr Whitehead
That was the mild version.
As the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) has informed us, the Bill legislates for something that happens anyway. It will make no difference to bills, according to the Secretary of State. It will make no difference to our energy security, according to the former chair of BP. It will undermine the independence of the North Sea Transition Authority, according to the NSTA’s own board, and it and will reinforce the perception around the world that the UK is rowing back from climate action, according to the former COP President, the right hon. Member for Reading West. We regret that this insubstantial and damaging Bill has proceeded this far, and we will vote against it on Third Reading.
We do not need this one-clause Bill. We need instead a strategy for managing the North sea that supports our energy security, meets our climate commitments and secures the economic and jobs benefits of the transition to a low-carbon economy. We would have liked to debate a new clause setting out a new principal objective for the North Sea Transition Authority that would have put such a strategy into effect. However, because the Bill is so short and tightly drawn around the narrow issue of mandatory licensing rounds, amendments to put a more sensible strategy into place are regrettably not in order. We must therefore take the Bill on its own terms, even if that means treating it with significantly more respect than the drafters have treated this House with in presenting such a trivial and nakedly political proposal.
We have in the Bill at present two tests that should be passed if the Oil and Gas Authority is to proceed with mandatory licence issuance, and we know that the two tests cannot be failed. It is a fact that if properly drafted—we might come to that in a moment—liquefied natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas-intensive in production than UK natural gas and we will always be in a position where gas and oil produced in the UK and in a declining North sea field will not meet our total demand for gas and oil.
I learned in my first year at university—as I think the Minister did, because he did a similar degree to me—that a proposition that cannot be falsified cannot stand as a valid proposition. Here we have two completely non-valid propositions in the Bill. They are bogus and cynically contrived to give the appearance that something has to be achieved before mandatory licencing takes place. At the very least we need a test or tests that can be failed and that produce a proper level of judgment into the advisability of proceeding with such mandatory licences. The best test surely has to be whether such action is compatible with our climate change goals. The Government had previously introduced climate change compatibility tests into production generally. It is strange that these appear nowhere in the Bill.
John Redwood
The shadow Minister has said that getting more of our own gas out of the North sea would help our security of supply and reduce CO2 because it would displace imported LNG, so why does he not support that proposition?
Dr Whitehead
The proposition before us today is for mandatory licence rounds in a declining North sea field, which would make no difference in the long term to the total amount of gas that we get out of the North sea, as everybody knows. It would instead put us firmly on the back foot as far as international climate change discussions are concerned. That is the key issue that we need to address this afternoon.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), is it therefore Labour’s position not to allow any new oil and gas licences in the future, if Labour were to come into power?
Dr Whitehead
It is Labour’s position that we do not wish to see new energy exploration licences issued for the future, but that does not mean that the North sea will not continue in production over a long period of time and provide a substantial amount of oil and gas for our domestic market.
Our first amendments, 17 and 18, would introduce a new test that would safeguard the legally binding commitments that the UK and all other nations made in the Paris agreement and have reaffirmed ever since. Every credible independent analysis—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency, the Climate Change Committee—shows that new exploration licences are not compatible with limiting warming and avoiding the worst of the devastating impact that climate change will have, and is having, around the world and here in the UK.
The test that we have put in amendments 17 and 18 is possible if we have achieved or are achieving our climate change goals internationally. Amendment 18 states:
“The climate change test is met in relation to a relevant year if the latest reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the mitigation of climate change find that the granting of additional seaward area production licences is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.”
No one who is serious about this can take that to mean that existing fields will not continue to produce for years to come—of course they will—but anyone who argues that business as usual and a few new licenses are the route to good, long-term jobs and energy security is frankly peddling a myth.
We must accelerate the transition to new opportunities for North sea workers in the low-carbon economy, including through carbon capture, usage and storage, through hydrogen and through floating offshore wind. We do not believe that tests are the best route to achieving that goal. We need a holistic strategy, but within the framework set out in this Bill, the climate change test we propose is the only way to achieve a policy that is consistent with being a responsible and leading actor on the world stage in the fight against climate change, with managing our existing North sea assets carefully and for the long-term, and with maximising the low-carbon economic potential of the North sea.
The other two amendments I will speak to highlight the extent to which the Bill fails even on the narrow terms it has set out. Amendments 19 and 20 would address the glaring deficiencies in the bogus carbon intensity test set out by the Government. Currently, the test compares UK gas production carbon emissions only against an aggregate of liquefied natural gas production emissions, ignoring pipeline-delivered gas, which makes up most of our imports, as the right hon. Member for Reading West reminded us. This amendment would correct that. As it stands, the test is designed to be impossible to fail, so it is barely worthy of the name. Including only LNG is a serious logical flaw. Before the Minister jumps to his feet, it is not true to say that every marginal unit of imported gas must be LNG. Indeed, we support substantial amounts of natural gas coming into the UK via the pipeline from Norway. The production of that gas is substantially cleaner than that of UK natural gas.
Apart from anything else, the Bill takes no account of the UK’s likely future gas demand profile. Demand for gas will decline as we rapidly decarbonise our power sector and electrify more and more of our economy. Indeed, this decline in demand, not just supply, is at the heart of a successful net zero transition.
Approving new exploration licences for fields that will take years to come online, on the assumption that the alternative must otherwise be LNG, without taking any account of future demand, is absurd. A fairer test would consider gas imports in the round.
David Duguid
I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comment that, overall, 30% of our gas comes from Norway. Yes, that is the majority of our imports, but it is still 30% overall. Nobody in this House has authority over Norway’s future oil and gas prospects, but would he be in favour of the Norwegian Government exploring for new oil and gas to supply to us?
Dr Whitehead
No, in line with the IEA and the IPCC, I am not in favour of new exploration licences. The point is that, in a declining market, Norwegian supply will continue to be very substantial, even if no new exploration licences are granted in Norway.
The figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is almost right —the actual figure is 34%. The United Kingdom supplies 38% of its own gas, with the United States supplying 14%, Qatar supplying 9% and other countries supplying smaller amounts. Norway already occupies a very substantial position in our present gas supplies, and I am sure it will continue to do so.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be useful to remind Conservative Members that, according to the UN production gap report, Governments are already planning for their existing developments to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with keeping global heating to 1.5°C or below? The idea that anyone can have vast new developments is not compatible with keeping below our climate target.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. New licences are an international issue. If we had new exploration licences around the world, we would simply produce far more oil and gas than is compatible with the 1.5° climate target. We should just keep it in the ground.
Finally, amendment 21 would go some way towards correcting another element of the carbon intensity test. As currently drafted—the Minister will want to listen to this bit—the test will not take account of methane emissions, which is a serious flaw. The whole case for comparing UK-based natural gas with LNG is based only on production emissions. The emission of methane at various stages of the production and transportation of LNG is, in aggregate, worse than the emissions of UK-produced and piped natural gas, but they are not carbon dioxide emissions, which is what the Bill says should be measured.
LNG’s potential carbon dioxide emissions upon burning are roughly the same as, or perhaps slightly greater than, the carbon dioxide emissions from UK natural gas. As the right hon. Member for Reading West said, that is elevated by the current UK practice of flaring surplus gas, which can be measured in carbon dioxide emissions.
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over 20-year and 100-year timeframes. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is shorter than the lifetime of CO2, but its impact is far more significant. The Climate Change Act 2008 is quite specific on how this should be measured. Section 93, which the Bill mentions but does not act on, states that
“greenhouse gas emissions…and removals of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere shall be measured or calculated in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.”
Proposed new section 4ZB(1) of the Petroleum Act 1998 mentions the carbon intensity of natural gas, but proposed new subsection (3) defines “carbon intensity” as
“the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to its production”.
But carbon dioxide emissions in production are not the principal concern here, as the gas has not been burned at that point. Indeed, I can conceive of smart climate lawyers challenging the test’s validity on precisely that point. The Minister might therefore see amendment 21 as providing a vital lifeline to the integrity of his Bill. To that extent, the amendment might be seen as helpful, but I somehow doubt that he will take it up. To coin a phrase, “It’s the methane, stupid.” The Bill should say so.
Proposed new section 4ZB(4) already gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the carbon intensity test to include emissions other than carbon dioxide. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will shortly take that up to save the test. We can anticipate a fairly amusing statutory instrument debate when he tries to do that.
Amendment 21 would simply require the Government to produce a report analysing what the impact of that change will be. In the spirit of trying to improve a Bill that, by design, is fairly resistant to improvement, we welcome the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Reading West and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).
The Climate Change Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have called for a ban on routine flaring and venting, and such a ban is long overdue. A marine spatial prioritisation policy would help to organise and plan an optimal long-term, low-carbon economic strategy for the North sea.
There is clearly significant strength of feeling across the Committee that this is an inadequate Bill, and some of the proposed tests could undoubtedly make a bad Bill a little better, although some of those tests have internal problems. We would not want to vote against those tests, but the only comprehensive climate change and net zero compatible test is the one that we and, in principle, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have set out. It is the best available route, within a severely constrained process, to align this deeply flawed Bill with our essential energy security and climate change priorities.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 2 on spatial prioritisation. The competing pressures on sea space mean there is essentially a spatial squeeze. I fully understand the Bill’s importance, as we all know that the oil and gas industry will have a key role as the UK transitions towards cleaner energy. The Bill will provide reassurance to the industry.
I am grateful that the Government have stated that each annual licensing round will take place only if key emissions tests are met, to support the transition to net zero. I thank the Minister and his team for their ongoing engagement on this issue but, as we seek to turn to renewables and clean energy, we need to ensure that we have the space and infrastructure to carry this forward, otherwise the energy transition will never come to fruition.
I brought up this issue directly with the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as my concerns extend beyond just oil and gas. I am also concerned about how floating offshore wind and fishing can cohabit the same ocean space, and I am also concerned about marine protected areas. There is clearly a balance to strike.
It was good to hear the Fisheries Minister’s response about cross-departmental work to ensure that our fishermen have a future in the light of our need to expand our renewable energy sources, but there is an opportunity in this Bill to ensure that we do not repeat these conversations as other energy sources compete for space in the precious waters around our coast. This will help not only the UK’s energy security but our push towards renewable energy, which will support our fishing fleets and retain a simultaneous focus on biodiversity and improving the condition of marine protected areas.
As a coastal MP, all these points are especially important to me. Being an eternal optimist, I think we can do all these things simultaneously if we can plan strategically where we have the opportunity.
David Duguid
My hon. Friend is making some very good points, particularly on the spatial squeeze. She says that this is not a choice between one thing and another. Opposition Members tend to see this debate as black and white, and that we have to go in either one direction or the other. Does she agree that, whether from the perspective of fishing, offshore wind or offshore oil and gas, it is very important that we come together so that everyone has a say?
Selaine Saxby
As always, I agree with the points my hon. Friend makes. Prioritising space is critical, as the Government have committed to delivering 50GW of offshore wind, which this represents approximately £93.3 billion-worth of investment and requires nearly 8,500 sq km of new marine space. I need to declare an interest, as the chair of the all-party group on the Celtic sea. As such, my particular concern is about the deployment of floating offshore wind, as it will open up areas such as the Celtic sea so that we can generate energy no matter which way the wind blows. As it can be deployed in waters deeper than 60 metres, that technology opens up 80% of our offshore wind resources.
The Celtic sea is an environment where strategic planning at this early point in the development of FLOW—not just for spatial prioritisation on the seabed but for clear planning of cable routes to optimise how power transitions to the grid—minimises blue carbon disruption from our ocean floors and onshore environmental damage from multiple plug-in points. Indeed, given the long-term commitment to energy generation in the Celtic sea, as well as the North sea, the chance to plan strategically and include all future leases within a national framework comes now. More renewable energy and greater energy efficiency contribute more to energy security than new oil and gas. This integrated spatial planning will require new licences to ensure that enough sea space is allocated for nature recovery and climate change mitigation. Otherwise, there is a risk that industrial activities could crowd out those important environmental purposes, which, with the right strategic planning early enough in the evolution of these vital new technologies, can coexist alongside those that are now waning.
Currently, the Bill has no provisions to require spatial prioritisation testing of the geographical blocks that become available for oil and gas search and production. That means that the North Sea Transition Authority will be able to grant new licences in areas of the sea where the cumulative impact of activities is incompatible with the achievement of Government targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend accept that in several cases potentially useful oil and gas deposits in the North sea are adjacent to existing pipes and existing development production platforms, so one great advantage would be that the infrastructure is already in place and it has spare capacity because of the decline of traditional fields? That would be far less intrusive, would it not?
Selaine Saxby
My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, for me, this is about opening up that conversation and making sure that these things are considered in the round. If we are going to put an extra pipe in, we should consider what we are offsetting somewhere else.
Polling found that 80% of the UK public believe our ocean protection laws must be strengthened, and I know how important our waters are to the residents of North Devon and the wider UK. We must ensure that we do all we can on this, while understanding the vital role that oil and gas plays and will play in our energy security. Spatial prioritisation is important to ensure that continuing to drive forward our new green energies is not done at the expense of our traditional industries, such as fishing, and gives due consideration to the marine environment, which we on land owe so much to and are still finding out more about. Balance and optimisation are the objective of this amendment, and I hope the Minister will consider this opportunity, so that we really can have it all and decarbonise our energy, improve our biodiversity, support our fishermen and improve our energy security.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesman.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I rise to speak to amendments 7, 8 and 10, which have been tabled by the SNP. I note that no substantive changes have been made to the Bill’s provisions since we discussed it some weeks ago in this place; it is no more responsive to the needs of the climate, the energy sector in Scotland or bill payers who are haemorrhaging money on their energy bills. We know, from the appropriation of Scotland’s energy wealth by Thatcher in the 1980s, Cameron’s “Cut the green crap” at the beginning of this Conservative regime, and the weak-minded and politically naive rolling back of the green transition measures by the current Prime Minister, that time and time again, the Tories will never look after ordinary workers, Scotland or the environment.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent start to his speech. Does he agree that it is outrageous that the Prime Minister has masqueraded this legislation as a way of reducing energy bills for consumers, given that even the Secretary of State could not defend those claims? Does he also agree that this Government’s only intention is to unlock as much tax revenue from the North sea oil and gas sector as possible and that no consideration has been given to reducing domestic energy bills, to energy security or to reaching our climate commitments?
Dave Doogan
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. She touches on some of the key elements that I will address in this speech.
In order to salvage some semblance of responsibility and/or equity from this Bill, I urge Members to support the SNP’s amendments. They seek to amend the provisions to facilitate licence issuance on a case-by-case basis, rather than it being done annually and by prescription. That is a reasonable improvement to the Bill by any measure. We would also like to incorporate a real test for new issuance that would require the North Sea Transition Authority to assess whether new licences will: lower energy bills for bill payers; deliver energy security and reduce reliance on imported fuel sources for domestic consumption; enhance sustained job security for the oil and gas workforce in areas of the UK that are economically reliant on the oil and gas sector; guarantee funding for domestic refineries to increase capacity to process sustainable fuel sources; and stimulate the North sea oil and gas sector to meet commitments set out in the North sea transition deal.
The SNP also wishes to ensure that, henceforth, 100% of tax revenues from oil and gas are invested in the just transition. A “just transition” test would have to be met for any given relevant year, under which the NSTA would issue new licences only if it assesses that: they will support the delivery of the North sea transition deal’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of 10% by 2025, 25% by 2027 and 50% by 2030 against a 2018 baseline, in order to meet the sector’s aim of a net zero basin by 2050; and the Secretary of State has provided funding to support the development of the renewable energy sector in areas of the UK that are economically dependent on the oil and gas sector, equivalent to tax revenues collected from UK oil and gas production. That amendment means that new licences cannot be issued unless it can be shown that the licence will meet the North sea transition deal’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and unless the UK Government are funding the renewables sector in oil and gas dependent areas to at least the value of oil and gas revenues.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking about conditions for granting new licences, but the SNP’s draft energy strategy includes a presumption against any new licences—is that his position? Is the SNP’s position that there should be no new licences for oil and gas exploration?
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. It is lovely to see him in his place; we know that he is a busy man with his other two jobs. I am sure that Hansard will correct me if my memory does not serve me correctly, but I believe that we rehearsed this issue on Second Reading. Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman, who I am certain is an ardent Unionist, that the position of the devolved Government, and whoever they are, is irrelevant in debating what we do with oil and gas licences in the UK because, sadly, Scotland’s oil and gas endowment, as he well knows—he makes excuses for this regularly—is controlled remotely by a dysfunctional UK Government, whoever they are. So the point is moot.
Douglas Ross
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene, just to provide clarity?
Dave Doogan
No, I will not.
The last SNP amendment will prevent this Government and the soon-to-be-installed Labour Government from simply using Scotland’s North sea oil and gas revenues to fund tax cuts in the UK, a state that is demonstrably not paying its way in the world. Both Labour and Tory —two cheeks of the same face, where Scotland is concerned —will sacrifice Scotland’s economic, industrial and material welfare, and those working in the energy sector, if it will win them a few more seats in this place. They have done it before and they will do it again while we remain in this broken and discredited Union. The prosperity that comes from oil and gas in Scotland is finite.
David Duguid
I was not sure if the hon. Gentleman had moved on from his glowing appraisal of the North sea transition deal, but can I take it from his reference to that deal that the SNP’s position is to support and welcome it in its entirety?
Dave Doogan
I am not going to meet the hon. Gentleman’s ambition to nail those colours to the mast, but I will tell him that through the Bill, the UK Government are turning a blind eye to the implications of a free-for-all when it comes to emissions and who benefits from revenue receipts. I am sorry if he finds that difficult, but he will to have to deal with it.
The prosperity that comes from oil and gas in Scotland is finite, as we know all too well. We have seen what deindustrialisation with no transition plan looks like—we witnessed it at first hand in the 1980s, when coal, steel and heavy industries were all torn asunder on the altar of monetarism and share prices in the City of London. That is set to happen again for oil and gas, under Thatcher’s willing disciples, the Leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister. We cannot allow that to happen again. It is therefore essential that north-east Scotland and other areas reliant on oil and gas are afforded the investment required. That is what our amendment speaks to; it is about creating new jobs and transitioning in a managed, strategic fashion to accelerate our post-carbon future.
Dave Doogan
No.
That is a just ambition for a just transition. The billions of pounds still to be yielded from oil and gas revenue must not be wasted on doomed capital infrastructure projects, such as HS2, or used to fund exorbitant false economies, such as nuclear power stations in England. It is a moral and economic imperative that revenue be used to accelerate a genuine just transition, to protect jobs.
Douglas Ross
In response to my previous intervention, the hon. Gentleman said that the Scottish National party position on this issue was “irrelevant”, but of course it is not; it is vitally important. The SNP’s draft energy strategy says there is a presumption against new exploration for oil and gas. Does he support that?
Dave Doogan
That question speaks to a mis-representation. There is no point in giving way to the hon. Gentleman if he is going to misrepresent me in that way. What I actually said was that it does not matter who is in government in a devolved Assembly where energy policy is decided by remote control from a dysfunctional Westminster Government. That is the beginning and the end of it. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, then he is welcome to join the SNP—well, perhaps not.
We know the facts on the ground: the oil and gas sector is in decline because of finite reserves, and because it is to be considered an industry with a limited future, whereas the green transition has an unlimited future. Jobs have already decreased in the sector. Government Members are giving the impression that with unlimited licensing there will be unlimited jobs, but that is not the case. Jobs have decreased by 228,000 since 2013, despite 400 new drilling licences in five separate auction rounds. Production of gas in the North sea has already fallen by two thirds since 2000 and will fall a further 95% with new licences, as opposed to 97% without.
The issuance of new licences in and of itself will not shift the dial, especially if the revenues from Scottish oil and gas continue to disappear into the black hole that is the Treasury. What is needed is a wholesale redistribution of fiscal receipts from Scottish oil and gas to the renewable transition, ringfenced and guaranteed by statute. In Scotland, we are apt to wonder what we got for the £300 billion in tax receipts from Scotland’s oil—a question now being mirrored for our renewable endowment.
I note that Members on the Government Benches have desisted from repeating the nonsense that energy bills will be lowered if we grant unlimited licences—and not before time. What will lower bills is ensuring that the renewable energy we generate can find its way to consumers without needing to be turned off because the grid cannot cope after 14 years of non-investment by the Tories. New grid infrastructure will lower bills by dialling gas out of the system. Government Members talk about the relentless need for more and more gas, as if that does not speak to a flaky ambition on a just transition; it exposes it and lays it bare. We will dial gas out of the system by having a network that can connect Scotland’s renewable energy to the market where that is required, and we will do so with proper investment in sub-sea lines, rather than by scarring Scotland with 80-metre pylons. It is a pity that the UK Government would not invest the billions that they are ploughing into nuclear into environmentally optimal grid improvements, instead of defaulting to pylons and overhead lines.
The Bill is part of an ill-fated Tory miscalculation on making a just transition a wedge issue. We know that, because the Bill is a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem. Some 27 new licences were granted in 2023, and a licensing round has been held by the North Sea Transition Authority every year and a half since 2016. If the Bill is the answer, then I am not certain what the question is. It undermines the independence of the NSTA by forcing it to hold new oil licensing rounds every year, whereas currently the NSTA undertakes licensing rounds when it deems that they are required. It is a challenge so unwelcome that the NSTA board unanimously agreed that this legislation and the annual licensing rounds were unnecessary. This is what happens when the energy sector, so vital to a broad-based, developed economy like Scotland’s, is subject to remote control.
Renewables already account for the equivalent of 113% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption, yet we still pay sky-high energy bills because of the amount of gas required for generation in England, due in no small part to the Tories small-minded hysteria surrounding onshore wind, and their 10-year-old ban on development of onshore. Investing further in the green hydrogen sector in Scotland could support up to 300,000 jobs—it is a pity that Members on the Government Benches will not focus on that opportunity—and it would add up to £25 billion to Scotland’s gross value added by 2045. Further development of our renewable sector represents an extraordinary export opportunity for Scotland—one that we must grab much more, instead of looking back; we should look to the enterprises of the future.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the sky-high energy prices that people in Scotland face, even though Scotland generates so much energy. What role does he think zonal and modal energy market modelling, rather than a one-size-fits-all, UK-wide approach, would play in substantially reducing energy costs in the likes of Sutherland in Scotland, and also in England, in places like Surrey? Everybody would be a winner if we moved away from the UK-wide model and towards the zonal and modal method.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. There has been a lack of investment, and the network that delivers energy around GB was designed for a small number of very large generators. It is ill-equipped to deal with many smaller systems of generation. That is why we find ourselves switching off wind turbines and, where the demand still exits, replacing them with gas, much to all our constituents’ cost and misery. The failure to transition in the electricity distribution network across GB is exactly the same failure we see in our dependency and desire to keep looking backwards. We should transition from hydrocarbons to renewables in a way that respects communities.
In closing, we should grasp Scotland’s bright future with both hands. In so doing, we will rid ourselves of the mismanagement of successive UK Governments in Westminster.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in some of those who may not have tabled amendments, I remind Members that we are at Committee stage, so discussion is of the amendments. However, as we are also discussing clauses 1 and 2 stand part, there is perhaps a little more scope.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Bill is of particular interest to me because the oil and gas industry has played a significant role as a major employer in the Waveney and Lowestoft area for nearly 60 years. Moreover, the offshore wind industry and other low-carbon energy technologies, such as nuclear and hydrogen, will provide exciting local job-creating opportunities for generations to come. Dame Rosie, I also chair the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group.
David Duguid
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the NSTA in the facilitation and delivery of the North sea transition deal, which, as he said, was negotiated between industry and the UK Government. Does he agree that what he is advocating is precisely the purpose of the North sea transition deal—to facilitate the delivery of energy transition to net zero?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend is quite right: the North sea transition deal is the foundation stone on which we should be building, involving industry, involving the NSTA and giving industry the confidence to make the significant investment that we need.
The North sea transition deal includes the target to cut greenhouse gases and emissions by 10% by 2025 and by 25% by 2027. The NSTA wants to halve emissions by 2030. It is also committed to all new developments having no routine flaring and venting, with zero routine flaring across all North sea platforms, whether new or existing, by 2030 at the latest. Good progress is being made. Although figures are not yet available for 2023, emissions were reduced by 23% between 2018 and 2022, while flaring has been reduced by 50% over the same period. In addition to tracking, monitoring and reporting performance, the NSTA closely scrutinises operators’ applications for flaring consents, pushes back against requests to increase flaring, and has ordered operators to restrict production to stay within agreed limits. It has, where necessary, issued fines for breaches.
On marine spatial planning, the NSTA follows a precautionary approach and is acutely aware of the need for co-ordination and collaboration in what are increasingly crowded and sometimes very sensitive and precious waters. It is thus working closely with such organisations as the Crown Estate and the Marine Management Organisation in delivering the marine spatial prioritisation programme of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In conclusion, the Bill and the amendments raise very important matters, but to tackle them properly, we need to adopt a long-term approach that transcends the four-to-five-year political cycle and that fully involves business.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to support amendments 17 and 19, and to speak to my amendments 22 and 24 on energy efficiency tests and amendments 23 and 25 on the energy charter treaty.
Let me start with amendment 25. At the moment, the energy charter treaty, of which we are a member, is a failed international treaty. It binds us to any contract that we sign for oil, gas or any energy. Once it is signed, we cannot get out of it without paying the hope value of that contract. What I mean by the hope value is that a member does not pay the actual material value if it wants to stop that contract now; it has to pay all the potential value of that contract if the oilfield, for example, were fully exploited.
The treaty has cost other European countries billions and billions of pounds when they have tried to implement climate mitigation policies. It is dangerous, because the decisions are made not by British courts or by international courts with a British judge, but by secretive tribunals where the corporations get to appoint the people who make the deliberations. It is so outrageous that European Union members have agreed to withdraw en masse—they are currently negotiating on how to do so in a co-ordinated way—and to do side letters with each other to ensure they are not bound by the 25-year clause under which any extant licences that have been signed must continue to be honoured, even after withdrawal.
The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)
What has that got to do with this?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Because if we sign more licences while we are still part of the energy charter treaty, the Minister is binding the hands of future generations. If we withdrew from the energy charter treaty, as our allies and partners are trying to do, and then decided to award new licences, future Governments and generations could, without penalty, withdraw or reduce those licences. That very much relates to the Bill, because I am saying: “If you want to do this for short-term gain”—I do not believe the Government’s premise to start with—“at least allow future generations and Governments to come and fix your mess; do not bind their hands under international treaties.” I think that that is relevant to the awarding of new licences.
The fact that so many countries are fleeing the energy charter treaty means that this is the moment to negotiate with our partners to work out a new way forward. The British Government themselves accept that the energy charter treaty has failed. They have tried to make significant amendments to it to allow flexibility on climate change goals. It has not been possible to amend it, which is why European partners are trying to withdraw. This test would do two things. Not only would it avoid binding future generations, but it would put a rocket up the derrière of our Ministers and Departments to ensure that they fulfil the pledge of reform or withdrawal, which is a pledge that we have already made.
Let me address amendments 22 and 24 on the energy efficiency test for home heating. In reality, the biggest proportion of domestic energy is spent on home heating. Huge domestic bills will not be solved one iota by the Bill, as the Minister has admitted, because the product will be sold on the international market and the marginal price at which we buy it back will still be inflated. Our electricity market, which is linked to that marginal price, will continue to be inflated. The best and most efficient way to reduce energy bills and the demand and need for gas—the way that we all know needs to happen—is to ensure that our homes meet decent energy efficiency standards.
The amendments set out that the Government need to redouble their efforts to ensure energy efficiency before we commit to and invest in new licences for offshore drilling, and that we need a median rating of band B in energy performance. At the moment, C is seen as standard and D is common in private rentals. Privately let homes are the worst in the sector, and greater help is needed. We cannot continue to rely on Government programmes that do not touch the sides. We need a proper approach in which we go street by street with councils and local government, fully funded by central Government, with clawbacks in future years.
However, we cannot expect our citizens to pay a penny out of their pockets up front. Homeowners are already overstretched, with huge additional bills, in a mortgage market that has been destroyed by the Government. They cannot afford an extra cent, an extra penny, for home improvements. That all needs to be covered by the Government. My amendments would incentivise the Government to do that and to ensure that we have made every effort to reduce gas demand before we go ahead with the foolish endeavour of drilling more oil and gas, which will not reduce prices, will not stop fuel poverty in this country and will not deal with any of our long-lasting problems. It would be a sticking plaster that does not even stick.
I worked with the Opposition Front Benchers on amendment 17, which sets out the climate change test, so I am delighted that they have tabled it. A similar amendment has been tabled by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It is important to say that we cannot meet our climate targets if we do not honour and respect the IPCC’s work and reports. We are on a hiding to nothing if we think that we can keep drilling and extracting more while meeting our energy targets.
David Duguid
I rise to speak in support of the Bill and of all the employees of companies right across the country, including in my Banff and Buchan constituency, that will play a critical and successful role in the UK’s ongoing energy transition to net zero by 2050.
I remind the Committee that, for 25 years prior to being elected in 2017, I worked in the energy sector—in the oil and gas sector specifically—in a wide range of roles for several different companies and in various places around the world. I also declare that I have a close family member with a financial interest in one of those companies, which is below the threshold required for registering interests. I can also assure the Committee that that financial interest has never had, and will never have, any bearing on my contributions in this or any other debate.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the potential for increased confidence and certainty that the Bill brings to the energy industry. For many people watching, including a few hon. and right hon. Members in this place, there would appear to be a perfectly polarised distinction between maximising oil and gas on one hand and promoting renewables on the other. The truth exists on a continuum between those two extremes, however. We have in fact been on a transition away from the most polluting of fossil fuels towards cleaner, lower-carbon, renewable sources of energy for a number of decades now. That transition is happening at various rates in different parts of the world, but it is fair to say that the United Kingdom is at the forefront, as the first major economy not only to legislate for net zero but to set the most stringent decarbonisation targets.
The Conservative Government have presided over the UK’s becoming the first major economy to have reduced carbon emissions by 50% from 1990 levels. That compares to only 7% that had been achieved by the time the Conservatives came to power in 2010. We have effectively transitioned away completely from coal power, and continue to reduce our demand for oil and gas and increase our renewable and low-carbon capacity, but not as fast as our domestic supplies will continue to decline, even with new production.
A critical point that needs to be reinforced in considering this legislation is that new oil and gas does not mean more oil and gas—a mistake that I heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). Even with new production, the North Sea Transition Authority predicts that UK oil and gas production will decline, not by the 3% to 4% suggested by the International Energy Authority to stay within the global 1.5°C target, but by twice that rate of decline, at around 7%. We are today 75% dependent on oil and gas for our energy needs, and not just for electricity generation, but for heat and transportation as well. Of that 75%, about 50% is produced domestically with the rest having to be imported.
The arguments for producing our own oil and gas closer to home have been well rehearsed. There is the obvious benefit of having that source of energy under our control, not that of other states and countries that are not always friendly. We have also heard how liquefying natural gas for transportation and shipping that LNG halfway around the world to then be de-liquefied back into gas when it arrives in the UK can produce up to four times the carbon emissions of domestically produced gas. We know from the Climate Change Committee that we are likely still to be up to 25% dependent on oil and gas by 2050. It therefore follows that carbon capture, utilisation and storage will be required for the UK to reach net zero by 2050. That includes, of course, the Acorn CCS and hydrogen project at St Fergus in my constituency, and in particular the role it will play in decarbonising gas-fired power generation at Peterhead.
What will also be required to get to net zero are precisely those skills, technologies and supply chains that currently exist and will, no doubt, continue to be developed within the oil and gas industry. However, those critical elements would sadly no longer be available to us if we shut down our domestic oil and gas industry prematurely, which is what would happen if the Opposition parties had their way, whether it is the SNP’s “presumption of no new exploration” for oil and gas—a direct quote of the SNP’s draft energy strategy—or Labour’s “just stop oil” approach.
I am seeing some nods of agreement from across the Floor, but there has recently been something of a war of words between the two main parties—I am referring to Labour and the SNP—in Scotland following Labour’s screeching U-turn on its £28 billion a year green investment plan. Of course, we on the Conservative Benches always saw that plan as undeliverable without massive tax increases. Labour announced that it would not only increase the energy profits levy and make it last longer, but remove the investment allowance.
David Duguid
Before I give way, I will gently point out to Opposition Front Benchers—I am not sure whether they are aware of this—that the 78% tax rate they are so keen to copy from Norway comes with an equivalent 78% investment allowance in that country. Labour’s plans would remove the investment allowance, putting future investment across the energy sector even further at risk.
Of course, as we heard earlier, Labour still maintains its position of banning all new oil and gas licences, which has inevitably led to an outcry from the sector in recent weeks. Among others, Offshore Energies UK’s chief executive David Whitehouse has said:
“We remain deeply concerned about what Labour’s proposals could do to our people. If we can’t get companies to invest here, there are no jobs. It’s that simple.”
He went on to describe Labour’s proposals as
“a hammer blow to the energy we need today and to the homegrown transition to cleaner energies that everyone in the UK wants to see.”
That is the key point, which often goes over the heads of so many on the Opposition Benches: the skills and technologies to deliver net zero are not going to appear magically over the horizon, and the talent and expertise in what would become a defunct oil and gas industry will not automatically and immediately transfer across to the renewables sector. More likely, companies and their employees who will find themselves squeezed out of oil and gas in the UK will simply move overseas to deliver someone else’s energy security and someone else’s energy transition—and, no doubt, deliver oil and gas that we would end up having to import.
Of course, the SNP has come out of the woodwork to jump on the bandwagon, criticising Labour’s approach while completely contradicting its previous stance and—more than likely—that of its Scottish Green coalition partners in Holyrood. SNP leader Humza Yousaf said last September that he did not want Scotland to be Europe’s oil and gas capital, presumably wishing to pass that mantle to our North sea neighbours in Norway. A little over a year ago in its draft energy strategy, the SNP stated—I quote again—that there should be a “presumption” against new exploration for oil and gas. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) is still looking to intervene, but I wonder whether he would take this opportunity to answer that question.
Dave Doogan
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention, even though it was about five minutes ago on a different subject. He made a really interesting point in his speech: that new licences do not mean more oil and gas. Conversely, having a more circumspect and rational approach to licence issuance—taking it out of the political arena and putting it into the bureaucratic space—does not mean less oil and gas. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that if that is true for one, it is true for the other. Does he not agree with my position, and that of my party, that as the oil and gas industry continues on its journey to its natural conclusion of a much reduced industry, for whatever reason—the transition to renewables, or depleted resources—it is much more important, and in fact elegant, to make sure that those tax receipts are invested in the energy of the future, not squandered by His Majesty’s Treasury?
David Duguid
I find myself looking for a point that I might agree with in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and sadly failing. However, his point about the decline of oil and gas in the UK has been made time and time again. Ever since 2004 we have been a net importer of oil and gas, so my point about new oil and gas not being more oil and gas is about managing that decline to make up for the fact that we are not replacing that oil and gas generation with renewables as fast as we would like. I will address that point in more detail in a moment.
Those comments from the SNP leader just go to show the staggering hypocrisy and inconsistency of the SNP, but neither the industry nor the electorate are so easily fooled, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. If asked whether they support new oil and gas licences, as we have seen today, some SNP Members—and, I dare say, some Labour Members as well—may find it difficult to commit to a position, particularly when facing their constituents in the north-east of Scotland. However, this Conservative Government and, in particular, the Scottish Conservatives have maintained consistent support for the oil and gas industry—the companies, and the tens of thousands employed from right across the UK. We recognise, as this Bill does, the potential for the people in this industry not just to keep our lights on and keep the economy moving in the near term, but to lead the world in showing how a successful energy transition from oil and gas to renewables can be done. Sadly, as has been confirmed a couple of times today, all His Majesty’s Opposition seem able to offer is to lead the world in virtue signalling.
Caroline Lucas
In following the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), I have to say that his speech was one of startling complacency, which still seems to be based on the misunderstanding that just because we exploit oil and gas in the North sea, that somehow means that it is ours—that it gets used here, rather than being sold on global markets at international prices. So many of us have said that so many times in this Chamber, but it still does not seem to have penetrated.
I rise to speak in support of my amendments that have been selected for debate: amendments 2, 3, 13 and 14. Before I begin in earnest, I want to emphasise that seeking to amend this sham of a Bill in no way legitimises what is nothing more than a political stunt. It is not a serious piece of legislation; rather, it is a desperate and dangerous attempt to create yet another culture war. It will make no practical difference at all, given that there have been annual licensing rounds for most of the past decade, with even the board of the North Sea Transition Authority expressing the unanimous view that this legislation is not needed. The amendments I have tabled are designed to expose the falsehoods that have been told by the Government in attempting to justify new fossil fuel extraction in the midst of a climate emergency. The first is that new oil and gas licences can in any way be compatible with delivering our climate targets, and the second is that propping up oil and gas can possibly be in the interests of workers, rather than genuinely engaging with the need for a just transition and the practicalities of how it is delivered.
I will first address my amendments 2 and 3. Taken together, those amendments would insert a new climate test into the Bill alongside the Government’s carbon intensity test and the net importer test, which as we know are not so much robust assessments as they are free passes to pollute. The climate test is very simple: it would be met in a given year only if the IPCC finds that current global fossil fuel infrastructure will not emit more greenhouse gas emissions than is compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°. According to the climate Minister, the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), that critical threshold is supposedly the Government’s “north star”—a threshold that, as we all know, was passed for the first time across the entirety of last year. I therefore hope that the Minister will support my amendments, which would ensure that proposed licensing rounds do not undermine global efforts to secure a safe and liveable planet for the future and keep that north star shining.
Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, the UN production gap report has warned that Governments already plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5°. If we look at what the IPCC itself has said, its sixth assessment report was clear:
“Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C”.
Closer to home, the Climate Change Committee observed in its latest progress report:
“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero.”
Regardless of the claims from Conservative Members that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas up to 2050, this, and I again use the words of the Climate Change Committee,
“does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields.”
Indeed, last month its interim chair, Professor Piers Forster, was forced to correct the Chancellor on this front, reiterating:
“UK oil and gas consumption needs to fall by over 80% to meet UK targets.”
David Duguid
I am very familiar with the report the hon. Member has just quoted. Does she recognise that what Offshore Energies UK is referring to—the Goldilocks zone, as I have heard it described—is the point at which we need to make maximum benefit of the skills, supply chains and technologies that currently exist in the oil and gas industry, so that we can make the best use of those skills to deliver net zero?
Caroline Lucas
The best way to make use of those skills is by making sure that we put resources behind those workers so that they can make the transition, which so many of them want to do, into renewables. Right now, those workers are actually having to pay to make that transition themselves. They have to pay for the training. [Interruption.] They do. I tabled an amendment to a previous piece of legislation on education and training to try to make it much less onerous for oil and gas workers to shift into, say, the renewables sector. We need to have those plans, and we need the resources behind them to make that a lot easier than it is today.
The result and the reality is that the number of jobs in the oil and gas sector has already dropped by more than half over the past decade, despite hundreds of drilling licences being issued. The just transition plans test would be met in a year if the Oil and Gas Authority assessed that all existing seaward area production licence holders have published just transition plans for their workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°. Amendment 14 specifies that those plans must be agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions, and that they apply to all workers whether they are directly or indirectly employed—or, self employed, which is vital with the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce.
Indeed, a report in 2020 revealed a high level of concern about job security and working conditions in the oil and gas industry, and that 80% of surveyed workers would consider moving to a job outside that particular sector. Furthermore, given the opportunity to retrain to work elsewhere in the energy sector, more than half would be interested in renewables and offshore wind. Workers are ready to lead a just transition, yet a more recent report has revealed that
“companies are increasingly announcing net zero targets—but there is no example in the UK oil and gas sector of worker involvement in decision-making on decarbonisation.”
That must change.
This amendment would be a step towards delivering a just transition that would see workers at the centre of transition planning, with a clear and accessible pathway out of high-carbon jobs. Rather than propping up jobs that we know are not going to exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sector now, while also addressing their very real concerns, such as the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves, or the inferior employment protections offshore, which can lead to wage under-cutting. There are even some cases of seafarers working in the offshore wind sector being paid below the minimum wage. That is a scandal, and the Government should urgently establish a wage floor to apply to all offshore energy workers, regardless of nationality, who are carrying out any work on the UK continental shelf. The failure to deliver a just transition is not an inevitability, but a political choice. If the Government are serious about listening to workers and protecting jobs, they should have no problem supporting this amendment, which puts job security at the heart of the transition.
I note that the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) has tabled amendments 10 and 11 on a just transition, but I have to say that I do have two serious concerns. First, according to the drafting of amendment 11, the SNP test will be met
“if the OGA assesses that…new licences will support the delivery of the North Sea Transition Deal’s…emission reduction targets”.
Yet, as we know, the 50% reduction by 2030 which is in the NSTD proposal, against a 2018 baseline, is far weaker than the 68% reduction recommended by the Climate Change Committee, which it says is achievable. It is also important to note that this only includes scope 1 and 2 emissions, so it fails to take account of emissions produced when oil and gas is burned. Secondly, there is no provision to consult workers as part of this test. Therefore, given that it would fail to deliver a worker-led transition and it also exceeds the advice of the CCC, I sadly cannot vote for that.
Before concluding, I offer my support to a number of other amendments. First, I support amendment 12, on banning flaring and venting, tabled by the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma). As others have mentioned, Norway banned routine flaring back in 1971, giving the lie to the Government’s claim that UK gas has lower emissions.
Secondly, I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to amend the carbon intensity test and to include all gas, not just LNG. Given that we import most of our gas through a pipeline, it is utterly ridiculous to compare UK production with LNG that is vastly more polluting.
Barry Gardiner
There has been much debate today about the alternative of LNG from Qatar, but there has been a failure to take into account whether our being more dependent on LNG from Qatar would in any way change what Qatar does about its own production. It has been recorded that Qatar will increase its production by 67% by 2027, which means that that energy will be produced and will have certain emissions. At the end of the process, we might have produced something with fewer carbon emissions, but it would be better not to produce them at all.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Member makes a characteristically wise and useful point. That figure of 67% is startling and deeply worrying.
Thirdly, I support amendments 22 and 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—I hope I can call him an hon. Friend—setting out a home energy efficiency test. As we all know by now, that is the most effective way of delivering real energy security for households that are struggling so much to pay their bills.
Fourthly, I support amendments 23 and 25, again tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, requiring the UK to have made arrangements to withdraw from the energy charter treaty before new licences can be awarded. It is totally unacceptable that the Government are mandating annual licensing rounds without having withdrawn from a treaty that allows companies to sue for lost profits. The Government previously committed to reviewing the UK’s membership of the ECT, including consideration of withdrawal from the treaty if proposed modernisation reforms were not agreed at November’s energy charter conference. As I understand it, those proposals were not even discussed at the conference, so may I ask the Minister, when he sums up, to say what is holding up their withdrawing from that treaty, given that they acknowledge that
“there is now no clear route for modernisation to progress.”
Finally, last week it was reported that British Gas profits soared tenfold last year following the changes Ofgem had made to the price cap. In the same week Government figures showed that almost 9 million households—well over a third—spent more than 10% of their income after housing costs on domestic energy bills, and it was also revealed that not a single new proposal for public onshore wind was made in England last year despite the Government’s policy changes. Those three examples are all from just one single week; this week and next week there will be more, and together they demonstrate the utter failure of this Government to make decisions that would benefit people and planet and to unleash our abundant renewables, massively upscale energy efficiency installations and work to get us off expensive and volatile gas altogether. Instead, each week we see yet more evidence that this tired and divisive Government are prioritising increasingly desperate attempts to save their own skin over measures that would improve all our lives by ensuring that everyone has a warm and comfortable home to live in, communities have been supported to make the most of the green transition and our one precious and infinitely fragile planet is finally restored.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I rise to speak to amendment 15 tabled on behalf of the Alba party.
The choice we face is not between shutting down North sea oil and gas and carrying on regardless but how to make its continued exploitation compatible with the environmental challenges and to acknowledge the role that oil can and will play in a sustainable future for the planet. I do not disagree with the four broad objectives of the UK Government proposals, and amendment 15 would strengthen those ambitions on energy independence, safeguarding domestic energy supplies, energy security, reducing higher emission imports, protecting domestic oil and gas industry jobs and working towards our net zero target in a pragmatic, proportionate and realistic way. But I am not convinced that the Bill—and certainly Government policy as it is currently being delivered—will meet those ambitions.
If the provisions are to be truly applied to all parts of the UK as the Government state, then Scotland, the source of oil and gas and whose waters contain the lion’s share of carbon storage sites, cannot be left out of the action. Depleting Scotland’s industrial capacity has increasingly been the direction of travel from this Government in recent years and this strategy will not strengthen the Union as they claim they wish to do. They should be aware that eroding our industry and jobs will further drive up support for independence. They should also be aware that 74% of the Scottish population support domestic oil and gas exploitation and 54% of the Scottish public support new licences being granted for that purpose. Our amendment is without question helpful to all those ambitions, and indeed others, and should be supported by all sides. Its proposals are pragmatic, realistic, responsible and, most importantly, fair.
The infrastructure in Scotland is already in place to meet these objectives. In the north-east we have St Fergus and the Acorn project, in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency we have at Mossmoran one of Europe’s four cracker plants alongside an LNG plant operated by Exxon and Shell, and at Grangemouth we have one of the UK’s current oil refineries. I reference the points made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) with regard to the environmental impact of exporting oil and gas abroad, which should dissuade the Government from even considering closing the refinery at Grangemouth. All those operations have interconnecting pipelines that are bi-directional, so the infrastructure is all there and it is completely feasible to transport carbon from Grangemouth and Mossmorran north to St Fergus for offshore storage.
From my discussions with the operators in my constituency, I know their carbon reduction teams have been willing and ready to look at the opportunities since I was elected. Exxon has recently made a multi-million-pound investment in Mossmorran, securing its future. That is particularly relevant to some earlier comments on amendment 12 with regard to flaring. That was a persistent problem at Mossmorran where we had an elevated flare that caused light, noise, vibration and pollution, not to mention the environmental impact of the flaring. That investment has reduced flaring significantly, and all plants should seriously consider that to reduce the impact on the communities and the environment around them. That investment from Exxon is well in excess of the modest amount that is required to keep Grangemouth going; it is a multimillion-pound investment and significantly more than what is required to keep the refinery operating at Grangemouth.
David Duguid
I am reluctant to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, many of which I agree with, but I have a burning question. He makes a point about the amount of storage we have around the UK, which is equivalent to more than we have produced out of the North sea, and we must take advantage of that. In his amendment, he refers to licensing conditions for specific fields been tied to having a net zero effect through carbon capture and storage. He has already explained that carbon capture and storage is typically taken from flue gas from the likes of Mossmorran in his constituency, or Peterhead power station in mine, so how does he make that link between offshore exploration licences and the resultant carbon capture, which will be way down the production line?
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Many of the operators are serious about exploiting the resource not just in Scottish or UK waters but in other countries, and other countries can leverage those types of concessions when they grant licences. The UK Government can therefore make no serious argument that they cannot do that.
One of the refrains we heard during the Brexit debate was about the reclaiming of national sovereignty. It was one of the reasons for Brexit. One of the most limiting factors for job creation in renewables was that contracts for difference and European rules prevented conditionality from being applied to the granting of oil, renewables and other licences. If the UK now has that sovereignty, why not use it to ensure that the communities that are part of the supply line get some form of benefit out of the process? One of the most obvious benefits is to reduce at source, through a levy on any licence, the carbon footprint of the exploitation of that resource. That would seem a reasonable expectation, and certainly we feel it is essential in granting any future licences.
Amendment 15 would create a requirement for a specific field commitment of a net zero carbon footprint, as we have just discussed. That would be achieved mainly through connection to the carbon capture network. The prize is to be a world leader in research and development, with an economy built on renewable energy, of which Scotland has an absolute abundance. The UK Government’s dither and delay on Acorn has gone on for far too long. It is time for Scots Members on the Government Benches and their Government colleagues to back a secure future for Scotland’s North sea oil and gas sector and to back this amendment.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This February is on course to break an unprecedented number of heat records, and the dangers of failing to reach net zero are staring us in the face. This Bill flies in the face of our climate change commitments, and it will do nothing to secure energy security and nothing to lower energy bills, and we Liberal Democrats continue to oppose it.
I will mention two amendments that we strongly support, as they are on areas where we Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the past. The Bill is silent about methane and needs amending. We therefore strongly support new clause 12 to prevent methane flaring. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the warming effect of CO2. It accounts for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It has often been seen as a quick win. Methane stays for much less time in the atmosphere, but it is still there. Reducing methane emissions is such an obvious thing to do.
The UK has signed a global pledge to cut methane levels by 30%, and a ban on oil and gas flaring and venting in the North sea would dramatically reduce methane emissions. The International Energy Agency has said that UK oil and gas operators could reduce methane emissions by more than 70% by tackling venting, flaring and leaking. That is supported by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Government-commissioned independent review of net zero. However, the Government’s track record is not good enough. In his last few days in office, the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), unconditionally approved the new Affleck oil and gas field, whose operators will be able to burn methane until 2037.
We must also mandate monthly leak detection and repair activity. As we have said in the past, it is incomprehensible why the Government are on the one hand saying one thing, but on the other not acting. We must do something about methane. It is a complete dereliction of duty if we do not support that new clause.
The other amendment I want to speak to new clause 23, which would insert a new energy charter test. Many of my constituents have voiced strong concerns about our continuing to be part of the energy charter treaty. That energy charter test would be met if we withdrew from the treaty. As it stands, remaining part of the treaty leaves the UK vulnerable to compensation claims from investors for the early closure of coal, oil and gas plants. Attempts to modernise the ECT to protect countries from libel and to drive investment in renewables have failed. Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and the Netherlands have all announced their intention to withdraw. Italy withdrew back in 2016. Why should we not join them? The new clause provides a vehicle to do that. It is incomprehensible that we have to discuss this Bill. It is a bad Bill, but the amendments I have just mentioned would make it a little better.
Barry Gardiner
I wish to speak primarily to amendments 13 and 14, but I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). May I begin by paying tribute to the newly elected Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan)? His electoral victory shows that parties with ambitious climate policies win elections, and those that choose to pursue culture wars are punished at the ballot box. I hope the Government can learn that lesson in relation to this Bill, which is a textbook example of performative politics.
This Bill will not secure British energy independence or help to meet UK or global climate targets. We know, because the Energy Secretary told us so herself, that this Bill will not lower energy bills, yet here we are debating this Bill instead of focusing our minds and time on real solutions that will accelerate the energy transition that is already happening all around us. That energy transition is not only underpinned by a strong scientific consensus to address climate change, but founded in a mission to make energy affordable and to unleash new economic opportunities across Britain, particularly in the regions left behind by previous energy transitions.
I pay tribute to all the workers in oil and gas, who help to keep Britain’s lights on. Their hard work over many years powers our country, and their skills will be essential in making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is why we must respect those workers, and why we should be truthful with them. They deserve no less than that, and we in the labour movement remember only too well what happens when communities are faced with the sudden loss of jobs. We remember the closure of the pits and the communities that were left with nothing, because Government failed to put in place genuine alternatives and a just transition.
I know that British exceptionalism is almost an article of faith or mantra with this Government, but being the first country that sells the last drop of oil is not a feasible strategy. That is not just because the world signed up to transition away from fossil fuels at COP 28, but because the North sea is a declining basin that is nearly empty. New licences between now and 2050 will only provide 103 days of gas. That is just four days of gas every year. Saying that we will expand oil and gas licences in a declining basin and pretending that that will make any real difference to jobs in the North sea is nothing short of dishonest. It may provide campaigning material to pretend otherwise, but people’s livelihoods are more important than political game playing, and we ought to stick to the facts.
David Duguid
I feel almost obliged to intervene, if only to agree totally with what the hon. Member just said. The Aberdeen University study relates specifically to the decline over previous decades. We have lost a lot of workers in the industry, not just because of the decline in production, but because of new technology and the desire to remotely operate offshore platforms in the interest of safety. There has been decline. What he seems to be missing is that we are talking not about a return to the glory days of peak production in the late ’90s, but managing that decline with reference to how much energy we need. As was mentioned, we need to promote a Goldilocks period in which we make the most of the skills and technologies in that industry for the renewables-based future.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must manage the decline, but we must manage the decline in the community’s livelihood, which is not necessarily the same thing. If we make sure that we have a just transition, and introducing support for retraining and gaining skills, as outlined in the amendments that I am supporting, he will find that his constituents and many others around the country will much better weather that decline and prepare for the sort of future that we want.
The Bill, unfortunately, does the opposite. It ignores the 30,000 hard-working people directly employed in today’s oil and gas industry, and the further 100,000 individuals supported by the supply chain. It provides false hope. It sends confusing signals to energy companies, to investors, to the global community, and indeed to unions and the workers they represent. It pretends that nothing needs to change—that business can continue as usual, and that jobs in oil and gas are safe. The Government are acting as if maxing out the North sea can happen indefinitely, or at least until they are no longer in office and therefore do not have to pick up the pieces.
Amendment 14 sets out the need for formalised collective agreements with unions and the workforce to create just transition plans. In Spain, we have seen what can be achieved when Governments, businesses, workers and unions come together. The just transition agreement that the Spanish Government have negotiated with affected workers, unions and businesses is popular, economically responsible and environmentally sound. It is a settlement for all involved. That is the approach that ought to be taken in the North sea. The region needs a new settlement, in which: there is an increase in domestic manufacturing; a new generation of renewables, such as green hydrogen, turbocharges employment in energy-intensive industries; the technology of carbon capture, usage and storage and the UK’s unique storage capacity for sequestering carbon can provide a new service that is exportable to the world; the benefits of the energy system are shared fairly; jobs are truly safe and secure; and, above all, those communities who were once the proud purveyors of our fossil fuel energy become our proud sequesterers of the world’s emissions and the champions of the renewable powerhouse of the future.
Before I conclude, I want to mention one further spurious reason that the Government have put forward to justify the Bill: that it stops us from being dependent on oil and gas from dictatorial regimes such as Russia. Yesterday in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) pointed out that a loophole in our sanctions regime means that countries such as China and India import Russian crude oil, process it and then sell it to the UK as refined oil. In 2023, we imported 5.2 million barrels of that oil. That means we sent something like £141 million in tax revenue to the Kremlin’s war chest. Britain is also the biggest insurer of Russian oil moved by sea, most of which is sold at prices well above the price cap, again violating sanctions. If the Government really wanted to stop such dependence, they could tighten the sanctions regime—they know how to do so, but they do not.
I will not vote for this piece of 20th-century legislation that instructs the House to look backwards and not forwards. I will not vote to make Britain colder and poorer. I will not vote to increase flooding. I will not vote to leave communities and workers behind. I will not vote to lock volatile fossil fuels into our already broken energy system. Sadly, we must wait for a future Parliament—and, I trust, a future Government. I look forward to working with Members from across the House in pursuit of those goals.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I rise to support amendment 15 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and in particular subsection (b) to proposed new section (1ZA), which relates to Grangemouth. There is something perverse and absurd about using Scottish oil if Scotland’s refinery is to close.
We have to transition. It has to be a just transition, which cannot just be a glib phrase. It must also be paced, because we cannot get there overnight. In my constituency of East Lothian, we can see the turbines on the Lammermuirs, and we can see them growing in number daily, and the growth in the number of columns, as offshore wind capacity comes. But we require fossil fuels to deliver that renewable capacity. We require diesel for the trucks, and marine diesel for the ships, out setting the columns and turbines. We also require the plastics that go with much of that. So we need to continue using and exploiting oil to get to a renewable future. We have to do so at a pace that is appropriate, but also ensure that our country benefits. That is why subsection (b) is so important.
There is something perverse in the fact that Scotland is energy-rich, yet people face fuel poverty. In my constituency, we are not seeing the benefits in employment that should come from being in a county that is so energy-rich. The county faces the same problem as Scotland: it is energy-rich, yet people can only look wistfully at the turbines offshore, while they are unable to pay their bills. We must ensure that we get jobs and work here. The refinery at Grangemouth is pivotal to that.
I grew up not in East Lothian but in West Lothian. The Grangemouth refinery has been there for a century—since 1924—not for North sea oil but for its precursor: the shale industry, which was centred in West Lothian, from which came BP, Paraffin Young and others. BP was the centrepiece, along with Imperial Chemical Industries in its various iterations; it is now Petroineos. The refinery initially dealt with the shale industry, but, once North sea oil was discovered, we used it for that oil.
The Forties pipeline comes ashore from the North sea at Cruden Bay, and oil is piped down to Grangemouth because it was meant to be refined there. Grangemouth is also capable of refining oil from elsewhere: a pipeline runs from Finnart in Argyll through to Grangemouth, which allows oil imported from abroad to be refined in Scotland. Yet we face a situation where unless we support the amendment, Grangemouth refinery will likely close. Although a spat has been going on between the SNP, Labour and the Tories about the North sea and its oil, little has been said about what is happening at Grangemouth. The threat has been growing, and action from the Government both here and in Scotland has been in inverse proportion to that.
Dave Doogan
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard me reference Grangemouth and its future in my contribution. I support his ambition to maintain our hydrocarbon future at Grangemouth, as long as it can be sustained economically and environmentally. Does he agree that if we are to prevent the jeopardy that workers at Grangemouth face from ever re-emerging, we need to make sure that sustainable aviation fuel, biofuels and hydrogen are an integral part of Grangemouth’s output? We need to ensure that they overlap with hydrocarbons and leave them behind.
Kenny MacAskill
I have had discussions with the shop stewards and unions, whom the Scottish Government may wish to follow and not brush off with cursory meetings. We want a biofuel strategy for Grangemouth, but that is for some significant time in the future. Unless we act now, the refinery could close in 2025. Biofuels will not be refined in Grangemouth or anywhere else in 2025. The shop stewards and the unions wish us to get to biofuels, and Grangemouth must be declared a hub for that, but if it is to survive until then, we must ensure that it is a refinery, not simply a terminal, and that we maintain those skills.
It is absurd that we will continue to exploit Scotland’s oil, yet its refinery will close. There is something perverse about that. Scotland will be the only major oil-producing nation in the world—we are ranked No. 21 along with the UK in the top 25 oil producers—that does not have a refinery capacity. That will put us with large developing countries that produce less oil. We will join a club hosted by the likes of the Republic of Congo and Trinidad and Tobago. I am sure that they are lovely countries—I have never visited—but they are not developed nations with an industrial economy. The danger is that we will become a developing nation, in terms of our industrial base.
Graham Stuart
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon, which has been wide-ranging, well informed and genuinely interesting. I thank Members from across the Committee for their participation and for playing an important role in scrutinising this important piece of legislation.
Before I move on to specific amendments I will, if you allow me, Dame Rosie, briefly outline the importance of this Bill. The UK leads the world on tackling climate change, and is the first major economy to halve emissions. The Bill will protect jobs, tax receipts and sovereign capability, so that we can continue that world leadership. As one of the world’s most decarbonised major economies, the UK remains dependent on oil and gas and will continue to be, albeit in reducing amounts, according to the Climate Change Committee. Even when we are at net zero in 2050, we will require oil and gas. However, we are a net importer and, as has been discussed, UK production is falling fast.
The ambition of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) to destroy UK supply ignores industry, the unions and his own Back Benchers, and would simply replace UK oil and gas with higher-emission imports. That is at the heart of this; that is why we want to pass this legislation—it is because of the policies of the parties opposite. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) looks a little confused. The parties opposite are very clear that they want to end new licensing, and we would thus have to import more from abroad. It is as simple as that. That would mean more LNG, which has four times the embedded emissions of domestically produced gas. That is the reality. That is at the heart of the Bill; that is why it is so important that we legislate today to send a signal to industry that continued fast-declining production in the North sea is the right thing to do environmentally, economically, in terms of tax—on every front. If it was not, we should not and would not do it.
Graham Stuart
I will make a little more progress.
Annual licensing will improve our energy security and that of our neighbours. It will support 200,000 jobs and safeguard billions in tax revenue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) set out so well, it will safeguard the skills needed for successful energy transition. Hon. Members can listen to everyone from Offshore Energies UK to Robert Gordon University for evidence of the need for that. These things are not in tension; they mutually complement each other and need to be supported.
Graham Stuart
I promise to come to the hon. Gentleman before I finish.
Turning to the amendments selected today, I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) for amendment 12 on flaring and venting. As has been discussed, the guidance from the North Sea Transition Authority is clear that all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. The Government have already committed to ending routine flaring and venting by 2030, going further than the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative. That voluntary North sea transition deal is reaping rewards. Based on the latest data, North sea flaring is down 50% since 2018, and the sector is on track to deliver the 2030 target.
I fear that the amendment would risk replacing voluntary momentum with a slower, compliance-based, more resistant approach from industry. However, I will continue to engage with my right hon. Friend as the Bill moves to the other place, with a view to delivering the end of flaring and venting by 2030 at the latest, which is an ambition he and I share, as do the Government.
With that, if the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has not lost his mojo and his moment, I shall give way to him.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and no—I would not lose my mojo on this. We all know that there is 110% more oil and gas already in the world than we can use if we are to remain within the 1.5°C threshold. Does the Minister think the climate really cares where that oil and gas are used? His argument about imports implies that he does believe that the atmosphere cares. The damage will be done; the only way we can reduce its impact is by ensuring that the proposed additional exploration licences are not achieved.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has taken a long and deep interest in this issue, for which I pay him respect. It is the burning of oil and gas that is the primary issue. He mentions 110%—we probably have 200%, 300% or 400%. There are countries setting out to massively increase their production. That is all driven by demand. If we—as a species, as a globe—are to get to net zero, we will have to cap wells all over the world. We will have to leave it in the ground. The most important thing is to ensure that the demand curve is going in the right direction. Despite all the issues, challenges and difficulties of maintaining our role as the leading major economy in cutting emissions, the UK’s biggest challenge in dealing with climate change is not domestic, despite the difficulty of that; it is to get others to join us on a net zero pathway. The idea of producing our own emissions to ever-lower standards and replacing them with higher-emission products from abroad is for the birds. It makes no sense.
Graham Stuart
I am going to press on. [Interruption.] I do not mean to be rude, but I think I am unlikely, given his previous performance, to be terribly afeared of hearing from the hon. Member for Angus.
I turn to a series of amendments that seek to place conditions on when oil and gas licensing rounds are run. Amendment 15 relates to carbon capture, usage and storage, and the Grangemouth refinery. The oil and gas sector provides a significant portion of the investment that the UK needs to go into wind, CCUS and hydrogen, and I fear that the amendment would drive that investment elsewhere. It would also tie UK production of oil and natural gas to the refining activities of one refinery—Grangemouth—which I am sure Members across the House would agree is neither practical nor desirable.
Amendments 22 and 24 would result in an inconsistent approach between oil and gas licensing and our ambition for domestic energy efficiency. The Government already have a clear aim for as many homes as possible to reach energy performance certificate band C by 2035 where cost-effective, affordable and practical. That is the minimum standard required to replace fossil fuel boilers with low-carbon heating such as heat pumps.
On amendments 23 and 25, we are already reviewing our energy charter treaty membership. As far as we are concerned, there is no longer a clear route for modernisation. We will update the House in due course.
New clause 2 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who was right to highlight the importance of achieving strategic co-existence between different uses while maintaining environmental protection. Work is under way to ensure that we strike the right balance between our different marine priorities. The soon-to-be-commissioned strategic spatial energy plan and cross-Government marine spatial prioritisation programme will ensure, as she rightly outlines, that we take a strategic approach to identifying future sites for marine developments and energy infrastructure, and that these can co-exist with our environmental and wider marine priorities. I appreciate what my hon. Friend seeks to achieve and assure her that the Government share her desire to protect the marine environment—not least, of course, in the Celtic sea.
Amendments 2, 3, 13 and 18 seek to add an additional climate test to the Bill. The UK produces far less oil and gas than we need, and even with new licences, production is expected to decline faster than the average that is required globally to align with the UN’s 1.5°C pathways. All that this test would do is stop licensing and increase dependence on imported products like LNG, which has production emissions that are four times higher than those of domestically produced gas. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North knows this—he must—so what, other than ideology and a desire to please his Just Stop Oil backers, could lead him to table an amendment that could raise emissions, lose British jobs and hammer our economy? Truly, it is a mystery.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is the reality not that reducing producer emissions in this country only to increase reliance on imported consumer emissions is entirely counterproductive for the environment and very damaging in terms of public support for the direction of travel?
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the absurdity: ending licences will simply increase our imports. It will not change our consumption. If imports such as liquefied natural gas have higher emissions embedded in them, they are counter to our net zero aims.
I now turn to amendments 8 and 9, which together add a new energy and job security test to the Bill. The test, with its complex set of criteria, would damage investor confidence and cause confusion for industry, risking our energy security, jobs, and the skills and investment needed for the green transition we all want to see. It would make our system of administration of this area as opaque as the answers the hon. Member for Angus gave to straightforward questions earlier.
Amendments 10, 11, 13 and 14 introduce additional just transition tests to the Bill. We are absolutely clear on the importance of achieving a net zero basin by 2050 and are on track to deliver that. We need the skills, expertise and resources of the oil and gas industry to support our transition to cleaner technologies, maintaining oil and gas jobs so that they are not lost before renewables and other clean technologies grow to take up those skills.
Sir Alok Sharma
I have listened intently to the Minister and I welcome his willingness to work together on the issue of flaring and venting. What I did not hear from him was the clarity that I wanted on whether Government would look to introducing an amendment similar to amendment 12 in the other place. Perhaps that is something we can discuss before the Bill returns to this House.
Sir Alok Sharma
I am delighted to see the Minister nodding. I would just point out that even if the Government do not support a similar amendment in the other place, I am fairly confident that a similar amendment will be moved and I expect supported in the other place. This place will then have the opportunity to opine on that particular amendment, so I will not divide the Committee on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 10, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“(aa) the just transition test (see section 4ZD)”.—(Dave Doogan.)
This paving amendment, together with Amendment 11, introduces a new test to be applied by the OGA before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Graham Stuart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is my great pleasure to thank everyone who has supported the progress of the Bill. I recognise the excellent contributions of Members from across the House who have engaged closely with this important piece of legislation. I thank those on the Government Benches who spoke for their engagement with the Bill. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), and my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for their contributions and the excellent points that they have raised in Committee.
I also welcome the robust scrutiny from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who spoke for the Scottish nationalists, the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who represent the Alba party, and others. I thank them all for their participation. I also pay tribute to my officials for their work over these past months, as well to Parliamentary Counsel for their commendable work, the House authorities, parliamentary staff, Clerks and Doorkeepers.
The Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will give industry the certainty that it needs to continue to invest in the North sea, to strengthen our energy security and to support the transition to net zero. The UK is leading the world on our journey to net zero emissions. We have the fastest reduction in emissions of any major economy —of any member of the G20 on the planet. In fact, we recently celebrated not only fulfilling and even exceeding the targets of the sixth carbon budget coming out of the landmark Climate Change Act 2008, but officially halving our emissions since 1990; we are the first major economy on the planet to do so.
Even when we have reached net zero in 2050, oil and gas will still play an important part in meeting our energy needs, as data from the Climate Change Committee shows. As the most decarbonised major economy in the world, 75% of our primary energy comes from oil and gas. Those who work in the North sea producing oil and gas—there are 200,000 jobs supported by the industry—should not be ashamed of what they do. It is the demand end—our cars, our homes and our factories—that we need to change. We need to meet that challenge; like Don Quixote, we will be tilting at windmills if we, a net importer, try to make our production the problem, rather than demand. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who could not be with us earlier, but is very welcome now, asks me for the evidence of that. The evidence is that we have cut our emissions more than any other major economy.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
That was not what I was asking. The Minister says that we need to look at demand; where is the national insulation programme, so that we can insulate all our homes and reduce demand in that way? There isn’t one.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady may not have been present for the previous stage of this Bill, but as she has been present for other debates in this House, I cannot claim that she is an absentee Member, so it is extraordinary that she is unaware of the amazing transformation in insulation in this country since 2010. Is she not aware that, in 2010, just 14% of homes were decently insulated? Today, the figure is well over 50%. We are spending £6.5 billion in this Parliament, and will commit another £6 billion between 2025 and 2028, precisely to deliver the transformation that she calls for. On top of that, we have the eco schemes, and obligations on industry. That is how we have taken ourselves from the parlous, shameful situation left behind by the Labour party in 2010 to one where, although there is still much more to do, 50% of homes are decently insulated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister was very kind to come to my constituency in Northern Ireland to look at the potential schemes for sea turbines and the contract for difference arrangements. At the time, he indicated that, whenever the Assembly was up and running, the contract for difference scheme would be the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly. He was very keen and eager to assist the Assembly. Is it his intention to contact the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the CfD scheme can be promoted? His input into that will make a big difference.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a consistent champion not only for his constituents but for the clean transition. I look forward to meeting and working with the new Minister for the Economy, who I believe has the energy portfolio in Northern Ireland.
The Bill will give industry the certainty that it needs to continue investing in the North sea, to strengthen our energy security, and to support the transition to net zero. The Government’s position is clear: we should, as far as possible, seek to meet continued UK demand for oil and gas from the UK’s own sources. That means continuing to use the North sea—a UK success story that has contributed billions of pounds in tax revenue and supports an industry of around 200,000 workers. The oil and gas industry, with its strong supply chains, expertise and skills, is vital to driving forward the net zero transition and the investment in clean technologies that we need to meet our net zero targets.
We all want the energy transition delivered in an orderly way that does not risk thousands of those jobs. Artificially reducing our production from the North sea or banning new licensing would do just that and jeopardise the energy transition, our progress towards net zero and our climate leadership, not to mention the billions of pounds in lost tax revenue. The Bill is about ensuring a smooth and orderly transition. New licences awarded under the Bill will manage the decline in domestic oil and gas production, rather than increase production above current levels, and they will give industry certainty by sending a strong signal of support for continued investment in the sector—investment that is necessary both for our energy security and to help deliver the energy transition. I commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Whitehead
It is customary on Third Reading to start with thanks, and I would like to thank two groups of people. First, I thank the civil servants who held their noses to write this pile of rubbish for the House’s consideration. Secondly, I thank the Government for introducing the Bill, because as a number of people will know, it has led directly to the election of a new Labour Member of Parliament for Kingswood, following the resignation of the former Government climate tsar, who wrote the net zero report and had this to say about the Bill:
“This bill would in effect allow more frequent new oil and gas licences and the increased production of new fossil fuels in the North Sea… I can also no longer condone nor continue to support a government that is committed to a course of action that I know is wrong and will cause future harm.”
He then resigned, and the rest is history. Thank you, Minister, for increasing Labour’s representation in this Chamber by one seat. Although we hope to have a lot more seats in the very near future, that is progress.
The Minister has form on this. He was the Minister in the Adjournment debate on fracking some while ago—
Dr Whitehead
Sorry; the Opposition day debate on fracking, which effectively brought down the Truss Government as a result of the various prevarications at the time. I thank the Minister for that.
What I do not thank the Minister for is the completely misleading and almost erroneous way in which he has characterised the future under the Bill. On licences, the Bill will do things that are already done, and it will not make any change. It will not suddenly increase confidence across the sector, because the sector knows that the Bill is just a piece of performative theatre; and it will do nothing—contrary to what the Minister and others have claimed—to cut energy bills, tackle the cost of living or improve our energy security.
At a time when people across this country have suffered two years of crushing energy costs and an inflationary crisis driven in large part by our significant exposure to gas prices—which, as we all know by now, are set internationally—the Bill offers no solutions. The Secretary of State herself admitted that it would not cut bills, and Lord Browne, the former chief executive officer of British Petroleum, said that it was
“not going to not make any difference”
to energy security. The board of the North Sea Transition Authority, which is responsible for giving out licences, unanimously agreed that the Bill is unnecessary and would challenge its independence. However, even though the Bill will achieve none of its stated aims, it is far from consequence-free.
Graham Stuart
Offshore Energies UK has said that if Labour’s policy was implemented, it could cost this country 42,000 jobs and £26 billion of economic value. Perhaps the shadow Minister will respond to that consequence.
Dr Whitehead
We are talking about what the Government are doing through this policy—that is what we are concentrating on today. I hope we will have another much wider debate about the effect that a comprehensive transition policy for the whole North sea field would have, with associated arrangements for the transition of investment, energy security and worker and job security, in the context of future jobs and future energy security. Many people in the industry have already said that that is exactly what we need to secure the future of the North sea. It is a declining basin; its output will not change greatly as a result of the measures that the Government are proposing. On the other hand, unless urgent action is taken to secure a holistic transition for the North sea, it certainly will not have the investment and the future that so many of us want to see. We need to put that overall consideration alongside some people’s shorter-term concerns about what will happen to the oil and gas industry right this minute.
Douglas Ross
This has been an extremely crucial issue in the north-east of Scotland, particularly this week. Does the shadow Minister think it is a small, short-term problem that 42,000 highly skilled workers in that area could lose their jobs under Labour’s plans?
Dr Whitehead
They will not. I have tried to make it very clear, against what is, frankly, misinformed scaremongering by Government Members, that under Labour’s plans the North sea will, of course, continue to produce efficiently and effectively over a very long period of time. We know that the North sea is a very mature field and is in decline, and all authorities have said that the Government’s proposals would make no difference to that overall pattern.
We are looking at how to make sure that the North sea continues to produce well and efficiently the oil and gas we will need for the future in declining amounts, while at the same time transforming that economy to produce new forms of energy for the future and maintaining security of production. That will be the big task for the future Labour Government—I am pleased that the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is envisaging what the new Labour Government will shortly have to do. The long-term task in the North sea is not to pump every last drop of oil and gas it contains, but to give it a new lease of life. New industries can come into the North sea alongside the infrastructure that already exists, making it a new energy powerhouse for the UK in the future.
Douglas Ross
I cannot let that go unchallenged. This letter from the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce to the Leader of the Opposition—the leader of the Labour party in the UK—says that
“if North Sea production is to cease prematurely—a certain outcome of this”
Labour
“policy—then our entire energy transition is undermined.”
This has massive consequences, and I have to say that the reaction of the shadow Minister is quite telling.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member rather gives himself away by the first sentence he read out:
“if North Sea production is to cease”.
North sea production will not cease—
Dr Whitehead
North sea production will not cease over a long period of time, and Labour is committed to making sure that that production continues at the appropriate level for the maturity of the North sea basin. That is something that all sensible people understand to be the case, although it is unfortunate that certain Conservative Members pretend it is not the case for their own political purposes.
Dr Whitehead
I will make some progress.
The Bill, as I have said, will achieve none of its stated aims, but it is far from consequence-free. The consequence is that it makes a mockery of our country’s commitments to take serious and responsible action on climate change. That is exactly the point the former right hon. Member for Kingswood, Chris Skidmore, made in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister. That point should not be a partisan point. Indeed, it has not been a partisan point, because a number of Members on all sides of the House, including a number of Conservative Members, can see the direction in which this short-sighted Prime Minister and Government are going, and want no part of it.
Some Members are trying to make changes to the Bill. As I have said, one has resigned, and a number are working hard to turn around the direction of this Government in resiling from our country’s climate change commitments—commitments they so recently signed up to, at the recent COP—on moving away from oil and gas. Regrettably, the Prime Minister and the Government, including this Minister, are not having any part of that. I am particularly disappointed that the Minister is not having any part of it, because of his long and honourable commitment to these matters on the international stage over such a long time.
The right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), the man who led this country’s climate negotiations at COP26 in Glasgow, has called the Bill “smoke and mirrors”, and a “distraction” that will
“reinforce the unfortunate perception of the UK’s rowing back from climate action”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 52.]
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister—she signed this country’s net zero commitment into law and understood, as the current Prime Minister sadly does not, the value of cross-party consensus on the science of climate change—has said that she takes a different view from the Government on oil and gas licences, and that they will not provide for our energy security. Away from this Chamber, every credible independent expert has taken a dim view of the Bill. Lord Stern, one of the UK’s foremost experts on climate change, whose work has shaped how the world understands the costs of inaction, has called the Bill a “deeply damaging mistake”.
The reality is that the cost of living crisis we are in is to a large extent caused by our country’s deep exposure to the volatile international price of gas. The International Monetary Fund has said that this exposure meant the UK was harder hit by the crisis than any other western nation. Just today, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has found that this country has spent an additional—in addition to normal spending—£75 billion on gas since the energy crisis began. Four extra days of gas supply by 2050 cannot possibly make the slightest bit of difference to this price. As I have highlighted, the Secretary of State herself conceded that point on the very day the Bill was announced.
The supposed arguments on energy security and jobs are similarly flimsy. The reality is that, as we have begun to discuss this afternoon, the North sea is an extremely mature and declining basin. Gas production will fall by 95% by 2050, even with new licences. The notion that this is a firm basis on which to build our energy security or protect jobs is clearly absurd. As I have outlined, we need a fair and balanced transition for North sea oil and gas workers that recognises the essential role they will continue to play in operating existing fields, which no one disputes will remain a vital part of our energy mix, and puts them at the heart of our clean energy future.
To safeguard the jobs, skills and livelihoods of the communities that have been the backbone of our energy system for decades, we need a Government with a proper industrial strategy to maximise the low-carbon economic potential of the North sea. Labour will create a national wealth fund to invest in low-carbon industries, it will launch a British jobs bonus to ensure that the supply chain benefits of renewable investment finally come to our shores, and it will create a new publicly owned energy company, GB Energy, headquartered in Scotland, to invest in home-grown clean energy and give us real energy independence. That is the answer that the country needs and that the communities who have served as the backbone of our energy systems for decades need. Political theatre, whether in Westminster or Holyrood, helps no one and does a disservice to the people looking to us for answers to the very real challenges we all face.
The final argument that the Government have made in favour of the Bill is that it is somehow, as we have begun to unwrap, a climate-positive piece of legislation. This argument rests on a series of partial and deliberately gameable tests, as we discussed in Committee, with skewed conditions that look only at a narrow band of emissions, ignoring methane for example; that look only at production emissions, ignoring the impact of actually burning the fuels we are extracting; and that look only at liquefied natural gas, ignoring the fact that the majority of our imports are pipeline-delivered. It includes no test whatsoever for oil, which makes up the majority of remaining reserves. That is why I have sympathy for the civil servants who wrote the Bill, who had to squeeze various things into it such as ignoring gas that was coming into pipeline, only having tests against liquefied gas and ignoring the methane emissions in the various versions of the arrangements in place for measuring emissions from production. I was very disappointed that the Minister gave no reaction at all this afternoon to that particular point on methane.
Graham Stuart
The data simply does not exist, as I think I set out. It does not exist and we cannot make a comparison if the data does not exist. We are world-leading in having that data; others do not have it. On the methane comparison, we are already below the internationally set goal; we have very low methane emissions in the North sea. On the comparison with LNG— which is the buffer fuel, which is why it is the true comparator, rather than Norwegian gas, which the hon. Gentleman is failing to admit—methane is emitted as it is shipped, so the methane story would make it even worse for LNG versus domestically produced fuel. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that into his argument.
Dr Whitehead
I would not put it into my argument, but I am a little puzzled under those circumstances that the North Sea Transition Authority recently published a factsheet on precisely this point about the relative emissions of various contributors to gas and oil into the UK, which looked at the contribution from various countries and at the various emissions levels of those contributions, and set out how those contributions arise. I do not know whether the Minister is quite up to date with what his own North Sea Transition Authority is doing, but perhaps he ought to have a little look at that because he would see that actually the data is there. It does exist, and we can draw the sort of conclusions I drew this afternoon from it, and indeed from a number of other international data sources that are coming in.
The argument that the marginal unit of gas must always be LNG is simply not correct, because the Bill makes no provision whatsoever for the shape of UK gas demand at the point at which the gas is extracted and used. It effectively assumes that our national demand for gas will remain unchanged in perpetuity. When we are in a crisis caused by our reliance on fossil fuels and committed to a net zero transition, that assumption is patently wrong.
Graham Stuart
I hesitate to intervene again, but to suggest that this Bill has the assumption that our gas demand remains the same is absolute nonsense. Of course it is coming right down. We are on a net zero pathway. We are leading the world in that and our demand is falling fast; it is just that our production will fall even faster. The hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House, and I am sure he would not want to do so.
Dr Whitehead
I think I have already indicated that gas production is predicted to fall by 95% by 2050. The addition of one or two licences will not make any difference at all to that precipitous fall in practice, as it will be four days more of gas over the period. That is the basis for why we say that the Government’s commitment to net zero transition while producing large amounts of additional gas and oil is patently wrong. We should be sprinting towards clean energy. We should be investing in renewables, rather than banning them, as the Conservatives have done with onshore wind. We should be saving the country billions by moving to decarbonise power systems by 2030 and making far greater efforts to insulate homes and reduce gas demand there.
On climate change, on energy security, on jobs and on bills, this Bill has nothing to offer but false promises that frankly insult the public’s intelligence. To support this Bill, we would need to believe that we can double down on the causes of the cost of living crisis and still solve it; that we can somehow defy geology in the North sea and change the fundamental nature of international energy markets; and that we can ignore all the science and credible experts on climate change and still meet our commitments, including our commitment to transition away from fossil fuels made by the Minister at COP28 a few short months ago. It is clearly nonsense, but it is emblematic of a Government who have run out of ideas and run out of road—a Government who can see the many real challenges our country faces, but have no answer to them beyond confected political drama. In their misguided pursuit of a political dividing line, they have shrunk our country on the international stage, made us hypocrites in the eyes of the world and opened the door in this country to a new divisive politics on climate change that I sincerely believe the Ministers sitting opposite me today are not comfortable with, do not want as their legacy and will come to regret profoundly. This Bill will deliver nothing, but it threatens much. For that reason, I urge the House to vote against it.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
It has been interesting following the process of this Bill. I spoke on Second Reading, and I sat through most of the Committee today, and I am pleased to speak on Third Reading to support the proposals brought forward by this UK Conservative Government—the only party supporting our vital oil and gas industry across the United Kingdom, and particularly in the north of Scotland. My constituents in Moray, many of whom work in the oil and gas industry, will be shocked and annoyed by what we have heard today from those on the SNP Benches and by the deeply disappointing remarks we have just heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) on the Labour Front Bench. If he thinks that “misinformed scaremongering” from Offshore Energies UK and from Aberdeen chamber of commerce does not deserve to be raised in this Chamber, he is gravely wrong. I think it is an indication of Labour’s position. It has already turned its back on the oil and gas industry in Scotland, and by the sound of things it will only get worse. [Interruption.] He is looking quizzical, but let us just look at what is happening in Scotland now and at some of the coverage.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is a regular reader of The Press and Journal, but its front page made clear what people in the north-east of Scotland think about Labour’s proposals. The Scottish Sun said that people in Scotland could wave goodbye to tens of thousands of jobs. That is not the papers or the Opposition just saying that; it is papers reporting what experts in the field are saying. We know that the Labour party changes its policies quickly, and I can only hope this is another of those, because its actions are having a deeply damaging effect. Were these policies ever implemented, they would have a huge impact on the oil and gas sector and the people who work in it and rely on that oil and gas production. Tens of thousands of jobs and livelihoods are at risk.
As we often want to articulate our own views in this Chamber, I think it is only right that we repeat some of the concerns raised by the industry. Offshore Energies UK’s chief executive Dave Whitehouse is someone who must be listened to on this subject. I met him recently on a visit to Aberdeen. He said that Labour’s proposals
“would deliver a hammer blow to the energy we need today and to the homegrown transition”.
He also said:
“These are not faceless numbers but decent, hardworking people working across the UK to provide the energy we will need today and in the future.”
That is an expert view on the Labour proposals.
Aberdeen chamber of commerce has described Labour’s plans as a “betrayal”. Chris Wheaton, an oil and gas analyst, said:
“The uncertainty created by threatening new windfall taxes is as bad as the tax itself.”
Perhaps most powerfully of all, last week, more than 800 individuals, firms and trade groups wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to express their deep concerns about what is being spoken about by the Labour party.
Sadly, in Scotland, we cannot get a cigarette paper between the Labour party and the SNP. It is almost as if they are in a race to decimate our oil and gas industry and want to outmanoeuvre each other. Both support a windfall tax. Both oppose the Rosebank field. Both are speaking about dangerous proposals—[Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members think that is funny. I am sorry, but I do not think it is funny that tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland are under threat. I take that issue extremely seriously.
Speaking about the SNP, I tried to get this out on Second Reading and in Committee. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) is still in his place, because we have to get to the bottom of this. I ask him to intervene on me and explain whether he, as the MP for Angus, representing a north-east constituency, believes further licences should or should not be granted for production of oil and gas in the North sea.
Dave Doogan
I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have just about heard enough from the hon. Member today. For the fourth time, Government Members’ association between the number of licences issued and the number of oil and gas jobs protected is specious at best. We have been accused by them—including, I think, the hon. Member—of wanting to put the oil and gas industry in Scotland to the sword. There is no such plan. The leader of the SNP and Scotland’s First Minister Humza Yousaf was in Aberdeen just yesterday talking about how Scottish oil and gas workers must never be left behind.
I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid)—I thought more of him—misquoting Humza Yousaf, who said that he would rather Aberdeen was not the oil and gas capital of Europe but the renewable energy capital of the world. That promises vastly more economic opportunity for workers in Scotland. Government Members had better start dealing with that.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind Members that this is a Third Reading and that we should not be reopening arguments that were heard in Committee or previous stages.
Douglas Ross
I respect that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not think it is reopening anything, because we have not got any further. I have tried at Second Reading, in Committee, and now at Third Reading. Why is it so difficult for SNP Members who represent communities in the north-east of Scotland to say what is actually in their own draft energy strategy? It says there is a “presumption” against new “exploration” for oil and gas “in the North sea”. The fact that the hon. Member for Angus cannot simply stand up and give his own position tells us exactly how people in the north-east of Scotland feel. The SNP has breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. It wants to run down the oil and gas sector. It is no friend of the oil and gas sector. Of course, the SNP asked the Green party into government—that tells us everything we need to know.
Sammy Wilson
Was the hon. Member as confused as I was by the answer given by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan): that somehow or other there is no need for a licence to drill for oil to create and protect oil jobs, and that we can protect oil jobs by not extracting any oil from the ground?
Douglas Ross
That is just one example of the mixed and confused messaging from the SNP which, sadly, we hear far too much in this Chamber. We have heard it across the north-east this week and it has dominated much of our proceedings.
Douglas Ross
I will, because this may be our final chance to hear if the hon. Gentleman believes in the SNP’s draft energy strategy, which included a presumption against licences for new oil and gas exploration.
Dave Doogan
As much as I am enjoying the hon. Member’s crocodile tears about protecting jobs in Scotland, I wonder if he could give confidence to those oil and gas workers in Scotland by highlighting an example from recent history when the Tories have protected anyone’s job anywhere?
Douglas Ross
It is only this UK Conservative Government and the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood who are standing up for an industry that supports more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom and 95,000 people in Scotland. We have heard that 42,000 jobs are at risk under the Labour proposals, which are almost identical to those of the SNP.
Douglas Ross
I will briefly give way, and then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Wera Hobhouse
How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get to net zero by 2050 and a temperature rise of no more than 1.5C? Our current projections exceed all that. All I hear is that we have to increase oil and gas production in the North sea, but that is the wrong path to net zero. How will we limit temperature rises to 1.5C and ensure that we do not carry on the current trajectory of well over 2C? The Government do not have an answer for that.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Lady has misinterpreted everything that I have heard during the debate. No one is saying that there will be increased production; we are looking to protect what is happening at the moment, and jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said in Committee, those jobs will go elsewhere. Let us make no bones about that. They will not stay in Scotland or the United Kingdom. Under the proposals of other parties, they will go to other countries in Europe and around the world. They will drill for oil and gas in those countries, they will pay their tax in other places and they will ensure that we buy that in as a nation at a higher cost and with a greater carbon footprint.
That is why I want us to maximise what we can do in the North sea, supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east and right across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and work towards that just transition, which Offshore Energies UK and everyone else is fully behind. That is why I support this Bill and the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has worked constructively across the House. I have had very useful meetings with him, the Secretary of State and others.
The Bill also sends a clear message that there is one party on the side of workers in the north-east and those in the oil and gas sector across the United Kingdom. That is the Conservative party—here in government at UK level, and the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood and across Scotland. More and more people are starting to see that the Labour party and the SNP are turning their backs on these workers, and only the Scottish Conservatives and this UK Government are supporting them.
Dave Doogan
The Bill is completely lacking in merit. It seeks to solve a problem that does not exist. The North Sea Transition Authority can issue licences, and it has been doing so. This is a Potemkin argument; a specious debate about the issuance or otherwise of licences. When this Bill passes, which it will given the arithmetic in this House, it will change not one jot the ability to issue licences or otherwise. What it seeks to do is put on a pedestal and create conflict in what was previously broad consensus about the need for a just transition to combat a climate emergency.
In the tone and tenor of the debate today, Government Members in particular have shown a desire to weaponise that. We just heard from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who said in his summing up that only the Conservatives are standing up—absolute and utter nonsense, although if I was working in oil and gas, I would not want to rely too heavily on Labour, if its £28 billion plan is anything to go by. It could have included measures to offset the rapacious appetite for more and more licences to drill for every drop of oil and gas within the North sea basin and receipt every available ha’penny of tax into His Majesty’s Treasury. It could have done those things, and chucked a little bit over the wall to say, “But we’re going to put 5%, 10% or 15% of all those revenues directly into the just transition.” That would not have been brilliant, but it would have been something. But no—there is not a thing in this legislation to offset the appetite for further and further investment.
Government Members have spoken at length about the need to ensure that we do not develop a gap between that which we demand and that which we can supply—it has already passed; the UK can no longer sustain its own demand. We have to import oil and gas from elsewhere. But that is a myopic obsession with the supply side. There is not nearly enough being done by the Government after 14 years to mitigate the demand side. Supply is a function of demand; the be supply requirements are such as a result of that which is being demanded. If there had been a truly ambitious programme at any stage over the past 14 years to insulate houses, get people into electric vehicles and introduce further decarbonisation of our economies and lifestyles, we would not have the demand that we have now. The potential gap between that which can supplied domestically and that which has to be imported would inevitably be less in a zero-sum game. However, we do not have any of that.
Douglas Ross
I will not go over an issue that I am not going to get an answer to. However, the hon. Gentleman’s own party has been in government in Scotland for 17 years now, and the Scottish Government have repeatedly missed their own climate change targets, largely because they have not done what he is accusing the UK Government of not doing. How does he reflect on his own party and Government in Scotland who have not done enough to insulate homes, get more people into electric vehicles and put in the charging points that we need across the country?
Dave Doogan
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has stood on a political landmine if he thinks he is going to hold me to account on the availability of charge points. What he may not know—although, knowing him, I suspect he probably does—is that someone wanting to find anywhere on these islands with more vehicle charge points than Scotland would need to come to London or the south-east of England. Scotland has many more available charge points for electric vehicles—
Dave Doogan
Well, we can sort this out later. Scotland has the third highest availability of electric vehicle chargers of all geographical areas in the United Kingdom. I think the Scottish Government’s record is exemplary—having, as we do, one hand tied behind our back due to being a member of this non-Union, with the freedom of movement and zero agency that comes from being a non-sovereign state. Any other normal country could invest into whatever it wants, and could do so using the normal levers that an independent country would have. Scotland, of course, cannot do that because it must wait for its cheque every year from Westminster. If the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) does not like that, he knows what to do.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for the work he did in finally grinding out some progress from his partners and colleagues in government on the Acorn project, but that just typifies the slowness—the absolute pedestrian nature—of measures to protect consumers and the environment from the largest possible demand. If we had gone into that with a proper fund and with ambition and pace five, six or seven years ago, we would not be in this situation now.
The SNP’s amendment proposed an elegant solution to invest the additional receipts from oil and gas extraction in the North sea basin directly into the renewable transition, protecting people from higher bills, insulating their homes and getting them out of their petrol and diesel cars and into electric cars. As we saw in the Prime Minister’s rolling back on heat pumps and electric vehicles—a further weaponisation of the climate emergency—that is not on the agenda of this fag end Tory Government. They are trying to scrabble around looking for votes, but that does not work. They have achieved tremendous damage with that approach and judging by recent by-election results they have gained zero political capital. On the mess that is evident before us—[Interruption.]—while I get heckled by the hon. Member for Moray, I and my SNP colleagues urge Members to decline the Bill a Third Reading.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Proceedings must finish at 40 minutes past 5. Four people are standing. Please be considerate to other Members, so that everybody can get in.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is hard to know what more can be said about this farcical and unnecessary Bill. It feels as if we are running out of adjectives. Taking part in this debate, listening to the ridiculous heckles from the Government Front Bench, almost legitimises this desperate and dangerous attempt to create yet another culture war out of something as serious as the climate emergency, but I put on record my deep disappointment that the Government are playing such dangerous games.
Ever since the Climate Change Act 2008 was first introduced, there has more or less been a consensus of a kind, with a recognition on both sides of the House that the climate crisis was real and that we needed to act fast to address it. Of course, there were differences on some of the detail, but not on that substantial issue. Now, however, it feels as if we have a Government who are putting all that at risk and that the legislation is all of a piece with Ministers rolling back pledges on home insulation, the boiler replacement scheme, electric vehicles and so on—the ludicrous list we had from the Prime Minister about all sorts of things he was going to scrap that were never Government policy in the first place.
I will add one further argument to those we have heard over the past few hours: projects such as Rosebank will not enhance our security, not just because the oil is mainly exported, but because public opposition to such projects and their unlawfulness mean that developments are subject to lengthy legal battles. That is a very real risk. Would it therefore not be better to accelerate the roll-out of cleaner energy, which is much more popular with the public, and not give, in this case, Rosebank’s owner Equinor nearly £3 billion in tax breaks? Lawfulness is particularly topical today, with a law case going on right now about whether the Government are meeting their climate objectives and whether the reports they have produced contain enough policy detail to persuade the population that we are on track to meet our climate targets. That also demonstrates, frankly, that the boosterism we have heard from the Minister is entirely misplaced. Complacency does not address the climate crisis or the fact that while the UK once had a leadership position on climate, it has one no longer.
When I listen to some of the voices on the Conservative Benches, I sometimes feel as if this place is on another planet from the one that is overheating. It is undeniable that we are living through what many are calling the sixth mass extinction. We are living through a risk of earth’s systems collapse. Scientists are running out of words to describe the seriousness and to try to wake up policymakers to exactly what is at stake. We have just heard that there is a risk of a total loss of late summer sea ice in the Arctic. That is now baked in and could happen as early as the 2030s. That, in turn, is likely to trigger even more extreme weather events in the northern hemisphere, through the weakening of the jet stream. In the Antarctic, melting of the sea ice has accelerated dramatically, which could lead to cascading collapses of the fresh water ice shelves, with catastrophic results for rises in global sea levels. New research in the Amazon has found what scientists call precursor signals of an approaching critical transition. Deforestation and climate breakdown could now cut off circulating rainfall in the basin, triggering a rapid flip from rainforest to savannah. This is what we are talking about here. Future generations will look back to this time—they may even look back, who knows, to this debate—and wonder what on earth we were thinking by giving a green light to more oil and gas licences.
When we ask ourselves why that is happening, we might also reflect on the role of the fossil fuel lobbyists. A few weeks ago, when I held an Adjournment debate on the subject of the fossil fuel lobbying that goes on in this place, I noted that Offshore Energies UK and its members, including BP and Shell, had
“met UK Government Ministers more than 210 times in the year following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—that is nearly once every working day.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 833.]
The combined profits of Shell and BP alone have reached £75 billion, and I would suggest that that is not unrelated to the direction of the Government’s discussion today.
Let me end by quoting from a letter from more than 700 UK scientists who wrote to the Prime Minister last year urging him to halt the licensing of new oil and gas. They included Chris Rapley, a former head of the Science Museum and a professor at University College London, and Mark Maslin, a world-famous professor of earth system science at UCL, and they all warned against any new development of oil and gas. They wrote:
“if the UK allows any new development of oil and gas fields, it will severely undermine…claims of leadership by contributing to further oversupply of fossil fuels, and making it more difficult for the world to limit warming to 1.5°C. Therefore, the UK should commit to preventing any new oil and gas field development, and the Government should state this commitment clearly… There are those who might claim that stopping new developments of oil and gas fields would raise concerns about the affordability and security of future energy supplies, but there is now overwhelming evidence that the UK is far better served by a rapid transition to domestic clean energy sources, particularly renewables, and decarbonisation of our economy. Doubling down on fossil fuels will not lower energy bills or enhance our energy security… The IPCC report stated: ‘The choices and actions implemented in this decade’”—
now, at a time when we are all in decision-making positions—
“will have impacts now and for thousands of years’.”
The moment for political leadership is here and now, and I beg Ministers to rise to the occasion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are about 18 minutes left. I call Wera Hobhouse.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who has made a powerful case in explaining why the Bill should never have reached the House. This month is on course to break an unprecedented number of heat records, and the dangers of failing to reach net zero are staring us in the face. I say this again and again, and the hon. Lady has made a very powerful point. This Government, in the name of “protecting jobs”, are turning their back on their net zero commitments, and I find that, and the way in which this debate is being run, incredibly dishonest. If the debate were honest, it would reflect the fact that the Government have shown their true face, and are delaying the climate action that is so necessary.
I have heard repeatedly, throughout the debate, “We are responding to demand.” Of course there will be demand for as long as we provide unlimited supply, and of course the oil and gas industry itself will want to drill for every last drop of oil for as long as it can, but it is for a responsible Government to make a responsible decision, and to look the dangers that confront us in the face. The tobacco industry says that there is demand for smoking materials, and the Government have understood their responsibility to stop that demand because smoking is dangerous, but they fail to see or understand the dangers of climate change. We need a Government who will guide the economy into the net zero future, because we need to secure a prosperous future, in the long term, for all people, rather than concentrating on a short-term election issue that may divide Members after such a long period of consensus on the need to reach net zero.
While the Government claim that new licences will improve energy security, the reality is very different. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide an average of only four days of gas per annum. All that the Bill does is send a symbolic signal. It does not even meet the requirement that the Government have set themselves—securing energy for the future of this country. That is why I think the Bill is so dangerous. As I said on Second Reading, it was introduced for political reasons, not because the Government are genuinely intent on any outcome except electoral gain. That is why we should oppose the Bill and make it very clear to our citizens that it does nothing for energy security, nothing to get us to net zero, and nothing to curb energy bills. All Members of the House in their right mind should oppose this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sammy Wilson. Please be cognisant of the fact that the debate will finish at 5.14 pm, and Mr Foord would like to get in, too.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
May I first say that we fully support the Bill and the objectives that have been set? As has been said time and again during the debate, we will require oil and gas for decades—and it may as well be British oil and gas, because that means jobs in Britain, tax revenue, and reducing our imports. If we are to continue to use oil, there are very good reasons why we should give licences for its production.
I find some of the arguments made today very strange. Passionate speeches have been made against this Bill on the basis that—let me paraphrase the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—it does not do anything that is not already being done. He went further and said that even though that is the case, civil servants must have “held their noses” when writing the Bill. If it does not do anything that is not already being done, why on earth is there such passionate opposition to it? [Interruption.] A Member asks from a sedentary position about the climate emergency. Apparently, one of the arguments against the Bill is that it will provide only another three days’ worth of oil and gas. We are hardly going to push up world temperatures if another three days’ worth of oil and gas is drilled out of the North sea, but we will ensure years of jobs for people currently working in the gas industry, guarantee years of finance for much-needed public services in this country, and guarantee that we do not have to import from other countries.
Another argument used against the Bill is that it is a confected and contrived piece of legislation, designed simply to be part of the culture wars and to drive a wedge. Indeed, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said it was “specious” and dealt with a problem that does not exist. The easy way of ensuring that the Bill does not become a confected piece of legislation or drive an artificial wedge is for those who think that it is only window dressing to make it quite clear that they would continue to allow licences to be issued. Then it would not be confected; we would know that either there is a real difference or there is no difference. I am not sure where the Labour party stands on this issue, but if, like the hon. Member for Angus, it cannot give a commitment that there would be licences granted under a Labour-controlled Administration, the Bill is not confected or specious. It is real, and people have to make a judgment: will the Bill ensure that our economy and workers can benefit from the oil we have? If so, this legislation is necessary.
Given the stance that has been adopted by the Labour party, my great worry in all this is that although the Government are trying to inject some confidence into the debate, it does not give any long-term confidence, because we will have an election this year and investors will not know whether the arguments we have heard today will lead to licences not being granted in the future.
My second concern, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is that because we have established legally binding targets for net zero in legislation, the benefits that might come from this Bill will not be realised because they will get stuck in the courts. I have said this to the Minster before, and I say it again: legally binding targets leave the Government open to legal challenges on every piece of sensible legislation that they try to bring through this House, whether it be to alleviate the burden placed on people by their heating bills by changing the policy on heat pumps, or to reduce the impact on travel costs by not having mandatory targets for electric vehicles; I could go through a whole list of policies. This is something that we will have to revisit.
We give the Bill our support tonight. We think it is sensible, and that it gives confidence. It also shows that the Government recognise the reality: people will use oil and gas for many decades into the future, and we have to ensure that we benefit from the fact that demand is there.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Most people in this country accept that we need energy security, that we must move away from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources, and that we must seek to reduce our carbon emissions to meet the challenges posed by climate change. They see the effects of climate change every day. Recently in my corner of Devon, the communities of Feniton and Cullompton showed me what it was like to experience flash flooding. It has caused terrible damage to constituents’ properties and destroyed some of their most treasured possessions. Flooding will only get worse and more frequent as the UK continues to suffer the effects of climate change.
We in the UK have shown leadership in this area. We should be setting an example to the rest of the world on the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, but also crucially on the economic benefits that the UK can enjoy as a result. The Government claim that by mandating the North Sea Transition Authority to run regular bids for new oil extraction licences, they will protect the UK’s energy security, but that simply does not add up, because 80% of the oil is exported, so there will be no material difference to people’s energy bills, and we will still be reliant on imported liquefied natural gas. We saw that in the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022; it caused huge spikes in oil and gas prices and left consumers facing spiralling energy bills. They would not have been nearly so badly affected by that if we had continued to invest in onshore wind in the way we were doing in 2015, or if we had continued to insulate buildings in the way we were in the coalition years.
It is not UK-produced oil that would have mitigated those price rises, but UK-based renewable energy and demand avoidance, encouraged by a more progressive Government than this one. For example, Octopus Energy notes that £5 billion could have been saved by consumers if onshore wind had continued to be developed at 2015 rates, but the Conservatives were left to govern alone, and that prospect vanished.
The UK Energy Research Centre said of this Bill:
“A fixation on new licensing…is a distraction. It offers comfort in the possibility of conserving oil and gas production…rather than grasping the challenge of a rapid transition.”
To put it bluntly, this is the approach of a Government who are too scared to embrace the future and make the fundamental changes that we need to build a better future for our children. Many on the Conservative Benches have highlighted the challenges of phasing out oil and gas as we transition to renewable energy, but there are not only challenges. There are also opportunities to support new home-grown, clean energy that will power our homes and create a swathe of well paid jobs. We cannot cling to the past because we are too scared of the future.
There is an analogy here from over a century ago, when Great Britain first embraced oil. Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty in a Liberal Government. He took office in 1911, a key point in the Anglo-German naval race. There was a big decision on his desk when he took on the role. How should Great Britain power its ships? Until that point, coal had been the Royal Navy’s dominant source of fuel. It was produced at home in Britain, and the saying “carrying coals to Newcastle” reminds us that there was an abundance of coal in Britain, but that did not make Churchill determined to exploit the abundant reserves of that fuel, which was powering the world’s largest navy of the day.
Churchill signed an order for the Royal Navy to be powered by the innovative energy source of the 20th century, which happened to be oil. Oil was more efficient and allowed ships to travel faster, further, with less fuel. It also allowed for the innovative design of new ships. By this Government’s logic, Churchill should have put that cutting-edge energy source on the back burner and stuck to coal. The arguments made in favour of coal then were similar to those being deployed in favour of the Bill today. Churchill believed in looking to the future and seizing the opportunities that arose, so he took the fateful decision that all new ships in the surface fleet would switch to the more innovative, more energy-efficient fuel source. As a result, the Royal Navy continued to dominate the seas and hampered Germany’s international trade and, later, its war effort.
Today, China is working on zero-emission shipping. The California-China Climate Institute at Berkeley is looking at 21st-century innovations that will power the leading economies of this century. If China tunes into BBC Parliament and sees us in our 19th-century surroundings, it would think it quaint that we are debating which 20th-century energy source we should cling to.
Churchill’s decision in 1911 put Britain at the forefront of innovation and design, allowing Britain and British talent to reshape the character of the 20th century. Do Conservative Members disagree with Mr Churchill? Are they daunted by the prospect of seizing the opportunity presented by new sources of energy, including renewable energy, to power the UK in the 21st century? Why are they seeking to take these short-term, short-sighted decisions that fly in the face of our climate commitments?
This Conservative Government already offer subsidies to the oil industries, and they are already indifferent to the price of renewable energy being tied to the price of gas. It is time for a rethink. It is time to focus on improving the national grid, boosting home-grown green energy and investing in the technologies of tomorrow.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Wednesday 21st February 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 February 2024 - (20 Feb 2024)
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Tuesday 26th March 2024
(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 February 2024 - (20 Feb 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK recently achieved an important milestone in the global fight against climate change. We were the first major economy to set a net-zero target in law, and we are now the first major economy to have halved our emissions since 1990. Of course, we are not resting on our laurels as we pursue our goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68% by 2030. Between 2010 and 2023, the UK has seen £300 billion of investment into low-carbon sectors, demonstrating that our approach to net zero is working. That is because it is an approach that is proportionate, fair and grounded in reality.
We recognise, of course, that the UK still depends on fossil fuels for meeting around 75% of the energy demand and that that is something that cannot be changed overnight. The independent Climate Change Committee’s data shows that even in 2050, when we reach net zero, oil and gas are expected to continue to play an important, albeit smaller, part in meeting demand and maintaining our national energy security, so managing our remaining reserves effectively will be critical to the transition, and that is why the Government are bringing forward this Bill.
I believe that many of us across the House agree that as a country we must reduce our reliance on oil and gas, but as we do so the question we must answer is: from where do we want to source that oil and gas to meet that residual demand? Oil and gas production in the North Sea has been hugely successful. It has created and supported hundreds of thousands of British jobs and contributed billions in tax revenue over many decades. It continues to provide us with secure, reliable energy and to support jobs and the economy.
North Sea gas currently provides around half the UK demand. OEUK figures show that the sector supports around 200,000 jobs, adds around £16 billion annually to the economy and brings in billions in tax revenue. I think particularly of how important tax revenue like that was in supporting thousands of households with their energy bills following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This unprecedented support, among the most generous in Europe, was equal to around half the average family’s energy bill or about £1,500. Without tax revenue from industry, that burden would have fallen to taxpayers alone.
Domestic production is also an important part of our national energy security and the energy security of many of our European neighbours. The simple fact is that if we did not have access to this secure and reliable source of energy, we would be even more reliant on imports. The Government’s position is clear: where oil and gas are needed in the decades to come, as much as possible should come from our own waters.
Having said all that, the North Sea is a mature basin and production is in decline. Even with continued exploration and development, production from the basin is expected to decline by around 7% a year, which is, incidentally, faster than the average that is globally required to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. By 2050, the UK’s North Sea oil and gas production is projected to fall by over 90% from today’s levels. The choice before us is whether we seek to reduce our reliance on imports through continuing to issue UK production licences or stop investment in British oil and gas and import even more from abroad.
Without investment in new UK oil and gas fields, we would lose out on more than 1 billion barrels of oil and gas, worth billions in revenue. More than this, our production would decline faster than we could build low-carbon replacements and before the workers in the sector could smoothly transition to jobs in renewable industries. We estimate that such a decline would increase UK import dependence from around 60% now to 70% by 2035. That is more liquefied natural gas with higher production emissions and none of the economic or energy security benefits.
If there was no investment, tens of thousands of skilled British jobs would be placed in jeopardy. Industry leaders have already warned that North Sea workers are at risk of becoming
“the coal miners of our generation”
if we fail to manage the declining North Sea basin in a sustainable way. We cannot allow this to happen.
A recent report from Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector. A key commitment of the North Sea transition deal is to ensure that people and skills from the existing oil and gas workforce are transferrable across the wider energy sector. Make no mistake: these skills are in demand the world over. If they are not wanted here to deliver our own production and our own energy transition, they will surely go overseas and deliver someone else’s.
The general secretary of the GMB—not somebody I quote very often—recently wrote:
“In an increasingly volatile world the UK needs plans and not bans for the future of our energy sector and the transition to net zero”.
In this particular case, the Government could not agree more. We need oil and gas and our domestic oil and gas sector. Industry knows it, the unions know it, everybody knows it—except, perhaps, the noble Lord opposite—and I urge those opposed to continued licensing to think again.
We all want a successful energy transition. This means accepting that oil and gas will continue to play a role in meeting our energy demands for decades to come, and supporting investment and jobs in the North Sea through new licensing so that we can continue to produce that oil and gas from our own resources. However, it also means that during this transition, while we are decarbonising all other sectors of the economy, we should also produce these fuels in the cleanest way possible.
Since 2019, the carbon intensity of global oil and gas production has fallen by around 3%. From the North Sea, it has fallen by 14%. We will go further. The North Sea transition deal commits the offshore oil and gas sector to reducing emissions from operations to 50% of 2018 levels by 2030, with emissions already falling by 23% by 2022. To support this, we have committed to zero routine flaring and venting for both oil and gas by 2030, going further than the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative. Industry has made significant progress in meeting this target, with already a near 50% reduction in flaring since 2018. The NSTA already expects all new developments to have zero routine flaring and venting.
This Bill is part of the effective management of the energy transition. This new legislation will require the North Sea Transition Authority to run an annual process for new exploration and production licences in the UK continental shelf, subject to several key tests being met: first, that the UK is projected to remain a net importer of both oil and gas, and, secondly, that carbon emissions associated with UK gas are lower than imported liquefied natural gas. The tests ensure that annual licensing can take place only where it remains the right thing to do.
A more predictable licensing regime will not take us back to the era of peak production in the North Sea; as I said, the reality is that this is a fast-declining basin. Instead, new licensing will simply seek to manage that decline rather than to increase oil and gas production above current levels. However, it will give industry the certainty and confidence it needs to support the continued investment necessary both for our energy security and to help deliver the energy transition. That is an investment worth billions of pounds from companies such as Shell—which is also planning major investment in low-carbon and zero-carbon infrastructure, including offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage—and BP, which plans to invest up to £18 billion in the UK’s energy system by the end of 2030, in addition to its operating spend in the United Kingdom. The Bill demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment to the industry and helps to provide the certainty to ensure that the UK continental shelf remains an attractive investment as we transition to renewables.
The UK is a world leader on climate. We are one of the most decarbonised economies in the world and have met every one of our legally binding carbon budgets, but the fact remains that we will still need oil and gas in 2050, and it is simply common sense to use what we have. If we produce oil and gas here, it is the British public and our European allies—not foreign, and potentially hostile, regimes—that will benefit. If we produce here, we can be safe in the knowledge that our stringent regulations have kept the environment safe. If we produce here, we can reduce our reliance on imports, such as LNG, that have up to four times the production emissions of domestic production. If we produce here, we support a vibrant industrial sector, British jobs and communities that will be key to delivering the energy transition, rather than see them disappear overseas to help to deliver someone else’s. I believe that the choice is clear.
I will leave the House with the words of the chief executive of the NSTA, who said that
“we won’t get to net zero without oil and gas”
and that
“producing as much of the oil and gas we need as possible domestically is the right thing to do, for security and the economy”.
The North Sea has powered us through the last half century and, if we manage the transition correctly, it will power us through the next. I beg to move.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister, who set out the Government’s reasoning for the Bill. It is very straightforward in what it does: it would require the North Sea Transition Authority to run an annual oil and gas licensing round, inviting applications for new production licences in our offshore waters.
What is less clear is what the Bill will actually achieve. While families and businesses across the country are feeling the impact of the Government’s energy policy, which has left us the worst hit in western Europe, the Government have brought forward this Bill. It is a Bill that the Government have already admitted will not take a penny off the outrageously high energy bills that people are struggling to pay. It was our high dependency on fossil fuels that put British households in the recent situation that they have been in, so the Bill doubles down.
It is a Bill that will not do anything to address our energy security, as oil and gas are sold, as the Minister knows, on the international market—a case made expertly by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who, I suggest, knows his stuff. The more we depend on fossil fuels, the more we will depend on those who control, and set the prices on, that market.
It is a Bill that is not necessary to bring down energy imports; the only way to do that for good is to produce more clean power at home that we can control. It will not send the right signal to investors on the UK’s commitment to green industry. It is not good for jobs as the number of North Sea workers decreases, or for the public purse, which has spent far more on subsidies recently than any possible tax revenue. It is certainly not good for the environment; in the words of the Government’s former net zero tsar:
“There is no such thing as a new net zero oilfield”.
So what exactly is it intended to achieve? All we can see is areas where it takes us in the wrong direction, not least on protecting the environment. We are certainly not alone in this view. The way to enhance energy security, according to the National Infrastructure Commission, is to move away from fossil fuels. In its words:
“Reliance on fossil fuels means exposure to geopolitical shocks that impact the price of these internationally traded commodities”.
This Bill does the opposite.
As for investment, the CEO of Aviva made it very clear that new oil and gas drilling
“puts at clear risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate ready”.
Then there are the thoughts of the former net zero tsar who quit Parliament over this Bill, the right honourable Chris Skidmore, and the widely respected former COP president, the right honourable Alok Sharma. Chris Skidmore called the Bill
“another historic mistake and a grave error”
that is
“totally against the sentiment and direction of the global stocktake”.
Furthermore, he reported from Dubai that the UK’s international leadership will be undermined until a moratorium on new licences is resumed. Alok Sharma said that it would
“reinforce the … perception of the UK’s rowing back from climate action … and that does make our international partners question the seriousness with which we take our international commitments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/24; col. 52.]
With how little of substance the Bill will achieve, the only obvious answer is that the Government see it as a symbol. As we have made clear, the symbol that is being sent is very much the wrong one.
We will try to improve the Bill during the remaining stages, but let me be clear. First, what is needed is not an improvement to the Bill but a whole different approach. We need the UK to be made a clean energy superpower with cheap and secure energy so that families and businesses are protected from spiralling bills, and jobs and investment are boosted across the country. That is the Labour Party’s mission: to cut bills, create jobs, deliver energy security and provide climate leadership. This Bill does pretty much the opposite. But given that the Government are determined to press on with a Bill that will achieve nothing, it would be irresponsible not to seek to improve it. So we will look to see what we can do.
The Bill contains two tests that should be passed before the North Sea Transition Authority can proceed to issue a licence—but these tests, as drafted, cannot be failed. Liquefied natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas intensive in production than UK natural gas. There is no situation in which the North Sea field will meet our total demand for gas and oil. Tests that cannot be failed are simply pointless. We seek to replace these tests with ones that produce a proper judgment about whether a licence should be issued. These tests will be based first and foremost on whether issuing a licence would be in line with our climate change goals. I also look forward to the House considering other areas in Committee—methane, leak detection, protection of green areas—and seeing where we can find cross-party agreement to maybe even give this purposeless Bill some purpose.
The Bill does, however, have one merit. It has given rise to one of the most remarkable speeches made in the other place, by Dr Alan Whitehead MP. I will finish by quoting part of his speech:
“The whole Bill appears to have come about as a result of a wheeze, cooked up by a couple of strategy advisers over a heavy lunch, to put the Opposition on the wrong foot … Quite honestly, that wheeze should have been put down as soon as the effects of the heavy lunch wore off, but instead it has … finally made it to the Floor of the House in the shape of this risible Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/24; col. 105.]
Exactly so.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and director of the associated company. Perhaps I will take up from where the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, left off.
With just one substantive clause, this could be called a modest Bill, but I am afraid that, to coin a phrase, it has much to be modest about. Its central provision, providing for an annual round of licensing, was deemed unnecessary by the North Sea Transition Authority. We learn from the Financial Times that the authority was concerned not only that it was an unnecessary “wheeze”, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, but that potentially it undermines the independence of that authority. The two so-called tests to be fulfilled before licences are granted are, as has been pointed out, essentially unfailable—so what about the Government’s justification that the Bill would strengthen the UK’s energy security and reduce reliance on volatile energy markets?
A coruscating commentary from academics at the UK Energy Research Centre described it as a distraction, saying:
“Annual licensing rounds will not ensure the UK’s energy security … Any oil and gas developed as a consequence of new licences is unlikely to come to market quickly and will be sold at international market prices”.
These themes were taken up by the former COP 26 president, Sir Alok Sharma, during debates in the other place, who emphasised that
“the oil and gas extracted from the North sea is owned by private enterprises and the Government do not get to control to whom it is sold”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/24; col. 52.]
Not even the Secretary of State for the Environment still claims that this legislation will help customers with their energy bills because, as Sir Alok pointed out, the products will be sold on the international market. The flaws in our domestic pricing systems mean that the unnecessarily high costs of sustainably produced energy will continue to be high until we solve the problem of the pegging of energy prices. No wonder the Bill was what finally broke the camel’s back for Chris Skidmore, the man who signed the net-zero target into law for the Conservative Government, who was chosen by the Government to undertake the net-zero review and who, as has been said, resigned over it.
We all recognise that we are in transition and—as the Minister often reminds us and did again today—we will need supplies, albeit reducing supplies, of oil and gas for some time. However, we need to move that transition along with more investment in cheaper, cleaner, homegrown power and in the alternative sources that are necessary to cater for the issues of intermittency.
Rather than offering encouragement to oil and gas companies, which, despite their claims, do very little in the renewable sector—it receives only a tiny percentage of their UK investment—we should focus attention and incentives on investing in onshore and offshore wind, tidal power, nuclear power, battery storage and the back to basics energy efficiency with which the Minister knows many in this House are deeply concerned. Moreover, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis is concerned that the Bill could make our existing challenge of decarbonising, to which the Minister referred, harder. The institute says:
“Stimulating both offshore wind and oil and gas sectors will spur competition over limited supply chain resources. This will increase costs which will disproportionately affect the offshore wind sector”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that annual licensing will
“provide greater certainty to the industry and potential investors”,
but we need that certainty and encouragement for the industries and technologies of the future, not of the past. We need to look at the interests of workers in the energy sector in terms of their future and how we can transfer their invaluable skills—not abroad, as the Minister said, but into the sustainable, clean energies in this country where the opportunities are and where the growth is higher than it is in oil and gas.
New licensing rounds are unlikely to restore offshore oil and gas jobs that have been lost steadily over the years as the basin declines, as the Minister said. Despite increasingly favourable tax regimes having been implemented since 2015 and high levels of investment, North Sea oil is a declining basin and roles in oil and gas in Scotland decreased by 36%. Over the same period, renewable roles increased by 70%. In hard numbers, recent ONS figures stated that there were nearly 48,000 roles in renewable energy—considerably more than the roughly 30,000 direct roles remaining in oil and gas. This is the growth economy of the future and we should invest in its workers. We should recognise that the net-zero economy is outstripping the rest of the economy, with 9% year-on-year growth, as recently reported by the ECIU.
In many ways, the Bill is a paradox. It achieves very little in energy security and in fulfilling the Government’s stated aims. It does not do what it claims or what is necessary. But because it does not do very much that does not mean that it is harmless. It has a very clear impact in the negative messages that it conveys about the Government’s real commitment to the action that we need to transition successfully to the economy powered by clean energy that we need. Sadly, it reinforces the messaging that has been dripping out from the Government in the last 18 months and the perception of “slowing UK climate ambition”, as the CCC puts it. That perception—indeed, that reality—is deeply damaging to the international reputation on climate change that the UK has built, certainly since the passing of the Climate Change Act and arguably since Margaret Thatcher recognised the centrality of the issue of climate change in her speech 35 years ago. We cannot continue to lead, as the Government say that they have been proud to, if we continually water down our national commitments and priorities.
It is a modest Bill but, sadly, a damaging one, which looks backwards to the technologies and industries of the past rather than to the sustainable growth of the future. However, this House concentrates on improving legislation so, however wrong-headed in principle we consider this to be, I look forward with others to our discussions in Committee and on Report and to exploring amendments on the marine environment, on supporting workers transitioning to new roles in clean energy and on ending the unnecessary practice of venting and flaring, which continues to add such potent pollution to our atmosphere.
I do not hold out much hope that the Minister will move much on the objections in principle to the Bill, but I hope that he will at least be willing to look seriously at changes that could contribute to the thriving low-carbon and nature-positive economy which the Government recognise that the UK needs.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, both of whom seem to be against the Bill because the positives are small. One is normally against things because they are negative. The only negative the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, came up with was that it sends out the wrong messages. I have observed a general rule in politics, that when the only argument anyone has against something is that it sends out the wrong messages, they do not really have an argument against it at all.
The question that faces us is whether this Bill is compatible with our commitment to reach net zero by 2050. It is a huge challenge: a huge engineering challenge that, according to the former chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment and professor of engineering at Cambridge, Professor Kelly, is impossible to achieve; let us hope he is wrong. It is a huge economic challenge that, according to a former economist at the World Bank and now professor of energy economics at Edinburgh University, is economically impossible to achieve; let us hope that he too is wrong. Let us assume for the purposes of this debate that these objectives are achievable. What we cannot do is add problems, even small ones, to those mammoth engineering and economics problems by doing things that add to emissions, rather than reduce them; that add to costs, rather than reduce them; and that reduce, albeit by a small amount, our own GDP and tax revenues, which we will need to pay for the transition to net zero.
The sensible path to net zero that we, like other like- minded countries, have adopted is to phase out demand for fossil fuels, not their supply. If energy companies choose to invest in more fossil fuel capacity than is needed, they will lose money; that should not be our primary concern, except for those who happen to have a financial interest in the oil industry. If the UK unilaterally stops producing fossil fuels, which would be a bizarre thing to do if we do not ban their import, others will step in and supply the fossil fuels that we failed to produce but could have. They will also replace any fossil fuels that we provided to the rest of the world. If the whole world were to try to reduce the supply of fossil fuels, as well as phasing out demand, that would have no effect if we did not phase out the supply as rapidly as we reduced the demand. Or, if we phased out the supply more rapidly than we reduced the demand, it would create shortages, massive price rises and huge profits for the oil industry. It would do to ourselves and the world exactly what Putin did to us when he invaded Ukraine and reduced supplies. Is that what the opponents of this Bill want to achieve? Or are they solely interested in the UK stopping the production of oil and gas, rather than the rest of the world stopping it?
Even if our fossil fuels did not involve fewer emissions in extraction and transport, or, in the case of gas, additional emissions over and above that in liquefaction and regasification, there would still be a very sensible case for us to keep producing such oil and gas as is available in the North Sea. Remember, the UK plans to reduce emissions not just by reducing demand for and use of fossil fuels, but by employing carbon capture and storage. That is a sensible thing to do because, according to the Climate Change Committee, our estimates and those of others suggest that without resort to carbon capture and storage, the cost of meeting the 2050 targets would be twice as high. We will use carbon capture and storage, which means we will continue to use oil and gas up to and after 2050—unless, of course, people on the other side want to double the cost of meeting the net-zero commitment.
I got the impression from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, that the Labour Party’s approach to this is based on the assumption that there is a choice between continuing to produce new oil and gas fields in the North Sea and developing renewables in the North Sea and elsewhere. There is no such alternative. We can do both, we are doing both and we should continue to do so. He also argued, as did the noble Baroness, that all the benefits of producing oil and gas in the North Sea are small ones: there will be only a small benefit in emissions reductions; there will be only a small benefit to the economy; there will be only a small benefit in extra tax revenues; and there will be only a small benefit in saving jobs and energy security. Well, small benefits are better than none, and we should pocket them if we can. The noble Baroness quoted Global Witness evidence that the claim that the oil and gas industry employs 200,000 jobs is wrong. She said— and I have no reason to doubt her or Global Witness—that the real figure is 27,600. Global Witness says that this does not matter, but it still seems a lot of jobs. It is pretty heartless to say to those 27,600 people, who are largely in Scotland, that their jobs do not matter and they can probably find a job in the renewables industry, if they are lucky, because they have transferable skills, notwithstanding the disruption and the need to move.
The other argument—
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He quoted me; otherwise, I would not interrupt him on Second Reading. I did not quote the Global Witness figures—which I do have—because they are complicated and quite difficult to discern. I quoted the ONS figures, which state that, over the period to which they refer, renewable roles increased by 70%, whereas in hard numbers, there were nearly 48,000 roles in renewable energy, which is considerably more than the 30,000 direct roles remaining in oil and gas. I did not talk about the 200,000 figure; I gave simply the ONS figures showing that there are more jobs in renewables than in oil and gas, and they are growing faster.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification. Somebody used the 200,000 figure—it must have been the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. Anyway, it does not matter.
Lord Lilley (Con)
The Minister did. The noble Baroness has acknowledged that the figure is about 30,000, rather than 27,600; I do not really see the difference, frankly. The point is not which figure is bigger. Why should we sacrifice 30,000 jobs?
Lord Lilley (Con)
The proposal is to sacrifice them if we phase out that industry more rapidly than would otherwise occur. I give way to the noble Baroness if she has some alternative.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I think I quoted the Minister correctly. He talked about the invaluable skills of people in the oil and gas industry, and how those could be transferred into our own industries and not lost to foreign competitors. When I went to a wind farm, the guy who was helping us to go right to the top of the wind turbine told me that he used to work on the oil rigs in the North Sea. He had seen the way the wind was blowing—if that is the correct term—and he took a job in renewable energy, so I am not in the business of sacrificing anybody’s jobs.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I mentioned the possibility that people were claiming they could move across, and some of them will, but it will mean disruption. We should not unnecessarily require people to give up a job and —hopefully—take on another one. As the noble Baroness said, these jobs already exist and will go on increasing in number if we increase investment in renewables. I have not argued against that at all. The two types of job are perfectly compatible. Both can exist side by side, instead of there being only one lot of jobs.
The other argument is that 80% of our oil is sent overseas to be refined, and so production of our own crude oil does not result in any security. I used to be an oil analyst in the City, examining how these things work. If, in a crisis, a country has supplies of crude, it can trade it for other types of crude that work in its own refineries. This is how the market works. It does give you security because you can say, “We will send you that and, in return, we want products or the equivalent amount of crude that we can refine ourselves”. It gives greater security—not a huge amount because we do not have a huge amount of oil and gas, but a bit of security is better than none.
The arguments used by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and in most of the briefing notes that I have seen, are all about how small the advantages from the Bill will be. The Climate Change Committee—the Government’s official independent adviser—has come out against this Bill and the Government’s decision to continue licensing new fields in the North Sea. I put the arguments I have made so far to its outgoing chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who is a colleague and my old friend, when he appeared before the Environment and Climate Change Committee. I asked him whether he wanted the whole world to phase out oil and gas, or just the UK. He said, in effect, “Just the UK”. He said:
“The world is producing oil sufficient to meet our needs … There are many countries in the world that will still be producing oil and have no intention of reducing that. There are other countries that could produce oil and gas and have to make a choice between going down that route and going down the route of renewables. We have a duty to try to get them to make the right decision because otherwise we will destroy our world and ourselves … We have to get other countries to do the right thing … If you say to a country that does not have oil, ‘You have a chance to produce oil and your future will be with oil’, I am afraid it will not go for renewables, even though this is the real answer … We have to set an example”.
I find that argument absolutely pathetic and incredible. The idea that phasing out production in the North Sea more rapidly than need be is going to persuade some African country which finds oil not to produce its oil but to go down the route of producing renewables is just ludicrous. It could, of course, do both. We should recognise that this is the only argument that the Government’s own independent advisers have against the Bill.
We should recognise that, in law, the Climate Change Committee has no role in advising about the supply of oil and gas. Its role is about phasing out emissions, so it is acting ultra vires even in coming out with its recommendations against this Bill. That is as maybe.
Other arguments suggest that it would be bad for the environment—that dolphins and other wildlife would be disturbed by offshore oilfields. Of course, they would be equally disturbed by offshore wind farms. This does not seem a wholly credible argument.
Most people argue as if allowing petroleum licences and producing renewables are alternatives. The Bill will not stop renewables at all. In so far as it boosts the economy and tax revenues, it will help fund the transition. There is no time limit on speeches. In my view, by the same logic that applies to the Bill, we should also allow the production of oil and gas on shore. We should license onshore exploration and drilling for shale gas, subject to a local referendum in the area where it occurs, and to allowing the companies that wish to drill to offer incentives to those in that area. I have been told that they are prepared to pay £1,000 per head and subsequently to offer cheap gas if they find it.
Why do we not do this? I know enough about the oil industry to know that everything is uncertain, but there is a lot down there. I do not know whether or not we can get it out of the shale. If we can, all the arguments that there is only a small amount disappear because the potential quantities are very large.
I hope that we will not be carried away by those who object to producing oil and gas. It is a luxury belief. They can oppose production because it has no direct effect on them, but it will marginally impoverish the rest of us. This is not something to which we should give in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall do my best to not be long-winded and boring.
This Bill is yet another example of this Government’s colossal stupidity. They are a deliquescent Government that really should stop putting Bills through both Houses. It is also quite dangerous. It is a climate change deniers’ charter. I guess it came from Tufton Street and all the Conservative Party donors attached to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, probably helped by people in the oil and gas industry kindly donating millions of pounds to the Conservative Party.
These people make profit from pollution. They want to carry on doing so for as long as they can. They do not like net zero and renewables because they mean less money for them. They do not like the idea of less plastic in the world because plastic means oil and that is a money-spinner for them as well. They do not like new solar and heat pumps being standard on new homes because this affects their profits too. These people are killing the planet while helping to keep the Conservative Party solvent.
What is their solution to the climate crisis facing us all? It is carbon capture and storage, on which the Government are spending billions. At the same time—the irony—they are bringing in this Bill, which will severely damage nature’s own carbon capture and storage system: the ocean. It has proof of concept over probably a couple of billion years. This is far more efficient than anything we can dream up.
As an aside, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, talk about Labour’s commitments after the next election. I shall look forward to helping it and holding it to account on that.
The Government’s big idea is to use taxpayers’ money to pump all the carbon down oil and gas wells so that they can make a lot of money from it. Perhaps the Minister can confirm this.
It is almost five years since Theresa May signed the 2050 net-zero target into law. We have now wasted one-sixth of the time available to meet the 2050 target. This Government have failed to set out any realistic plans to reach net zero. The solutions are obvious. As I have said before, I can give the Government the Green Party’s manifesto to make sure that they have enough policies to do what they ought to be doing. The solutions include rapid delivery of insulation, energy efficiency and energy reduction on a street-by-street model, and a wholesale transition to renewables, including onshore wind, with a full-scale retraining programme of the existing workforce. We should send a clear message to investors and businesses that fossil fuel extraction is a dying industry, carrying stranded assets, with no prospect of making a return on any investment.
Instead of reducing fossil fuel production and ending new licences in line with COP agreements, the Conservatives bring us this Bill. In justification, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has claimed that domestic oil and gas is four times cleaner than imported oil and gas. This is such incoherent nonsense. I can hardly believe that anyone could say this, let alone someone in that position. We do not keep our oil. It also means that we would be using international markets just as they are at the moment.
The Bill establishes a totally meaningless test that new licences can be granted so long as imports of fossil fuels exceed exports. This would allow the UK to extract every last drop of oil and gas from the North Sea, as long as we continue to import more and more oil and gas to balance it out.
Finally, the continued expansion of fossil fuel production is incompatible with a liveable planet for humans and for millions of species. It does not matter from where on earth those fossil fuels are extracted or what the balance of trade is; we need to cut our carbon emissions massively.
I was absolutely astounded to see the environmental statement in the Bill, which says that
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law”.
That is nonsense.
I wish all noble Lords a happy Easter and that they come back refreshed.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it is difficult to follow the noble Baroness—I seem to have drawn the short straw on that one—but it is also difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, because it is quite distressing to witness the death throes of a dinosaur.
This is a wholly unnecessary Bill. Its only virtue is that it is brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that the North Sea Transition Authority, for which the Bill is allegedly meant, has been quoted as saying that it does not need or want it.
The Minister kindly wrote to us in February and held a briefing meeting early in March. He tried, and I should say failed, to outline the benefits of the Bill, so let us look at some of the anticipated and promoted benefits. One is jobs. Whether or not it is 200,000 for oil and gas and associated industries, the argument pursued by the Government is that we have to keep these jobs up and that it would be really bad for us to see all these people becoming unemployed or having to change their profession. In fact, they have skills that would admirably fit the transition to low-carbon technologies. Rather than giving the go-ahead for continued licensing in the North Sea and slowing the decline path of North Sea gas and oil, we should get a greater move on with the development of new low-carbon technologies, including by attracting the billions of pounds of potential investments that the Government tell us are out there.
New green jobs using these people’s skills is the humane way to transition from old to new technology, rather than perpetuating oil and gas to support old jobs. This is the sort of illogical thinking that we have come to expect from this Government, in this area. It is like the logic that we heard them use when talking about commissioning new gas-fired power stations to provide resilience to fluctuations in sun and wind power renewables, rather than going straight towards low-carbon, hydrogen, medium-term storage solutions, as advocated by the Science and Technology Select Committee. The only result of commissioning new gas-fired power stations is likely to be a whole load of stranded assets.
The Minister also talked about energy security, and new oil and gas licences helping to safeguard that energy security to ensure that we do not rely on hostile states. That argument does not stack up either. Only 20% of the oil produced in the UK is refined here; 70% is refined in Europe. I do not accept the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that we can force trade from having the wrong sort of oil here, with the remainder bartered with Europe. If we end up in a situation where there is a lack of security, international tension or even an international war, having 70% refinable in only Europe will leave us vulnerable.
Some 75% of our oil is exported, since it is the wrong grade for domestic consumption, and 50% of our natural gas comes from outside the UK. None of us wants to see that rise, as liquefied natural gas has a higher carbon footprint than domestic gas, but the answer is not to slow down the transition from a fossil fuel that is on its way out, but to speed it up through increased investment in renewables. They are the future, after all, and that is the most secure way forward.
I too believe that we should increase the burden on carbon capture, storage and use to meet the net-zero target. Carbon capture needs a whole load more technological development before we can really dream of relying on it for carbon removal in any major way. The proof of concept, developed into real schemes on the ground, simply is not happening fast enough or with enough security and science.
Lord Lilley (Con)
After the noble Baroness’s gratuitous insult at the beginning, I am grateful to her for giving way at this point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is the industry that is the dinosaur, not you.
Lord Lilley (Con)
That was very kind of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. She is an apologist for the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Now I have almost forgotten what I was going to ask. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Young, happy that we should do without carbon capture and storage at a risk, according to the estimates of the Climate Change Committee, of doubling the total cost—trillions of pounds—of meeting the net-zero target?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I would be delighted to be confident that carbon capture and storage would fill a substantial gap, but so far we do not have the practical evidence that it can be done. Until that is so, we should not increase the burden on a technology that is not yet established or proven. I personally think that, when the Climate Change Committee put the carbon capture and storage element into the net-zero budget, it was being a bit optimistic, as it was about some other issues. When one looks at the amount of public subsidy going towards Drax—the ultimate dream for carbon capture, storage and reuse—one wonders whether this is another example of the overdue influence of industry.
The noble Lord talked about tax revenues and I was a bit speechless in response: “We are getting tax revenues from something that is quite harmful, but the tax revenues are important; therefore, we have to keep doing the harmful thing”. That is like saying that people smuggling is pretty profitable, even if it is harmful, so we should have a national people smuggling enterprise that brings in some reserves and revenue for the Government. I do not accept the tax revenue issue.
The benefits of the Bill are far from what they are cracked up to be and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will be glad that I will talk about some downsides. The first is marine protected areas. We know that more than a quarter of the oil and gas blocks approved in the October 2023 round were within marine protected areas. Our marine protected areas are in poor condition; only 8% offer effective protection for nature, which is the reason they were created. The clue is in the title. MPAs are an important component of the Government’s Environment Act targets and their international commitment, under the global biodiversity framework, to protect nature effectively in 30% of the sea by 2030. We helped lead that framework at COP and now we are authorising additional licensing of blocks in marine protected areas, as part of the commitment in the Bill.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is the United Nations official body, has guidance that recommends that no industrialised activities take place within MPAs. The Bill clearly rejects that guidance. Just in case noble Lords do not know what the impacts on MPAs are, I should say that they are not the same as for wind power. Some of them are about oil itself. That does not include gross oil spills; generally speaking, we must praise the oil industry around this country—not necessarily elsewhere—for having been fairly successful in reducing the risk of major oil pollution incidents. However, persistent micro-spills do quite a lot of damage to the water quality, from the top to the bottom of the sea. There are also other pollutants from other chemicals used in the operation of oil and gas extraction.
The second issue sounds a bit weird, but is quite important. There is a lot of evidence that seismic survey noise really impacts marine mammals in particular, as well as commercially important fish species and the invertebrates on which they all live. We do not yet know enough about how strong the harm is, but we know that it is substantial.
The third issue is direct destruction of seabed habitats—for example, cold-water corals and deep-sea sponge communities. It is not just that I am carrying a flag for deep-sea sponges, though as a biodiversity fan I am sure they are very lovely; they are actually important carbon storage mechanisms, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my partner in crime, and important for nutrient cycles that help keep our oceans clean. We ignore at our peril the biodiversity and conservation downsides.
I personally think this Bill is unnecessary, unwanted and damaging to climate, biodiversity and, as we have said before, our own international reputation, which should not be discounted. It is very easy to say that the only argument we can put is that it will not look good, but that is not what we are talking about. We have taken a leadership role in the world on this issue, and persuaded other countries—of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, felt would not be persuaded—to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing. We would be junking that international reputation, as we have done successively with several announcements over the last year and a half.
If the Government really want to waste their political capital driving this Bill through, it needs substantial amendment. First, we need to exempt completely marine protected areas from the oil and gas exploration and production blocks. Secondly—and you would expect this from somebody who has spent their life in government on a land use framework—we need a sea use framework. I understand that the Government are already working on a marine spatial prioritisation programme, designed to allocate and prioritise sea space for currently competing activities. Exactly the same problem that we have on land, we have at sea. I urge the Government to complete that work programme quickly, and to add a further test—a spatial prioritisation test—to the carbon intensity and net importer tests already in the Bill, inadequate as they are. This would make blocks available for licensing only if such activities could be shown to be compatible with the achievement of the objectives of the Environment Act and climate change targets. That would be set out in a marine spatial prioritisation programme.
To be honest, the Minister knows in his heart that the North Sea Transition Authority and the nation do not need this Bill. The Climate Change Committee says that there will be a need for some oil and gas after net zero, but that does not justify the development of new North Sea fields. Although we could amend this Bill, it is bit like the pig in lipstick: we could put lipstick on the pig but it will still be a pig. Why does the Minister not just withdraw this silly Bill and we can all go home for Easter?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with her very long credibility and experience in environmental protection. I am interested in some of the points she made; if they do come to amendments, I think we could work together.
I feel that, in some ways, I might be holding the ring in this debate. The whole transition to net zero is incredibly complicated and the energy mix is incredibly complicated. Many people seem to me to reduce it to a binary choice, in a very difficult way.
I declare a political and economic interest, if not a personal one. I have no financial stake in the oil and gas industry, but I have lived for over 50 years in the north-east of Scotland and represented it for many years, and have monitored the industry closely for more than 50 years. I have seen what it has achieved. As the Minister said, it has made a huge contribution to this country economically—jobs, balance of payments and technical innovation—of which we should be proud, while facing very great challenges. There have been mistakes, yes, and disasters on occasion, but also fantastic achievements, and it still has a lot to give. I agree with much of the analysis of the Minister’s introduction, but I do not see the value of the Bill at all—I will develop that point a little later.
Living as I do in the north-east of Scotland, the people I meet absolutely accept that this is a declining industry and that we have to move towards net zero. However, they are hurt and resentful that they are demonised as part of the problem, when they actually delivered what people wanted for the last 50 years, and believe they can help deliver what people want for the next 50 years, if they have the time and space to make that transition in an orderly and reasonable fashion. Quite a lot of the things that are green, and which we wish to have and which are happening fast, are still not happening fast enough to move us away from fossil fuel as quickly as some people think we can or would wish—all the projections make that absolutely clear.
It is still quite a significant industry, worth over £20 billion to the economy—it is not entirely clear because it spreads wide. Directly and indirectly, the figure is around 200,000 jobs, thousands of which are in the north-east of Scotland but the majority of which, believe it or not, are in England. We deliver a third of the subsea technology in the world, and it is an £8 billion to £10 billion industry.
New exploration and development, even if it is allowed to go forward, will not reverse the decline—that decline is inevitable and historic—but it will slow it. However, halting licences will unnecessarily accelerate the decline. It is not about new oil fields; very often it is about tying back existing reserves to the existing infra- structure, which can then be upgraded and decarbonised in the process, so that you are actually cleaning it up as well as getting the benefit of the revenue. As has been said, all the forecasts to and through achieving net zero include oil and gas in the mix. Obviously, the UK has been a net importer for 20 years, and we will import more and more, whatever happens in the future. The faster we build up renewables the better. In the process of doing that, we will naturally suppress oil demand, because people can switch to the alternatives, but it will not eliminate it.
The Minister made a reasonably rational statement, but it did not justify the case for the Bill. The Government are putting out very confused messages, claiming that we are doing really well on climate change but then saying that we need to issue more licences, which, as I said, the industry does not really feel the need for. The industry wants to know that, as and when needed, on a case-by-case basis and where it is appropriate, it will be considered and allowed for. We have never had to have an annual licence; it has just been done on a case-by-case basis, as and when needed. My position is that the Bill is unnecessary, and I do not think it is wise to have a policy of saying that there will be no more licences. The circumstances may well dictate that, rationally, some licences will be required. It is sensible to leave some space for that.
In addition, the Government have—this is not a slight confusion—in a separate decision, pushed back the date for electric cars by five years. Whether you think it is a good or bad idea, the message it sends is that we are in favour of addressing climate change but in an Augustinian way—not just yet. We need to be a little clearer about what we are doing.
We also need to recognise that baseload electricity is a challenge. Some green campaigners say that nuclear is the answer, and it may be the only alternative. I have never had a visceral objection to nuclear, but my experience of monitoring the nuclear industry is that it takes a hell of a long time, costs a hell of a lot, and creates a waste problem that is costly and intractable. On the other hand, I am not sure what the alternative is. It is difficult to see—I do not see it—any projections for 10 or 15 years from now where we are not still generating electricity with gas. It makes sense not to get rid of it faster than we have to, when we are still importing it anyway.
We have another issue, with offshore wind. I happened to fly in from Finland on Saturday, over massive offshore installations as you come to the shore of the UK. It is impressive, but I hear that there are problems with getting connections and landfall. It is no good generating the wind if you cannot get it into the system. We need to address those problems, and fast.
We need to make the investment, and we need to do it as fast as we can, and we need to recognise that climate change is real and probably accelerating. The people who say that we should have no licences, but that we are not shutting down production and are happy to allow any licences that have been granted to continue, seem a little inconsistent. If you are happy to accept them, why would you stop them? I think I have made the point that we need a sensible, balanced approach.
It is interesting to ask which of the oil and gas-producing countries in the world are operating a planned reduction of commercially viable production? The answer is only those that have not got very much. Norway certainly is not; Norway has made it clear that it will produce all the oil and gas that it can. That is not surprising, as it has one big customer just desperate for it, and that is where most of our gas is coming from. I do not see why we should swap Norwegian gas for UK gas when we need both, but that is the reality.
The sector will continue to decline, but, from meeting people in the industry and attending their various events, I know that every company in the supply chain that I meet is increasingly focusing their attention on developing renewable technology. They see it as the future, and they want to be part of the future. They tell me that they are transferring their expertise into that sector and using the revenue they get from oil and gas in the short run to fund it, and that if that revenue chokes off faster, their ability to fund the transition will be lower.
I would be perfectly happy—maybe this could be an amendment—to make it a condition of licensing that operators must ensure that a proportion of their profits is invested in UK renewable technology. They might also be required to demonstrate that they can contribute to lowering energy costs or the cost of living. I am in favour of making the industry contribute more, but I am not in favour of artificially depressing it and leaving us, potentially, risking supply gaps and cost overruns.
We export most of our oil to the Netherlands for refining, and there exists an argument that, because we export it, we should not bother to produce it. I can remember the 1970 election, when one bad month of balance of payments led to a change of Government. Nobody seems to care about the balance of payments any more, but what of the idea that £15 billion-worth of exports should just be discarded? As the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, to be fair, acknowledged, we pay for the imported product, to some extent, by the exports that we make. It is disingenuous to suggest that, because we export it, it has no value to our economy. That goes against normal economics.
We need to focus on how we can get the industry and the public to adopt renewable technologies as fast as possible, and to harness the energies across the energy sector—including oil and gas—towards that, while recognising that managing the transition requires neither a ridiculous stoking up of oil and gas exploration nor an unnecessarily rapid depression of oil and gas. It is naturally declining, and the industry, left to its own devices, will diminish, because it is not there to be invested.
The Bill creates the wrong signal and is completely unnecessary. The industry does not want it, but rather wants recognition that it is part of the solution and should not simply be demonised as being the cause of the problem. That is not a good way to treat an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for 50 years.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, many have already commented on the apparent disconnect between the OPL Bill and the UK’s net-zero ambitions. Although I support and share these concerns, I would like to focus on a different aspect of the Bill, alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young: the impact of increased offshore licensing on our marine protected areas.
I start with the good news. In the past few years, the UK Government have made good strides to protect critically important areas in the ocean by designating them as marine protected areas. There are now 377 of these, covering 38% of the UK’s seas. These are designated to protect and enhance specific species, habitats and ecosystems. We are rightly proud of them, and they have now been included in our target of protecting 30% of our seas for nature by 2030—the international commitment that the Government signed up to at COP 15 in December 2022.
However, to be included in this target, the Government’s own suggested criteria are to
“have long-term protection and/or management in place that works against adverse pressures on the area’s biodiversity objectives, or actively results in improved outcomes for biodiversity”.
This is all good, until we come to the Bill, which makes no mention of not allowing production licences in MPAs. In many ways, this is a classic case of a Bill from one department not aligning with the aims, aspirations and even policies of another—in this case, Defra. The Bill could in fact dramatically reverse progress towards meeting the 30% target, since there is nothing to prevent the North Sea Transition Authority offering up and licensing multiple oil and gas exploration licences in MPAs. It is depressing to look at the licences granted since October 2023: of the 27 granted, six were in marine protected areas. These are some of our most critically endangered sea habitats in the UK.
Does this matter? Is the footprint of new drilling wells on MPAs and nature just too small to worry about? Is it just dolphins, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, commented? I hope, in the next couple of minutes, to convince your Lordships otherwise, and to demonstrate that, in many ways, deep-sea oil and gas production is possibly more damaging to the environment than bottom trawling, because it affects all parts of the ecosystem that species use to navigate, reproduce, feed and even breathe.
We can be under no illusion that these impacts are major, and that each stage of oil and gas production causes damage. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned that, in the exploration stage—before a single drop of oil or molecule of gas has been extracted—surveys must be done to see the geological structure of the seabed, and this uses seismic airgun surveys. These surveys emit an ear-splitting noise that is 100,000 times more intense than a jet engine—imagine that. These blasts deafen the highly sensitive hearing systems of marine mammals that rely on echolocation to navigate the sea, including sperm, minke and long-finned pilot whales, as well as orca and Atlantic white-sided dolphins —animals that we celebrate whenever we see Attenborough on television, thinking what a fantastic environment we have in our seas and on our shores. If the Bill passes without these MPA safeguards in place, we will see changes in migration patterns, fatal deformities in these marine animals, and even death and further loss of these iconic species.
The next stage is the exploratory and appraisal stage, where extensive physical damage is caused to habitats and the seabed. To go back to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this will smother and damage critical habitats—for example, for deep-sea sponges and our very rare cold-water corals. It is not just these organisms that are being lost but the critical ecosystem services that they provide, particularly in carbon sequestration. These are also important nesting habitats for commercial fish stocks, so this starts to damage our economic viability for commercial fishing.
Finally—another point picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—there is the damage from oil spills. It is not the large oil spills that we sometimes see, which thankfully are rare; the vast majority come from a process called produced water, which is extracted from the deposits in the production process and contains soluble and non-soluble oil and various chemicals. All these small processes join together to create big slicks of oil—last year, a couple were noted that were up to 12 to 14 kilometres long. A study by an international body overseeing the protection of offshore activities in the north-east Atlantic showed that this produced water accounts for between 95% and 99% of oil discharges. This is killing our seabirds and significantly impacting life changes. This will happen when we have drilling going on, but my argument is this: please can we not have it happening in our marine protected areas.
If that is not enough, there are two further impacts: toxic chemicals and microplastic waste. We have seen many examples of them and we know the impacts.
In summary, if the Bill is allowed to proceed in its current form, without stopping new oil and gas licences in MPAs, it will be a serious obstacle to achieving the Government’s agreed environmental targets. I do not see how we can protect 30% of our marine environments by 2030 and achieve the Environment Act target that 70% of designated features in MPAs should in a favourable condition by 2042 while we continue to drill in these marine protected areas and cause huge amounts of damage to these critically important environments.
I urge the Government to remove the North Sea Transition Authority’s ability to grant new oil and gas licences within MPAs. This could be achieved by a simple amendment to Clause 1, prohibiting the NSTA inviting any applications for oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in any of the 377 marine protected areas in UK seas. I intend to explore this proposal further in Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, for many years the UK could rightly claim to be a world leader in responding to the dangers of climate change by taking action to reduce our carbon emissions. We rightly showcased that when we hosted COP 26 in Glasgow. However, I am increasingly concerned that our global leadership is slipping away. At COP 28, we joined the rest of the world in committing to:
“Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner”.
This Bill commits us to fossil fuel production at the same time as we are asking other nations to transition away. Our messages are, at best, confused. Various noble Lords have contributed their concerns during this debate, including on methane venting and flaring, which I share.
It is a privilege to follow the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, because I can jettison much of what I wanted to say. I also want to speak about marine protected areas. Her expertise in this area has been important to hear. With the analysis that she has given us and our knowledge that the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referenced, recommends that no industrialised activities should take place within marine protected areas, my question to the Minister is: what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to safeguard these marine protected areas, and why are they not taking the IUCN’s recommendation seriously by excluding MPAs from extraction in this Bill? I would certainly support the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, proposes.
My second point is about our 30 by 30 commitment. Our biodiversity commitments do not stop at the deckchairs on the beach. The Government have committed to preserving 30% of land and sea for biodiversity by 2030. The 30 by 30 pledge is backed by targets set out in the Environment Act to halt the decline in species abundance, both on land and at sea. My second question to the Minister is: how do His Majesty’s Government intend to meet the 30 by 30 target while expanding offshore drilling?
My third point is about spatial planning. The UK Government are signatories of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, target 1 of which states that Governments will:
“Ensure that all areas are under participatory, integrated, and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land and sea use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance … close to zero by 2030”.
This marine spatial planning is essential for managing the inevitable conflicts that arise from different activities at sea, yet a 2023 Defra report assessing the east marine plans found they were outdated and that the
“intended outcomes are no longer aligned to the UK’s national priorities”.
These marine plans should set nature and climate as the major priorities for the use of the sea and, at the very least, protect MPAs from drilling. That brings me to my third question to the Minister: will His Majesty’s Government commit to create a spatial plan outlining where and when activities could take place, with a hierarchy of priority that makes space for 30 by 30 and decarbonisation first, and not allow more drilling in MPAs while this is being finalised?
The King’s Speech at the opening of this Session of Parliament spoke about holding
“other countries to their environmental commitments”.—[Official Report, 7/11/23; col. 4.]
At the time, I noted in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House that
“the UK Government can do that with credibility only if we are an exemplar ourselves”.—[Official Report, 13/11/23; col. 310.]
Ensuring the protection of our marine life would put us back in the leadership chair, not slumbering in that deckchair on the beach.
In the gospels, we meet the first disciples, including St Peter, on the beach, mending their nets. They were fishermen and knew well the beauty and diversity present in the sea. In one famous story, Jesus encourages the disciples to do something totally different from what they were used to: to cast out into the deep. We too are now in an era when we need to do things differently and not follow the same old ways. We need to put away the old way of damaging nature and instead do all we can to preserve and protect it. Psalm 104 speaks of the sea,
“vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number—living things both large and small”.
My concern is that this Bill risks further damaging that vision of the psalmist: of the sea “teeming with creatures”.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, although I humbly reflect that I see nothing in the Bill that detracts from the energy transition. I will try to set out the arguments why.
I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It reminds me of the time many years ago when I had the privilege of being Minister for Energy, back in 1990. He set out a very reasoned case about how difficult this Bill is in many respects in trying to balance the importance of energy transition with recognising the truism that this is not a zero-sum game with oil and gas production in the North Sea.
I declare my interests as set out in the register. I welcome the Bill, although I share the views of noble Lords on both sides of the House in that I am uncertain that it is needed. We call on the Minister a great deal to do admirable work in this House; I think this might have been an opportunity when we did not require his presence. The reason why I think it may not be needed is that it just confirms the policy framework to which existing legislation, licensing rounds, customs and practices in the North Sea already apply.
Why this Bill may prove to be important is that it can underpin a prioritisation of the security of supply as we move towards the sustainable energy policy structured on the net-zero ambitions we all share. I mentioned 1990, when I was Minister for Energy when Margaret Thatcher’s Government first introduced a renewable energy programme into the UK, as has been mentioned, following the seminal speech she gave in 1989, and we launched the non-fossil fuel obligation to provide a market framework to help accelerate the move to renewables and nuclear power. We now measure our trajectory towards net zero by using 1990 as our baseline and my noble friend the Minister is right that we lead the world in the journey to net zero and should retain energy transition as our major priority.
Some 34 years on, we are now half way to net zero. However, we should be under no illusion that this has been, to a large degree, a function of the imposition of measures, with only marginal consumer sensitivity, knowledge or reaction. Changes from oil- and coal-fired power generation to renewables and gas are key policy developments in power generation and have been significant in the build of the combined-cycle gas turbine market and the declining use of coal for power generation in the UK. But to achieve the next 50% of the reductions to get to net zero, we will be asking consumers for something far greater, to go far further in changing their lifestyle—what cars they drive, how they travel, how they heat and insulate their houses and, ultimately, what they eat. We have only 26 years left to achieve that important social and behavioural revolution. I share my noble friend Lord Lilley’s view that there is considerable doubt as to whether we will be carbon-neutral by 2050, but, if we are, it will a private-sector driven change which helps us reach that goal. There is nothing in the Bill that would negatively impact on the vital energy transition measures.
Additionally, a holistic approach to the environmental impact of everything we do offshore must be a priority—being as clean as possible, improving efficiency, significantly reducing all forms of pollution and substantially mitigating carbon emissions. By employing these measures, it will not be difficult to demonstrate as central to the Bill that improved environmental practice will ensure that gas production in the UK will meet one of the Government’s key criteria; namely, that the carbon intensity of natural gas is lower than that of liquefied natural gas imported into the UK. The baseload demand—to which add the demand for firm power, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as opposed to the intermittent power generated by renewables when the wind blows—will ensure that the UK is projected to remain an importer of both oil and gas for many decades to come.
This is a function—it is so important—of both the need for firm power and the actions of a responsible Government to recognise that security of supply is achieved by diversity of supply, and nothing is more secure than the production of energy at home rather than an increasing dependence on imported oil and gas, whether in the form of LNG or interconnectors. I prefer to think that the Bill was not the product of a good lunch but what my noble friend the Minister referred to as the “energy shock” created at the time of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which supports the critical importance of maximising domestic production.
Philip Lambert, one of the foremost energy specialists in the UK, has noted:
“The starting point is that the offshore oil and gas sector in the UK is an existentially important foundation stone of the UK industrial base and UK energy security future—the maturing but still prolifically producing UK North Sea oil and gas province, still incredibly producing just over 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, or, to put it another way, 50% of our needs, 50 years on from first production”.
The key point of this and the hoped-for outcome of the Bill is to emphasise that what the UK industrial sector now needs is greater help from the Government, both to build up renewables and to maximise oil and gas production from the 1.3 million barrels of oil today, resulting in a postponement of decommissioning across the UKCS and genuine maximisation of tax proceeds, while preserving hundreds of thousands of oil and gas-related jobs as they migrate across through energy transition to renewables.
We should not pander to those who welcome the fact that we would, unforgivably, be leaving stranded under the seabed over 10 billion barrels and upwards of $700 billion-worth of UK national wealth by revenue, notably in the prolific and still highly prospective west of Shetlands region but also in the central and southern North Sea, where new seismic and technical breakthroughs are facilitating renewed hydrocarbon promise, with enhanced and improved carbon reduction techniques, services and systems.
Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the right reverend Prelate are right that it is vital that the industry focuses on its impact on special marine environments. I am pleased that that will be debated in Committee as it is an exceptionally important point. It should be a major factor in determining where licences are issued and under what conditions. But the ideologically enforced stranding of the North Sea’s responsible hydrocarbon reserves, which I think is a misplaced tenet of net-zero ideology, will, paradoxically, be highly damaging to the UK’s decarbonisation efforts, which, as I have mentioned, I fully support.
The ironic and perverse outlook is based on the estimate of UK oil and gas demand. Increased demand is a reality, despite the very welcome transition measures which will support the development of renewables and the early green shoots of a functioning and growing nuclear programme, which, I might add, nobody believes is going to have a significant impact on the UK economy until 2035 and later—sadly; I wish it was much sooner. That is the reality and we have to look at the energy balance now and recognise that there is a balance between growing renewables and the need for firm power which comes principally through our own gas reserves but also imported gas.
The moves to diminish oil and gas production will inevitably cause a rapid increase in imports of higher carbon per barrel oil and gas from countries with much less responsible adherence to best practices, as well as causing an unnecessary reduction in home-grown production. If you combine that with the possible shutdown of the aged Rough storage field due to well integrity problems, we risk either energy and power shortages in the UK or an emergency fall back to coal. Genuine decarbonisation efforts by facilitating the seminally important UK/European coal to gas switch continue to be essential and I am sorry that that is not more clearly stated as an objective in the legislation we are considering.
This policy, based on the tenet that we proactively maximise our gas reserves to demonstrate irrefutably and boldly to Putin and his henchmen that not only will he never win the military war but he is comprehensively losing his westward-facing, gas-driven energy war on Europe, is welcome. Upholding national and global energy security has therefore now become an even more integral and vital part of the wider struggle against regimes determined to destabilise western Europe.
Failure to combine the Bill with a supportive tax regime merely disincentivises new investment, accelerates oil and gas production declines, accelerates the economic need to abandon maturing fields and thereby, paradoxically, reduces the net tax receipts for the Government. It costs potentially hundreds of thousands of skilled jobs and denies the UK tens of billions of dollars of badly needed inward investment into the economy. My noble friend Lord Lilley mentioned the key point: it stunts the supply but does not address the demand.
The still prolific and prosperous UK North Sea sector, with 3.5 billion barrels of already discovered but still to be developed reserves, could have a similar bright future to underpin the necessary transition to renewables by supplying us with firm power in the interim period. Rapidly increasing renewables without gas means intermittency in the energy system, which, in effect, leads to more energy insecurity, not less. Just look at California’s woes if you want to underpin this point.
In very few countries is oil and gas so important and coal so unimportant to the energy security and economic well-being of a nation than in the UK today. Oil and gas represents 75% of the energy lifeblood of the UK, a percentage which will remain robust over the new two decades, with gas gaining and oil failing. As I said at the outset, energy transition remains the most important point—focused on mitigating carbon emissions in the exploration, appraisal and production of oil and gas remaining paramount and new technologies and new renewables coming on stream.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, but I feel reluctant to stand up because the Bill seems to have little genuine purpose. It is distracting us from what we need to concentrate on, which is tackling the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss. The context of the Bill and our international reputation are really important, as several noble Lords have said. This is one of the biggest election years in history and one of the most important too, as the fight against climate change becomes so pivotal. We cannot have it both ways: wanting to be a leader in the world and then doing something that contradicts that.
People do read the headlines and they will see the one that says, “UK set to open more oil and gas fields”. What does it tell the world? That we think this is okay and in some weird way compatible with the Paris Agreement? We know that is not the case. The International Energy Agency has been clear about that and, last year, global temperatures were 1.46 degrees above their global pre-industrial average. As we all know, in Paris we agreed to try to shoot for 1.5 degrees. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, correctly when he said that trying to have a non-carbon economy was a luxury belief, but it does not feel much like luxury—
Lord Lilley (Con)
I was saying that stopping supply, rather than phasing out demand, is a luxury belief.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I would contradict that too, because we do not have the time to figure out the difference between them. At the end of the day, they are the same thing. Many people who live in California, which was just mentioned, have lost their homes. If you live in Bangladesh, you have lost your homes; if you are a farmer in this country, you have been unable to plant your crops this year because of the level of rain. This is not a fantasy. It is something that is with us.
Personally, if we lived in an ideal world the Bill should be scrapped, and in doing so the Government would find themselves extraordinarily popular with a lot of people. But specifically, I congratulate whoever creatively came up with two tests that are impossible to fail, while ignoring the emissions associated with the predominant commodity in the North Sea—oil. They might as well read, “If autumn has arrived, run a licensing round”. However, we are not in an ideal world so, if the Bill passes, we have to improve it. Thankfully, there are things we can do.
One, of course, is protecting the marine environments or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, just said, having no exploration in MPAs. I hope she will put in an amendment on that at the next stage. We could also look at the weak emissions reduction targets of 50% by 2030 and go instead for what the CCC recommended, which is a feasible 68%. We could do this.
The Bill could also make progress on banning venting and flaring, which has been illegal in Norway since the 1970s. Even though Norway produces a lot of oil, at least it has managed to cut down the methane which, as we know, is 80 times more potent over a 20-year period, so that is something we could do. I urge Ministers to implement the recommendation by the Commons EAC to implement that ban by the end of next year.
Jobs have been in decline, as we have heard, for many years yet there is still no skills passport available for workers who want to transition. We could try to do that.
Taking a step back, let us think about what is going on in the world. This month, the CEO of Saudi Aramco said in Houston at the annual hydrocarbon festival known as CERAWeek:
“We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas, and instead invest in them adequately, reflecting realistic demand assumptions”.
However, we can meet the demand we need with renewables if they are sufficiently scaled up. It is more about where the power, or the fuel, comes from: thousands of miles into the earth or from our own natural elements.
Recent policy changes mean that we will need more carbon fuels. For example, the analysis by New AutoMotive shows that the potential supply from future licensing would be completely offset by reduced demand if we returned to the original 2030 target for ICE—internal combustion engine—phaseout. We claim that we are helping people but, in reality, we are not. Money, it seems, always triumphs. This month, Exxon CEO Darren Woods explained it simply as an all-out fight to derail anything green because it would not return “above average profits”. This shows that we can never rely on the industry to take the lead in reducing emissions. The Government have to act.
Let us be clear: the Bill will not help the average citizen of this country or indeed any other. We are kidding ourselves if we think that the oil and gas companies, and increasingly private equity firms, really care about reducing emissions. The Government make great emphasis in their carbon budgets on our having CCS technology, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to, but despite the fine words this is unproven.
In my role as vice-chair of Peers for the Planet, I recently invited Sir Tim Smit, the founder of the Eden Project, to speak to colleagues. During his speech, he said that we should remember the person—the adult—we wanted to be at 19, stand there and make them proud. It is obviously a challenge to remember what it felt like at 19 but I can remember that I thought it was my role to try to make the world a better place. I suspect that everybody who has found their way on to these Benches had similar thoughts: make the world better and use what energy you have—what God has given you.
At that point when I was 19, fossil fuel companies were just discovering exactly the kind of damage they were doing, but now we know. We have just had the hottest year on record. I would be aghast, as a 19 year- old, that I had to sit here and fight against something that seems so palpably obvious. At 19, I was fighting for women’s rights—quite honestly, there were no women in this place then—and we proved that was right, so now we are having another extraordinary fight about scientific facts.
It is clear that the Bill is the wrong thing to legislate for. I urge noble Lords that if they cannot justify the Bill to themselves, they should at least try to justify it to their children and their grandchildren.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to follow the noble Baroness. I declare my interest as an insurance broker for the energy sector, but I work with companies from America rather than the UK.
I believe that the Bill brings only benefits to the United Kingdom in energy security, assisting the climate goals to which we are committed and, importantly, supporting the economy in many parts of the country. As a country, we are fortunate to have several oil and gas basins within our territorial waters. Since their discovery and development in the late 1960s and early 1970s, they have enabled us to reduce our dependence on imports. At their peak in 1999, they produced some 4.5 million barrels of oil equivalent a day. It is projected that this year, that will reduce to 1.1 million barrels of oil a day. Since demand is currently somewhere around 2.7 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, the country is a net importer of both oil and gas.
The UK’s dependence on hydrocarbon fuels for our energy needs is about 75%, as we have heard. It is predicted to be still 25% when we reach net zero. Sadly, the reserves are becoming depleted; the decline is predicted to be 7% per annum going forward and we will be ever more reliant on imports. The UK’s oil and gas industry is regarded as a leader on the world stage, employing, as we have heard, a highly valued, skilled and diverse workforce of a debated 200,000 directly for and associated with the offshore industry. Many of these jobs will, over time, move into the energy industry of the future: more offshore wind, hydrogen production and carbon sequestration. It is essential that we keep these skills alive, as they will be required in the transition of the UK to net zero by 2050.
Earlier this afternoon, we were using about 15% from wind, 8% from solar, 17% from the interconnectors and a further 12% from our ageing nuclear fleet to generate electricity. Even with the significant and welcome increased projection in these areas, there will be a shortfall. The sun goes down every night and the wind does not always blow; it is gas that makes up the difference—37% this afternoon. We produce only about 47% of the total current gas demand in the country, remembering particularly home heat in addition to its use in generating electricity. The shortfall must come from somewhere until renewable resources provide sufficient energy, which I wholeheartedly support.
The position with oil is slightly different as, again, there is a significant shortfall, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. The options we can take to ensure the energy security of the country are limited, particularly when considering our net-zero commitments. We can either start to rely more heavily on imports of oil and gas, which is more carbon intensive, or be able to exploit our domestic reserves, which is less so.
The Bill has two logical climate targets to meet: the carbon intensity test and the net importer test. In respect of gas, the average carbon intensity of domestic gas produced during the assessment period was lower than the average carbon intensity of liquefied natural gas imported into the United Kingdom during that period.
Gas is imported in two ways. The first is natural gas via the pipeline system from Norway, which is the majority. Norway certainly produces the cleanest gas—it is cleaner than our production—but its reserves are not infinite. While the Ukraine conflict sadly continues, with sanctions preventing Russian gas entering the European system, gas from the Norwegian fields is highly desirable and in demand across northern Europe. However, there is to be a significant decline in Norway’s gas production before the end of the decade.
The second alternative is importing LNG, which we also do. Wherever it comes from, it imposes a significant increase to our carbon footprint, of three to four times that of our domestic production, notwithstanding the challenges of getting it here. Let us not forget that in the United States, from where we import most of our LNG, the Biden Administration has imposed a ban on the development of more LNG liquefaction plants designed for export. We bring LNG also from the Middle East via the Red Sea, which has its own issues. We bring it too from Peru via the Panama Canal, which has water restrictions. On this basis, the country needs to limit LNG imports as much as possible.
The net importer test is important for gas, and it is the key test for the continued production of domestic oil. As I said, we are a net importer of oil. At this time, the North Sea Transition Authority—the licensing authority—has no requirement to offer blocks or parts thereof with any frequency, other than when it deems licences are required. There was a four-year gap between the two most recent licensing rounds. This Bill ensures that licences will be offered annually, allowing industry participants to plan with more predictability. It is they who have the expertise and capacity to fund a significant number of wind, solar, hydrogen, and carbon sequestration projects driven by their oil and gas revenues. That will continue to ensure that the energy industry benefits the economy and provides significant tax revenues. Most importantly, it will help secure the jobs currently in the industry and transfer them to the renewable industry as demand requires. This is against a backdrop of added energy security for the country while keeping to our climate commitments and goals by using the two embedded tests in the Bill. I am pleased to support this Bill.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. Before I move on to what I had planned to say, I will ask the Minister three questions. First, will the successful licensees be eligible for grants? If so, how much will they be? Secondly, who will be responsible for decommissioning costs throughout the lifetime of the new fields? Thirdly, if in the fullness of time any of the new fields become stranded assets, what safeguards will he put in place to make sure that the British taxpayer is not liable for the bill?
I will keep my remarks very short. I want to make just a few points on the Bill’s conflict with the legally, morally and ethically binding net-zero commitments that the UK has made both domestically and in international fora.
I will start with the Bill’s conflict with the IEA, the International Energy Agency, which knows a thing or two about global energy security. In its 2021 report, Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, the IEA stated that there could be no new oil and gas fields after 2021 if we are to limit warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. It reiterated this in 2023. Our own Climate Change Committee, in its COP28: Key Outcomes report of January this year, stated very politely that
“the UK should reassess whether further exploration for new sources of fossil fuels is aligned with the UNFCCC principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility and the Global Stocktake”.
It refers, of course, to our NDC.
A red alert warning from the World Meteorological Organization just last week confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year on record by a clear margin. According to the FT’s editorial team in an opinion article just two days ago, on 24 March:
“More than 90 per cent of the world’s oceans suffered heatwave conditions, glaciers lost the most ice on record and the extent of Antarctic sea ice fell to by far the lowest levels ever measured”.
Given all that, surely discretion is the greater part of valour, and we must proceed with extreme caution and seek to reduce the greenhouse gas inventory as quickly as possible. I know that the Minister will say that he agrees with me and will assert that this Bill does not derail the UK’s direction of travel. But that is exactly what it does. The Bill does not sit comfortably with the Government’s commitments made at COP 28 just a few short months ago, along with 200 other countries, to transition away from fossil fuels and accelerate action in this critical decade. We cannot maintain credibility on the global stage while we say one thing and do exactly the opposite.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I will try not to be too boring and go on too long. I will also try not to damage any animals, either living or extinct, during my speech. On these Benches, we will oppose this Bill. I notice that, as in the other place, the opposition parties here are united in opposing it.
If the Bill passes, it will be remembered for two things: being mostly pointless and being needlessly politically divisive. The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said that it is a straightforward Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that its only virtue is that it is brief. The length of the Bill reflects any usefulness that flows from its consequences. The Bill does what it claims—somebody said this, but I am not sure who—but sadly what it does is damaging.
I venture to suggest that the Bill is not about energy security at all; instead, it is much more about performance politics and the need for political security on the Benches opposite. The clue to the whole Bill is contained in the first four words: “Duty to invite applications”. I want the House to note that this is not a duty to grant any applications—at all at any point. It is entirely possible that the Bill will be passed and enacted for not one more single North Sea licence ever to be granted again. The Bill is barely longer than a Private Member’s Bill. Who knew that the answer to all our energy security needs lay in a little over 250 words?
The Government have made grand claims that the Bill will provide energy security and protect jobs, and that it is more environmentally friendly than importing LPG. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, the Energy Secretary in the other place also claimed that it would lower energy bills, but that was quickly retracted. In truth, the Bill achieves none of these things.
I was interested in the story the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, told about the lunch where the Bill was supposedly cooked up over a few glasses of wine as a skewer to pin the opposition down on a political wedge and divisive issue. To my mind, the Government have created a heffalump trap for themselves.
The Government also argue that the Bill provides energy security. Fundamentally, it will make no difference at all, in my mind, as NSTA already has the power to grant licences and has done so almost every year since it was set up. NSTA itself, at its own board meeting, said that it did not want or require the powers contained in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill undermines the independence of the organisation that the Government set up to deal with granting new licences. As Alok Sharma said in the other place, the Bill, as drafted, is “something of a distraction”, and NSTA’s ability to grant new licences will not change materially because of it.
The oil and gas is all owned by private companies and is sold, as people have said, on the global markets. The Government have no say or control over where it is sold or to whom. As has been discussed, Global Witness has argued that up to 80% of that goes on to the international market and does not come in any way to the UK. It has been estimated that the gas supply created will be the equivalent of just four days on average per year. This is hardly going to provide us with energy security in the future. I do not believe that the Bill will do anything for energy security or to reduce bills.
The Government have made a series of arguments about securing jobs in the North Sea. It is undoubtedly true that North Sea oil is in decline, as everyone across this House has agreed and the Minister himself has noted. To my mind, the only way to protect jobs is through a real and meaningful plan, investment and a shift to a green economy, but this Bill does not do any of those things. I want to be clear that we on these Benches believe in a just transition. We recognise, fundamentally, the importance of protecting the jobs involved in this industry—between 30,000 and 200,000. We have heard different numbers, but I do not think we should argue about numbers. We should be respectful to all those who work in this industry, and I think the last thing they want is us having petty political arguments about the future of their jobs.
I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with his knowledge and experience of this industry. I welcome his basic message that these people want to be part of the future and do not want us arguing about their jobs. They want us to work together to create a transition for the North Sea towards a green economy, which is the only future they have. All of us need to find ways that we can do that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, new licences will not protect industry or workers to secure that just transition. For that to happen, there need to be allocated funds and plans, but, again, the Bill does not do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, they know what they want, and they want to be part of the future, so it is a shame that this Bill does nothing to secure or provide that future for these people. I honestly wish that it did, as not a single extra penny of taxpayer revenue will be allocated to the transition as a direct result of this Bill.
Three-quarters of all the oil and gas companies that operate in the North Sea do not invest a penny in UK renewables. Why do we allow them to have licences but not require them to invest in the transition? The tests to attain those licences are, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, “impossible to fail”, or, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, “unfailable”. The importing of LPG is not a fair equivalence, when, as the Minister knows, a lot of our oil comes through the pipelines from Norway. The consequences of these tests are all negative, and they are damaging for our reputation abroad and our standing on the world stage.
I welcome the £30 billion investment in the low-carbon economy, mentioned by the Minister. I thank the Conservatives for halving our CO2 emissions; they are now at the lowest levels since 1837. What a tremendous achievement this Government have made, and I am grateful for it. However, at a time when they should be basking in the warm glow of their achievements, the Government come forward with a politically divisive Bill. It is a shame; we should be leading the world, not having arguments at home.
We freely recognise that, under net zero, we will need some oil and gas, not just for our energy but for industrial and other processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, says, it is a huge challenge, and we need to phase out demand for fossil fuels—I completely agree with him there. The war in Ukraine has had damaging impacts on energy prices, and the Government have spent some £70 billion supporting bill payers. I welcome that, but it is money we could have put into the green economy. We cannot continue going round the mulberry bush and investing in old energies; this money should be going into the energy of the future.
I welcome the contributions about the need for spatial plans and the need to protect marine protection areas. These are important issues raised in this Bill that need to be discussed. We will have an opportunity to discuss, through amendments, how we balance these protections with our need to do different things with our seabed.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, the Bill is damaging to our international reputation. It will make it harder for us to secure the investment that we need in our green industries going forward. I call on the Government to accept Alok Sharma’s amendment which was tabled in the other place and which will, I think, be tabled here. It is the one that the Minister in the other place said the Government might be prepared to consider. If the Government are going to be doing this anyway, why not put it in the Bill and give the signal to industry that this is their intention? We are here to provide certainty to industry, so let us put it in the Bill.
We really have to leave fossil fuels in the ground. We have to wean ourselves off these things that are killing our planet. Alternatives do exist; the transition will be difficult and painful, but we must make that journey and seize the nettle. We have no choice. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that the transition happens and that it is a just one. Drilling for more oil is like offering an extra duvet to someone in the middle of a burning building. Rishi Sunak has said that he wants to max out North Sea oil.
The Bill will achieve nothing and will weaken our climate commitments. It sows division and weakens our international reputation. It makes the UK look like a riskier place to invest, just when we need that investment so that we can transition. That is why the Bill is so damaging. It does nothing but send out a signal that the Government’s policy on the environment is not clear, consistent or dependable, and, as a result of that, that the UK is not as safe a place as it should be to invest in the energy needs of the future. That is a bad message.
My party is committed to boosting renewable energy and increasing funding for wind, solar, marine power and tidal schemes. We will also enact an emergency programme to insulate all British homes by 2030, cutting emissions and fuel bills and ending fuel poverty.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments this afternoon, despite repeated concerns from around the House that the Bill is far from benign and could have damaging consequences, as was eloquently outlined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Willis and Lady Hayman, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, reflected the conclusions from the other place that the Bill is a distraction from the serious challenges facing us on our path to net zero. It is clear, I have to be honest, that the Bill will not be scrapped, despite the opposition to it, so all of us have a responsibility to limit any potential damage that it might cause, especially as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, outlined.
As we heard—although this has not been emphasised enough—the Bill will bring in a duty for the North Sea Transition Authority to run annual licensing rounds for oil and gas extraction in the UK by amending the Petroleum Act 1998. It outlines the two tests that have to be met and, as we have heard repeatedly, it is clear that, as they stand, it is virtually impossible for these tests to fail. The question we need to ask is: why are we being asked to legislate for something that happens anyway?
The stated aim of the Bill is to boost the UK economy, strengthen the UK’s energy security and assist the transition to net zero, while enhancing investor and industry confidence. We have heard excellent contributions explaining why these laudable objectives will not be achieved. The Bill will make no difference to the staggering household bills individuals have to pay, which, frankly, is undermining the economy. As we heard, the Secretary of State has made this absolutely apparent. As my noble friend Lord Lennie said, our dependency on gas has been fuelling these staggering price rises. Households are currently in a record amount of debt, estimated to be £3.1 billion, to energy suppliers. Debt levels have doubled since 2020. Surely this should focus all our minds on the challenges facing us.
This will also not make a difference to our energy security, according to the former chair of BP, the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It will undermine the independence of the NSTA, according to its own board minutes. Also, unforgivably—we have to keep mentioning this point—it will continue the reputational damage to the UK on the global stage in moving towards net zero. I need do no more than ask everyone to look at the speech by the former MP Chris Skidmore and his reasons for resigning. That was an extraordinary action to take, and it was taken because of his serious disappointment with and anxiety about the proposed legislation and the message this is sending across the world. Many noble Lords expressed this concern, and we have repeatedly tried to impress upon the Government that this damage is serious and is affecting our reputation and, therefore, investment in the important work on renewables outlined today.
It is a false premise to present tests that cannot be failed. It feels like manipulation: it is disingenuous, and it needs calling out. Surely the best test would be to demonstrate that a particular action is compatible with our climate change goals. Where is the reference to this legitimate demand in the Bill? The current climate compatibility checkpoint does not have a legislative basis. I make it absolutely clear that Labour recognises that oil and gas will be produced at existing sites in the North Sea over the coming years; to suggest otherwise is wrong and is designed to cause mischief. What needs to be recognised is that such production will taper, as the Minister outlined, to make way for the switch to low-carbon energy sources, coupled with demand reduction through investing in retrofitting our buildings and, in particular, our housing stock. Suggesting that the few new licences that the Bill might deliver are essential to our long-term objective of a transition to clean energy is misleading and provocative. We need a strategy to deliver for those North Sea workers new opportunities that will be enhanced by transitioning to floating offshore wind, carbon capture usage and storage, and hydrogen. We need a clear plan to deliver these opportunities.
Another serious flaw in the Bill is that there is no reference to methane emissions. I am grateful to noble Lords who highlighted this, and, for the sake of time, I will not go into the details. The Bill talks about measuring carbon dioxide emissions, but it therefore focuses on production emissions and does not take on board that methane emissions at different stages of production and transportation of LNG are, in aggregate terms, worse than the emissions of UK-produced and piped natural gas.
I listened with interest to the debate in the other place. It was clear that the right honourable Alok Sharma was concerned about the whole issue of methane. He looked to the debates in the House of Lords to come up with some answers to the amendment that he put forward. Can the Minister enlighten us on where the Government have got to in these discussions? Will there be movement? If not, I am sure this subject will come up in Committee. There have already been demands for a ban on flaring from the CCC and the Environmental Audit Committee.
Does the Minister have an answer to the concern that more licensing could have a chilling effect on the Government’s offshore wind target of 50 gigawatts by 2030, caused by their failure to publish their spatial plan for the UK seabed? The lack of any consideration of a marine spatial prioritisation test is further increasing alarm over the risk to marine health, especially given the lack of regard for protected marine areas. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their contributions in this important area. I understand that there will be further debate on this in Committee, and I look forward to those discussions and the amendments they will generate.
All of us know that cross-party consensus on the important long-term consequences of climate change has been invaluable over recent years. I believe the Bill undermines that consensus for the expectation of short-term political advantage. This was clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Lennie, and we will not be silent on this point. We need a collective, serious and responsible approach, not a distraction that will contribute nothing to achieving our climate and energy production goals. We need a serious plan, reflecting energy security concerns, the need to provide new jobs and the transition from the current high-skilled jobs to the new jobs that are being created. We need a functioning industrial strategy, as clearly laid out by Labour in its proposals for the future. I assure everyone that we do not want to see a disastrous repeat of the deindustrialisation policies of the 1980s that laid waste to whole communities, especially in the north, where I come from.
The limitations of the Bill offer us little opportunity to secure improvements. However, I am confident that further discussions will take place in Committee and improvements will be sought through amendments concerning, as we have heard, methane, including leak detection, as well as the protection of marine areas and enhancing new job opportunities, to name but a few. The hope is that we can achieve cross-party agreement to secure at least some benefit from this distracting and frustrating legislation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all Members from across the House for what has been quite a good debate, for the interest that they have taken in the Bill and for the many insightful contributions that we have had today. I think the debate has shown how interconnected the future of North Sea oil and gas production is with the huge effort we are making—and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for instance, for pointing out the huge effort we are making —to decarbonise the UK economy through what is a renewables revolution. Nobody disputes that. I do not think anybody in the debate disputed the importance of net zero.
The Government’s position is entirely consistent with delivering on our targets, but we have to manage the decline of North Sea oil and gas production in a predictable and responsible way. I thought that was an excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is a pity that his two colleagues did not reflect his excellent contribution.
Restrictions on future licensing would be a grave act of national self-sabotage and would place in jeopardy more than 200,000 jobs that OEUK figures show are currently supported by our domestic oil and gas industry. It would forego up to 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent and, equally importantly, remove an important source of tax revenue. That would mean more imports, including of liquefied natural gas, which has up to four times the production emissions of our own natural gas—a point well made by my noble friends Lord Lilley, Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashcombe. It would mean that we forego investment in clean technologies and the energy transition that our oil and gas industry is vital to driving forward, and it would leave us more vulnerable to hostile states, as we saw during the invasion of Ukraine. We need this investment, and we need the sector’s existing supply chains, expertise and skills. Introducing annual licensing rounds through this Bill will help to protect this investment. It will strengthen our energy security and support that essential transition to net zero.
Let me now deal with some of the specific point made during the debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashcombe for their speeches, which recognised that the Bill will support our essential energy security. However, I am aware that other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested the opposite. As I outlined in my opening speech, the UK still relies on oil and gas for most of our energy needs and will continue to do so well into the future, despite our excellent record on rolling out renewables. The UK is exceptionally well placed to support our own energy security and that of our neighbours and allies. As has been pointed out, we have pipelines connecting us to Norway, the Netherlands, Ireland and Belgium. We have the second-largest liquefied natural gas port infrastructure in Europe, and our infrastructure was essential to helping out our European friends and allies during the Russian crisis that they all suffered last winter.
Of course, we also have our domestic oil and gas production, which is a vital part of ensuring our own and our allies’ energy security. We currently produce about half our gas demand from the North Sea. The vast majority of UK-produced gas lands in the UK and combines with imports and storage to provide a healthy and well-supplied gas market. While 80% of the oil produced here is indeed refined abroad, 90% of that takes place in Europe, where it is made into the products that we need in the UK. Maintaining this resource reduces our vulnerability and that of our European allies to hostile states and leaves us less exposed to unpredictable international events. If the invasion of Ukraine pointed out anything to us, surely it pointed out that. Following that invasion, it was our domestic capability that helped us to support our European neighbours to wean themselves off Russian gas and oil, which most European states have now successfully done. By giving industry certainty about the future of licensing rounds, the Bill will help safeguard our domestic production and, in doing so, enhance the UK’s energy security.
Next, let me respond to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the Bill will not reduce energy bills. Of course, it is true that oil and gas are traded on a global market. As a net importer of oil and gas, this benefits us. The Government have also ensured that excess energy profits are being used to ease pressures on families across the country. This support helped to save the average household £1,500 on its energy bill last winter. The difficult but necessary decision to further extend the energy profits levy for one more year will raise an additional £1.5 billion contribution from the sector to help us cut taxes for hard-working families, reward hard work and support economic growth.
I have also heard claims that the Bill affects the UK’s international leadership on climate. I thank my noble friend Lord Lilley for his excellent speech, which showed why that is not the case. By contrast, some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Sheehan and Lady Blake, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—suggested that somehow the Bill would negatively impact our climate leadership. Our record speaks for itself. We are, as I constantly repeat, the first major economy to halve our emissions, and we are leading the world with our climate performance. Our 2030 target is one of the most ambitious among major economies, and again I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, recognised this. The Bill, I repeat, will not undermine those commitments.
Not proceeding with new licensing, as is the Opposition’s policy, is the real risk to our climate leadership. If we lose the skilled jobs that will transfer from oil and gas to renewables, we put at risk the transition to renewables and net zero. Some other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who I am sorry to say is no longer in her place—apologies, she is sitting on the Bishops’ Bench, which is a great surprise to us all; I did not see the noble Baroness down there—raised concerns about the tests in the Bill. These tests have been carefully designed to ensure that new licensing supports our important net-zero commitments. The tests are in fact meaningful. Those tests being met would be a reflection of the fact that the UK is a net importer and that production emissions associated with North Sea gas are lower than imported liquefied natural gas.
There was also some discussion of carbon capture, usage and storage. This point was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young. The Climate Change Committee, often quoted in this debate, has described CCUS as
“a necessity not an option”
for the transition to net zero. CCUS will be essential to meeting the UK’s 2050 net-zero target, playing a vital role in levelling up the economy, supporting the low-carbon economic transformation of our industrial regions and creating new high-value jobs. The first two CCUS clusters are in the north-west and north-east of England, and we are proceeding as fast as possible to final investment decisions for those clusters. They are already generating thousands of jobs in Merseyside in the north-west and in Teesside, areas that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and I know well.
I move on to the points raised about marine protected areas. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Willis and Lady Boycott, raised the important matter of marine protection. Let me also address the questions posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I assure the House that the Government share the desire to protect the marine environment. Indeed, we have committed that we will be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we found it. The UK is committed to the 30 by 30 global target under the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework.
We already have a robust regulatory framework in place to ensure that marine protected areas are effectively protected. Licences will be awarded only after ensuring that the environmental regulator OPRED is satisfied that activities will not have negative effects on those important protected areas. Future licensing will not affect our ability to reach our targets for ensuring that our marine protected areas are in a good or recovering state.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasise that human activity is not banned in marine protected areas. We constrain activities in MPAs, but the intention of the policy is not to forbid activity, especially where the environmental impact is assessed as not causing damage and is closely evaluated and monitored. Work is under way to ensure that we strike the right, important balance between our different marine priorities. The soon-to-be-commissioned strategic spatial energy plan and the cross-government marine spatial prioritisation programme will ensure that we take a more strategic approach to identifying future sites for marine developments and energy infrastructure, while allowing for nature’s important recovery.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the North Sea Transition Authority is responsible for ensuring that operators decommission abandoned wells within the recommended timeframe of two to five years. The noble Baroness also asked me if we would be giving any grants for oil production: no is the answer. In fact, the opposite is the case: any new production will generate billions in tax revenues, the very opposite of giving out government grants. The Government continue to work with the NSTA and the Health and—
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
The Minister has not addressed my third question, about stranded assets. Should these fields become so in the fullness of time, will he put in place safeguards to make sure that the British taxpayer is not liable for the costs?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness often raises this point. The industry pays billions of pounds in taxes every year, and oil companies are ultimately responsible for decommissioning their assets. As has been pointed out, they are commercial operations. If the fields are stranded assets and the oil companies lose money on them, I doubt whether anybody will shed any tears for them. They are responsible for decommissioning the assets, as is taking place now in many of the depleted fields. I think she needs to have a friendly cup of coffee with her noble friend Lord Bruce, who will fill her in on the details of how the industry works.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
Yes, we get billions in taxes; that is because trillions are made in profits. What I am really concerned about is that if the businesses fold, the profits have been pocketed but the taxpayer will be left with the costs. Does the Minister accept that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
If the noble Baroness is asking me if they pay billions in taxes and make billions in profits, then yes, I guess the answer is that the international oil companies do very well out of it. Of course, some of them are also financing renewable infrastructure. Some of the big oil and gas companies are helping to invest in CCUS in this country. We very much hope that they will continue to make profits, because it pays our pension funds and a lot of investors, and a huge amount of money into the UK Exchequer that the Liberal Democrats are normally very keen on spending. The noble Baroness needs to allow that money to be raised in the first place. The companies are responsible for decommissioning their assets.
The Government continue to work with the NSTA and the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that well decommissioning is progressing in line with the relevant safety and environmental regulations and standards. That is exactly the same as has been happening previously. The UK has a very robust decommissioning regime whereby operators are responsible for decommissioning their assets at the end of their useful life. This regime of course includes protections for taxpayers, so that the costs fall on those operators. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured by that.
I was of course also pleased to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for the jobs in the sector. He has a lot of relevant experience, particularly in north-east Scotland. This is in line with the words of Sir Ian Wood:
“Owing to a world-class oil and gas sector, the North East … is home to the critical mass in skills and expertise that will be crucial to ensuring that we successfully accelerate new and green energies, protecting and creating jobs as we do so”.
I am pleased to have the support of the Labour Party, but we must retain those skilled jobs in the industry, and our firm belief is that this Bill will help us to achieve exactly that.
To conclude, the Bill will give industry the certainty and confidence it needs to continue to invest in the North Sea, strengthening our energy security and supporting the energy transition as we move towards our goal of net zero, through the introduction of annual licensing rounds, subject, of course, to all the appropriate tests being met. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill as it progresses through the House, but in the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, could he answer my question about whether discussions are continuing on the issue of methane, as was raised in the other place, and particularly the withdrawal of the amendment from the right honourable Alok Sharma? Can we expect to have some discussion on where those conversations might lead us, if they are indeed taking place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I always do, I will listen very carefully to the point of view the House expresses in Committee, and, as is normal practice, as a Government we will then consider whether there are any concessions or changes we want to offer in the Bill. I am sure we will want to talk further to the noble Baroness and her colleagues at that point.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (19 Apr 2024)
Baroness Hayman
“(A1) The OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to new offshore installations other than that required in an emergency.(A2) From two years after the day on which this Act is passed, the OGA must not invite any new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has by regulations brought into effect a ban on flaring and venting relating to existing offshore installations.(A3) A statutory instrument which contains regulations under subsection (A1) or (A2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(A4) In subsections (A1) and (A2)—“flaring” means the burning of hydrocarbons produced during oil and gas extraction;“venting” means the release of un-combusted hydrocarbons directly into the atmosphere.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the invitation of new seaward area production licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on flaring and venting by new offshore installations. It also requires the Secretary of State to prevent licensing rounds if a wider ban is not in place within two years of Royal Assent.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this Committee stage, and I promise to resist the temptation to relitigate any of the issues of principle that we discussed previously. I declare my interests as chair of Peers for the Planet and director of the associated company.
In moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 2, but I look forward very much to hearing the argument on Amendments 9 and 10, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on Amendment 1. I would also like to thank those organisations that have supplied briefing, including Uplift, Oceana and the Green Alliance.
In the vein of trying to do what we can to improve a fundamentally flawed Bill, my Amendment 1 seeks to make progress on the important issue of greenhouse gas emissions from venting and flaring and builds on an amendment introduced in debates in the other place by Sir Alok Sharma. The amendment is a simple and pragmatic proposal, which seeks to give statutory force to existing voluntary guidance on this issue and to factor in the recommendations of the Environmental Audit Committee of the other place, made in January 2023, which recommended a ban on venting and flaring by 2025.
The amendment does two things. First, it says that there should be no invitations for new licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on venting and flaring from new installations. Secondly, it would give the Secretary of State a maximum of two years to introduce a ban on venting and flaring from all installations if any further licensing rounds are to take place. The EAC’s report recommended a ban not later than the end of 2025. My amendment recognises that time has moved on since 2023 and amends the timeline appropriately. Adopting this change would help the Government to demonstrate that they are serious about maintaining their global leadership on climate action by turning their stated ambition into delivery.
The practice of venting and flaring is a serious issue. It takes place when extra gas is produced, usually as a by-product of oil extraction that producers need to get rid of, rather than sending back to shore. They do this by venting the natural gas, releasing it directly into the atmosphere as methane, or by flaring—burning the gas—which, as well as releasing methane, releases volumes of other greenhouses gases and pollutants such as black soot and nitrous oxide. Both practices are damaging and polluting, as well as being, in the words of the IEA, an “extraordinary waste of money”.
Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas. It is the second biggest cause of global heating after CO2 and has a far higher warming effect in the short term. However, its short lifespan in the atmosphere compared with other greenhouse gases means that taking action to cut methane now is one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit global warming in this crucial decade.
It is also a very wasteful practice. Green Alliance research has found that just 18 of the highest polluting oil and gas platforms in the North Sea are losing enough gas through venting and flaring to power 140,000 homes, equivalent to a city the size of Aberdeen. The North Sea transition deal commits the industry to a voluntary cut in emissions of 50% by 2030 on a pathway to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Committee described those targets as weak and significantly lower than its sixth carbon budget advice—but, even so, the industry is not on track to meet them. Added to that, the North Sea Transition Authority emissions monitoring report of 2023 shows that UK oil is more polluting than average, compared to that of other major producers, including gas imported via pipelines from Norway and other nations operating in the North Sea.
The Government agreed in 2020 to phase out routine venting and flaring by 2030. There is guidance in place from the regulator, the NSTA, which expects the industry to adhere to zero routine venting and flaring by 2030, and where all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting.
In response to Sir Alok’s similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister argued against putting its ambition into legislation. However, this is not groundbreaking: Norway has had a ban in place since 1971 and even the US Bureau of Land Management is now taking action. Voluntary guidance is just not doing what is needed; it is not always followed by industry or the regulator. Just last year, the NSTA granted approval for the , permitting the operators to flare unwanted gas until 2037, in spite of the guidance that new developments should have zero venting and flaring by 2030. Progress to reduce methane emissions in the UK has, according to the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum, been very slow, particularly in the energy sector, where percentage drops year on year have stayed flat.
The CCC, the EAC and the net-zero review have all highlighted that the UK is not going fast enough on methane reduction. There are no technical barriers to ending routine venting and flaring, as the IEA has said. As for cost, industry spending on reducing emissions from venting and flaring is subject to a tax break of £1.09 for every pound spent. As the Government’s 2022 methane memorandum put it,
“Action on methane is … recognised as the ‘last low hanging fruit’ in tackling climate change because measures are readily available and in some cases very cost effective”.
If the Government are serious about their commitments to reduce methane, there really is no excuse for not using this Bill to make faster progress to reduce the emissions from oil and gas production. At Second Reading, the Minister said that he would listen carefully to views on this, so I look forward to his response to the debate that we are about to have.
I move on to Amendment 2, which is also in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for adding their names. At Second Reading, many noble Lords highlighted the need to address the long-term employment prospects of those currently working within the oil and gas sector. My Amendment 2 seeks clarification from the Government on their plans for workers currently employed in our declining North Sea basin to transition to the sustainable jobs of the future. Rather than losing the 30,000 or so direct roles in oil and gas and the valuable skills of those workers, who may be forced to move elsewhere, we need to nurture their transformed skills into the new net-zero roles.
My amendment proposes that there should be no new applications for licences until the Secretary of State has published a green skills retraining plan setting out what support the Government will provide for those in the oil and gas sector who wish to transition to work in green economy jobs. Specifically, it proposes the introduction of a skills passport for workers, which will provide financial and practical support to access training so that those workers can, easily and without additional cost to them, reskill and retrain for the future and be part of the green economy.
The Government recognised in Committee in the Commons that the skills and expertise of the oil and gas industry will be needed to support the net zero transition; however, action to achieve this appears to have stalled. The CCC has pressed for more to be done on net zero skills. It noticed in its 2023 progress report that its earlier cross-cutting policy recommendation for an action plan for net zero skills was “overdue”. It focused on the need for a strategy for those
“workers and communities affected by industries that are expected to experience job losses as a result of the Net Zero transition, including by providing reskilling packages and tailored support to transition to alternative low-carbon sectors”
A recent POST briefing note on green jobs noted that the UK Government’s green jobs delivery group planned to publish a net zero and nature workforce action plan in the first half of 2024. Can the Minister provide an update on when this is likely to be published and any insight into what it is likely to offer? The North Sea transition deal involved commissioning an integrated people and skills plan, which was followed by an Offshore Energies UK 2023 Workforce Insight report that promised to deliver a skills passport so that people can move seamlessly between sectors. Can the Minister provide an update on the skills passport and when this is likely to be produced? Can he confirm that it will provide financial support for workers looking to move into green jobs?
The second part of my amendment probes another recommendation of the Workforce Insight report: the creation of a green skills retraining task force to co-ordinate the retraining provisions that are required across the UK. Will the Government be progressing this recommendation? If not, how will the required skills transition be delivered? I hope the Minister will be able to provide some insight into the Government’s thinking on this important issue and give much needed assurance to workers in the oil and gas sector that their skills are valued and needed, both now and in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9 in my name and say a little about Amendment 10. I have also put my name to Amendment 1, about which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—I thank her for moving that amendment so well—and Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis.
Amendment 9 is in my name and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis and Lady Young. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a marine spatial prioritisation policy, and a spatial prioritisation test to be passed before future licensing could take place. It would mean that before any more oil and gas licensing is permitted, it would have to fit into what the North Sea of the future looks like, with space set aside for other priorities—the priorities of the future, I suggest: marine health and renewable infrastructure. Specifically, the plan would need to ensure that the targets under both the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act are prioritised and achieved.
For the purposes of this amendment, the test could not be passed unless a marine spatial prioritisation policy was in place. This is something the Government have committed to, but there is a risk that, without this amendment, we could be inviting future licensing rounds which will not take account of, or even be in accordance with, a strategy the Government are currently producing. I believe it is wholly pragmatic in its approach. The NSTA did not run licensing rounds while it waited for the now redundant climate compatibility checkpoint to be published, so there is a precedent here for this approach.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, very much. I will speak on the marine amendments in this group—Amendment 10 in my name and Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord. I also support the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 10 is really very simple: it would stop licensing in our marine protected areas. As I stated at Second Reading, these areas have been designated for protection and enhancement in order to conserve the critical species, habitats and ecosystems that they contain. Their protection is critical for many reasons, not least because we have signed up to this in both UK and international law. We now have 377 marine protected areas, which account for 38% of our seas.
In order to be included in the 2030 target—to protect 30% of our oceans by 2030—the Government’s own suggested criteria are that these MPAs need to have long-term protection and/or management in place that works against adverse pressures on biodiversity objectives. However, the interpretation of what constitutes adverse pressure on these MPAs is where there is the most disagreement, even between government departments, a point that is highly relevant to this Bill. Currently, there is nothing in the licensing process to prevent the North Sea Transition Authority from offering up licences in marine protected areas. Indeed, licences are currently being granted in marine protected areas: in the most recent licensing round, 22% of the licences granted were in such areas.
Is oil drilling in an MPA a problem? Well, it makes a huge difference. As I mentioned at Second Reading, the evidence suggests that it can have a large and irreversible impact. However, when asked about this, the Government have said, in various responses to the Parliamentary Questions looking at the impact, that the OPL Bill will not affect the UK’s ability to reach the targets for ensuring that marine protected areas are in a good or recovering state and that the licences will only ever have been awarded once the environmental regulator is satisfied that the activities would not negatively impact protected areas. This was reiterated by the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated:
“We already have a robust regulatory framework in place to ensure that marine protected areas are effectively protected. Licences will be awarded only after ensuring that the environmental regulator OPRED is satisfied that activities will not have negative effects on those important protected areas”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. 657.]
However, that overstates the case. The more I have looked into the processes for assessment of the environmental impact of oil drilling on MPAs, the more convinced I have become that we simply do not have in place a system that is fit for purpose, certainly not to protect these marine protected areas.
This is because the process and the responsibility for environmental regulation currently sits with OPRED, which is part of DESNZ and is advised by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, but there is a very complicated and convoluted process and path by which the expert advice from the JNCC reaches the Minister. First, as a statutory consultee, the JNCC’s advice must be considered when OPRED produces an environmental assessment, but OPRED is under no duty to follow the JNCC’s advice, which is also not published. Then, in an instance where OPRED advises the Secretary of State not to issue a licence, the Secretary of State can disregard it if they believe that there is an overriding public interest.
A secondary problem is that the assessments do not consider cumulative impacts in a robust way. For example, OPRED will look at a pipeline and say, “Well, a pipeline in the grand area of an MPA is a tiny footprint”, but of course it is not just the pipeline that we are looking at. The cumulative effects of all the different things going on will have, and has been shown to have, a significant impact on the MPA.
The third and final problem is that OPRED assessments often have a tendency to assume that, if there is no scientific evidence, there is no problem, instead of adopting the precautionary principle. In fact, irrespective of what the environmental assessments from the JNCC say, OPRED and the Secretary of State can decide to grant licences to MPAs anyway. Looking at the evidence base, we can see that that is exactly what is happening. For example, in the past three years, the JNCC has objected to 54 development applications in MPAs from the oil and gas industry, yet not a single one of those applications has been turned down. In fact, I did a trawl over the past 17 years—since 2007, when the first MPAs came into place—and could not find a single licence that had been turned down on an environmental basis. That would suggest that the environmental assessment system in this case is not working.
What I find most concerning is that the JNCC has expressed its concerns. For example, in a letter to DESNZ on the recent 33rd oil and gas licensing round, the JNCC wrote a strong letter stating that it was unable to agree with the conclusions that the projects would have no adverse impact on site integrity. The committee strongly advised that no new oil and gas infrastructures should be located anywhere within an MPA. It also pointed out that the Government’s approach to licensing oil and gas activities was inconsistent with the approach taken with other industries—for example, wind farms. Those three statements are extremely concerning. Our Joint Nature Conservancy Committee is making strong statements about these issues and yet, somewhere along the line, this is not being taken into account. Remember that no licences have been turned down, as far as I can see, based on environmental impact.
This process does not seem to be working and will result, and is resulting, in damage to the MPAs, which the Government have heralded. I join them in that, given that we now have marine protected areas in the oceans around the UK. Therefore, the onus is on the Government to show how increased licensing in the MPAs, as part of this OPL Bill, will not cause harm and to publish the evidence base that supports this. They also need to outline in detail exactly how these harms, once they are caused, will be mitigated while still meeting our 2030, now 2040, targets, which we and Defra are very much holding everyone’s feet to the fire on. If the Government cannot do this, the solution surely must be to put this amendment into the Bill.
I also want briefly to turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have happily added my name. We need both these amendments. Without a proper seabed plan and a land use strategy for the sea—I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, were here—MPAs will not live up to their name. We know that we require multiple resources from the oceans around us. However, we need to be able to plan those in tandem, rather than in a somewhat random approach, where one thing is trumping the other—and trumping it sometimes through financial gain without properly considering the other requirements. Until we have a spatial prioritisation plan in place, we should not be granting any licences. We need to know what we want to take from where and how we ensure that the best use is made of the precious resource that we have around us. Until the Government come up with this spatial plan, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned, they promised a while ago, we should not go forward with any of these licensing rounds.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support in particular Amendments 9 and 10, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. I have quite a lot of experience of marine protected areas in the south-west and the Isles of Scilly. I recall having a useful discussion with the Environment Agency, English Nature and others about how one applies an MPA to a group of islands and whether one would be allowed to run any type of ship across them. The answer was, “Not really”. I said, “Well, who is going to enforce these regulations?” The answer was the Navy. That was even more interesting, because I asked, “Who is the most likely culprit?” They said that the most likely culprits around Scilly were people in kayaks. If one is trying to merge our latest aircraft carrier with people in kayaks, there is work to be done.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to support all the amendments in this group but I will focus my comments on Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to which I have added my name in support. I would also value hearing the rest of this debate.
On Amendment 10, I reiterate the question I asked at Second Reading: what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to safeguard marine protected areas, and why are they not taking the IUCN’s recommendations seriously by excluding MPAs from extraction in the Bill?
I will not rehearse the valuable arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has already made on whether we have a robust regulatory framework on MPAs. From the evidence she has provided, I am greatly concerned about whether that is the case. Certainly, the new Rosebank field overlaps with the Faroe-Shetland MPA—a fragile ecosystem and marine environment. Excluding MPAs from the licensing rounds altogether would ensure their protection and that is why I support Amendment 10.
According to the Government’s own figures, only 44% of protected features in MPAs are currently assessed as being in favourable condition. We have rightly set ambitious and strong targets to protect species and restore natural habitats: 70% of MPAs need to be in good condition by 2042 and 30% of the sea must be protected for nature by 2030. Unamended, the Bill risks making this far more difficult to achieve. Meeting these targets will be ever more challenging, which sends a damaging message to the international community about how we regard our natural environment.
It also goes against what Ministers in other departments are saying. For example, in January 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, said during the debate on the Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022 that
“MPAs are one of the most important tools we have for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species in our waters … Establishing this network is an important step in achieving our goal of conserving our protected species and habitats. Now that they have been designated, we need to increase the protections for these valuable marine environments to help them recover, which is why we are setting this target”.—[Official Report, 24/1/23; col. GC 31.]
So, in one part of government MPAs are a valuable tool to achieve our national and international commitments.
There is further evidence. While he did not refer to MPAs directly, when Defra Secretary of State, Steve Barclay, announced the closure of sand-eel fisheries in the North Sea and restrictions on bottom trawling, he commented that:
“Protecting the environment is fundamental to the prosperity of our country and our new commitments will drive forward our mission to create a cleaner and greener country for all”.
Are we really doing what is adequate to protect our marine environment? I do not believe that we are, because we are playing fast and loose with marine protected areas at the moment. We need joined-up government around our commitments in this area. As your Lordships know, there are so many environmental impacts from both surveying and drilling, including habitat loss and damage; the noise from seismic surveys, which was illustrated for us at Second Reading; and oil spills, toxic vapours and the release of toxic chemicals, with a wide range of impacts on flora and fauna, including skeletal deformities. It is so important that we take all this into account in our thinking about the Bill. It is of course separate from the combined impact of further extraction of fossil fuels and the related carbon emissions on this, our single island planet home.
The Bill as it stands puts at risk the marine habitats found around our shores. We have marine protected areas for a reason; the clue is in the word “protected”. I once again ask His Majesty’s Government not to jeopardise their commitments to MPAs and, by supporting this amendment, to exclude them from surveying and extraction in the Bill. I happily support Amendment 10.
Moving on, I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because a skills passport would facilitate workforce mobility between sectors. One of the key arguments put forward repeatedly at Second Reading was that jobs would be impacted and that, if we did not have this Bill, further job losses would occur. The reality is that the North Sea is a declining basin. New licensing is unlikely to prevent the ongoing decline of jobs in the oil and gas sector. More than 200,000 jobs, both direct jobs and those that support the oil and gas industry, have been lost in the past decade, in spite of around 400 new drilling licences. A skills passport would facilitate that mobility, enabling people to transition from the oil and gas sector into other sectors.
Further, a green skills retraining plan, as proposed by this amendment, would assist those wishing to transition in using the valuable skills they already have so that they can flourish in a new sector—sectors that will be emerging and coming on stream yet far more into the future. Currently, oil and gas companies are not required to provide retraining or support for workers. This measure would be something of such foresight for them to do. A skills passport would help this work- force navigate the transition to net zero so I support Amendment 2.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my declaration of interests, in particular my being a trustee of the Blue Marine Foundation. I support not only Amendments 1 and 2 but the previous two that we have been talking about.
First, I congratulate the Government on the fact that we have these marine protected areas. The Government have also reached out to what might be called the “confetti of empire”; we have, in fact, created an increasing number of marine protected areas around the world. This is leadership by Britain, which is now being followed by others: the French are keen to do similar things. We really have led the world on this; in fact, it was this Government, under a previous mix, who did it. We have this background.
We then have the marine protected areas rules and suchlike, which have been quoted clearly. The words of my noble friend Lord Benyon are particularly germane to this discussion. However, I must remind the Government that they had to be sued by the Blue Marine Foundation to stop bottom trawling off Dogger Bank, one of the most important areas that we have. It was only the court case that managed to get a change in the Government’s attitude. This matter is not an exact parallel but it suggests that the instinct of government is not to protect, although the legislation of government demands protection.
Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister: there is a real issue here for him, not least because there are two different concerns about the Bill. At the moment, we are not concerned with the first, which, I remind the Committee, is mine. It is that, by passing this, we have given up our leadership in the world on the expansion of gas and oil exploration; that is a great sadness and turns its back on some very real progress made by previous Conservative Governments.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments. Noble Lords will know that I have spent pretty much all my adult life in the north-east of Scotland and have seen the North Sea oil and gas industry pretty much from its inception right through to where we are today. It is a declining industry, as the right reverend Prelate rightly said, and it will continue to decline whatever we do. The question is: how quickly, and how will it impact the transition?
Turning to Amendment 1, on flaring, as far as I understand it from the transition authority, all new developments that are approved will be zero flaring, so, in a sense, the amendment is already being tested. I do not have a problem with it, but I think that is the case. I accept that the desire to reduce or eliminate flaring on existing fields leaves a tension as to timescale. It would be good if it could be speeded up, and the transition authority should be encouraged to make that happen, but it is not quite as easy as people say, because it has implications for the physical operation of platforms. However, I do not think it is a wrong aspiration.
On Amendment 2, on green skills, we should absolutely be developing them. However, the point I hear every day in the north-east of Scotland is that we are producing oil and gas and it is going to decline, but its revenue, technology and supply chain are all being redeployed to the transition. If we do not have that revenue, our ability to redeploy will be slowed down or stopped, and that is a real factor.
There is huge enthusiasm in the north-east of Scotland for the rapidest transition we can make. Indeed, just this week, one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world has been announced, off Peterhead. This is an investment of £3 billion in 35 turbines and potentially hundreds of jobs; there is huge enthusiasm for that. A lot of that will be going to companies in the oil and gas supply chain. The really important thing here is to get the balance right. If we accelerate it too quickly, that supply chain will disappear. The faster we bring in the investment in offshore, the faster we can make the transition, but it is really important to get the balance right. That is the debate the north-east of Scotland wishes to happen nationally.
That is one of the reasons why I support my noble friend’s amendment to replace “must” with “may”. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill is not necessary because we can issue licences whenever we like, and it has been up to the transition authority to determine whether that may be the case. To those who say that we should not have any more licences, I do not mean to be patronising at all, but some understanding of the North Sea reveals that there are sometimes requirements to bring things on stream in order to facilitate decommissioning, as well extending the life of existing infrastructure. Saying that it is not going to be done at all will probably almost immediately lead to a situation in which the practicalities mean that it makes more sense. So, there should be that discretion. However, the onus should be put on the transition authority to do that only if it believes it is necessary in order to achieve the transition in an orderly and efficient manner. That is essentially why the amendment makes practical sense.
Investing half the profits in renewables is a good idea. I am not sure whether one should be quite as specific as that; however, the reality is that the companies I talk to are investing increasingly in renewable energy because they can see that oil and gas is a declining asset. They know, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, knows, that every projection for oil and gas through to net zero still has oil and gas in the mix.
So, oil and gas will be around. There is a sensible question to be asked: why should it not be ours, rather than importing it, as long as we can do that in the most efficient and least environmentally damaging way? I accept that it has an impact. In the process, we can ensure that the transition from the oil and gas industry to the renewables industry enables the jobs, the technology and the companies to be smoothly part of it. There is a real flight of investment from the UK in this sector right now, because of a combination of uncertainty—the Labour Party’s policy does not encourage people—and the Government’s confusing people, I have to say to the Minister. On the one hand, we have a Bill that says, let us have an annual licensing round; yet, on the other hand, we are saying that we are going to tax the industry to the nth degree.
Frankly, a lot of the companies are saying that the UK does not seem like a decent investment. For those in this room who are not keen on the North Sea, that may make them all happy but there are consequences. It is a successful major industry and a significant part of our economy. It is one of our high technologies. We are the world-leading experts in subsea technology. About one third of the market is UK-based, driven by what we do in the North Sea. To throw all that away, if we do things too quickly, would be a criminal waste of talent and resource, and would be an economic self-wound. We can do this properly and right, in an orderly fashion, or we can try to reverse it, which is foolish and will not work, or we can accelerate it at a level that would be damaging and destructive.
These amendments set the balance, I hope. We can make sure that if we are going to manage this transition and the decline in the North Sea, it is done in a way that respects the contribution that the people who have developed this industry over the past 40 years have given and can give. It would also allow us to develop the new technologies at a pace that will create a viable industry quickly, without causing a huge dip in economic activity and unemployment, which can be avoided.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my interests are set out in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, did not quite do himself a service by saying that he was there at the start 50 years ago; I am sure it is little bit less than that. I was very much involved some 35 years ago as Minister for Energy, at the time when this whole question started. There was extensive gas flaring in those days and no value was associated with gas. Therefore, the environmental impact was appalling and we wanted to assess it, especially when it came to the central North Sea. The southern North Sea had yet to be moved forward. The northern North Sea had far less of a problem of associated gas, but the central North Sea fields were very much in the context of what we are discussing.
I echo many of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about these amendments, in particular Amendment 1, which I want to address. The important points he has raised go to the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben. All new developments absolutely should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. That is the case, as of today. I hope that the Minister can echo that point, because that is substantively what the amendment seeks to achieve.
My second point is that it is not wise to put equal weight on the environmental impact of venting and flaring. Venting is far worse. Methane is about 30 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, which comes, effectively, from the flaring process. However, both are recognised by everyone who works in the oil and gas sector, particularly the supply and service sector, as practices we should end. There is a clear, unequivocal decision by government and by everyone working in the sector that we should bring these practices to an end by 2030.
The question is one of timing. As I read it—I may be wrong—the amendment is really about whether, two years on from the Bill receiving Royal Assent, we start the process as though it is 2026 rather than 2030. There is merit in considering that in detail, but we should also look at the industry’s capacity to retrofit by that timetable. It may be possible, but my research shows that it is quite difficult, and we would have to move from the current voluntary system. To be fair, that system has worked well. Progress has already been made in reducing flaring. It is down by some 50% since 2018 and we can get the rest of it removed by 2030.
The question is: should that be accelerated? In fairness, I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is putting to us today—that this amendment, if passed, would not affect the new developments that are already being planned, on the basis that there was zero routine flaring and venting, but would accelerate the timetable for the rest of the platforms. My question to the Minister concerns that timetable and speeding it up. Do he and the Government believe, and can they demonstrate, that the voluntary-based momentum that needs to accelerate —the industry recognises that it must accelerate in order to achieve the 2030 deadline—is better or worse than a slower, compliance-based mechanism, which would require a complete infrastructure from government to achieve the sort of timetable that is set out in this amendment? That is the real question. By the way, the amendment is not precise because it will depend on when the secondary legislation is introduced before Parliament, so it might be implemented quite close to the 2030s or in the late 2020s.
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I just add a few brief comments? I endorse what my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have said.
I speak from a position of considerable ignorance. I used to know quite a lot about this but I know much less now. However, it seems that everyone is agreed that future fields will not be allowed to flare and vent and are not planning to flare and vent. So the first subsection of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1 would legislate for something that is going to happen anyway.
However, the second proposed new subsection says that we should not allow any new fields until old fields have been prevented flaring. I do not see the relevance of the connection between the two. If we can stop old fields flaring and venting, we ought to. If we cannot, that is a problem, but what has it got to do with new fields, which will not flare and vent? Unless we have some explanation from the backers of this amendment of why they are linking the two, I cannot see why we should support it.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in this group.
I start with the first amendment, which is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I have also put my name to it and support it. The amendment comes out of Alok Sharma’s amendment in the Commons; it was the one amendment that the Minister in the other place said the Government were prepared to go away and look at.
I take the points that have been made about what has been achieved under a voluntary mechanism. I also recognise that the new oil fields do not have this, but I would like to hear from the Minister and get a response from the Government as a productive one was not really given in the Commons. This is a real issue that needs looking at, and the Government may have real concerns about bringing this measure in for old fields.
My understanding is that some of this can be done by replacing methane with compressed air, et cetera. If there are concerns, I would like to hear them because, as we have heard, methane is 80 times more potent over 20 years than carbon dioxide. It is a huge greenhouse gas and the Government have signed up to the 2030 commitment to reduce it; indeed, the UK leads the world in some of these respects. So it would be good to see stricter regulations written in.
Progress has been made. The Government have committed to zero venting and flaring by 2030. Already, a near 50% reduction in flaring since 2018 has been achieved, but to put that in perspective, Norway banned venting and flaring in 1971, which is the year I was born. This is not rocket science; it is not difficult to achieve. While I recognise that progress has been made, I am 52 now, so we are 52 years behind Norway. These are powerful greenhouse gases, so we are waiting for this voluntary system to come in, but we need to take action: we need action at speed, at pace, to make sure that these things happen. I want to hear from the Minister whether he has ideas about how that can be done.
I recognise as well that the NSTA guidance currently states that there should be none for new developments and it should be phased out by 2030. However, the problem with this is that the enforcement is patchy and 2030 is still a long way off. It is a long time for us to be letting out these extremely powerful greenhouse gases, so I think something should be done at scale and speed to make that happen.
The Government argued throughout this Bill that they want to give the industry certainty, and that is one of the underlying themes behind the need to put forward these measures. My question to the Minister is why we are not doing that on venting and flaring. If this is about certainty for industry, and this involves industry having to invest to change and adapt, why are we not giving a clear steer—clear guidance, clear timetables—on the intention to do this? That would seem to be the sensible thing to do and the thing that industry would welcome the Government doing, so I call on the Government to do that and I support the amendment. I thank everybody who has spoken to it.
My Amendment 6 is a simple amendment replacing one word with another. It replaces “must” with “may”, but it goes to the very heart of the Bill. The story is that the Bill was cooked up over a boozy lunch as a way of dividing the Opposition. Who knows whether that is true or not but, if our energy crisis and energy security could be resolved by a two-clause Bill, I suspect that somebody might have done it before and that it would not have magically appeared when nobody else had managed to do it.
The Bill actually says that there is a duty to invite applications. I listened to all the debate in the Commons as part of my preparation for the Bill, partly because I am new to this place and am a bit sad, sitting there on the weekends, but I felt that this point was missed in the Commons, which is why I tabled this amendment. Having spoken to colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I kindly ask the Government to look at this probing amendment, because it is important to understand their motivations. They are putting this legislation forward, taking parliamentary time, telling us that it does things that are needed and are important, and I had to ask the House of Lords Library for a special briefing on the Bill because I was frankly astounded that it could be passed and never again would another North Sea oil or gas licence be agreed. How do these two things happen?
The Government are telling me that this is resolving our energy security and providing certainty, yet the Bill can pass and another licence can never be granted. I am confused about what the Bill actually does and have put forward this amendment in the hope that there is substance in the Bill and it is not just an attempt to divide the Opposition and destroy the consensus that existed on climate change. This is so important not just to the way we work here or in the other place but to the message that we send to the people of this country as we transition. We had the chief executive of the CCC on Laura Kuenssberg this weekend and have heard Alok Sharma; the Government have had resignations and this Bill has damaged our international reputation.
It is important that we understand what the Bill does if we are selling our international reputation for it. What does it do? What is the point of it and what does it achieve? My amendment is really an attempt to figure that out. That is why I have included it and I will question the Minister on that.
My Amendment 7 would mean that only companies that have publicly stated that they will invest in the green economy half the profits derived from winning an application can be invited to apply. I point out that 50% is a random figure—we can amend and debate that—but I believe in the green transition and in the need to protect these jobs. I believe in a just transition and that these things are extremely complicated. I also recognise that we will continue to have some dependence on oil and gas as we transition to net zero, not just for our energy needs but for lubrication and other industrial purposes.
I recognise that we will have oil and gas licences, but we must act at scale and speed to disinvest from oil and gas. We must leave as much of this stuff in the ground as we can. Once it is extracted, it may not count towards our net-zero targets, but it will for some other country after it has been sold on the international market, as 80% of it will be. It will be burned. We live on one planet and have one atmosphere. Emissions go somewhere and they will affect us. The idea that the Bill does no harm is not correct; it has consequences. A lot of oil and gas companies do not invest in the green economy in the North Sea, and they should. This amendment is simply an attempt to lay down a marker.
My Amendment 8 would mean that
“the OGA cannot invite nor accept an application for a seaward area production licence from a Russian oil and gas company”.
This point was raised by Richard Foord in the other place. It is my understanding that one Russian oil or gas company has a licence in the North Sea, when we have a war in Ukraine and continued threats to our European security. The Minister spoke quite clearly at Second Reading about the Bill providing for our energy security, but these Benches have questioned that because 80% of our oil goes into the international market.
This is a simple, clear, straightforward amendment that does what it says on the tin. If we are concerned about energy security, why are we allowing Russian oil and gas companies to bid for, win and run licences to extract our oil and gas, put it on the international market and perhaps even sell it back to us? The Government would then have to subsidise bill payers with billions of pounds to pay for it, in a vicious circle that helps no one. This amendment is clear, and I would like it to be agreed to.
Of the other amendments, I strongly support Amendment 9 on a marine spatial strategy. It is extremely important, and it is important that we plan for the future. If we are to have new oil and gas licences, it is important that we do not rule out the ability to have other green energy. I also support Amendment 10 in this group, but I apologise for getting a bit carried away and going over my time.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by reflecting on the comprehensive discussion we have had. All noble Lords in the Room are looking forward to the Minister’s comments on the points raised.
Just to reflect on the Second Reading in the Chamber, many of us asked then about the purpose of the Bill, whether this legislation is really necessary and if it will satisfy its stated objectives to boost the economy, deliver energy security and transition to net zero. I do not need to go through those points again; we made them very clearly at Second Reading and could well return to them.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I was just going to strike a more positive note by saying that, although I question why this legislation is before us and how necessary it is, I welcome within the amendments, particularly in this group, an opportunity to seek improvements on a wider particular area, and we have had some good justification today as to why that is.
I am pleased to have been able to sign the first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I just emphasise that this amendment is looking to prevent the invitation of new seaward area production application licences until the Secretary of State has introduced a ban on the flaring and venting of methane by new offshore installations, and it would further require the Secretary of State to prevent further rounds if a wider ban is not put in place within two years.
We have heard very clearly today that there is a general feeling that the damage caused by methane has been overlooked, and this presents an opportunity to address that, to acknowledge its potency as a greenhouse gas and to bring it up to speed, with the focus that there has been on carbon dioxide. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the statistics are quite staggering in terms of the sheer waste every year in the burning off of wasted gas. Just think of the powering of the number of homes times the number of years: we are talking into the hundreds of thousands and, really, we should be doing better.
As we know, NSTA guidance states that there should be zero routine flaring and venting from any new developments—that is very clear. That seems to give a sense of security to some noble Lords in the debate. There was also an acknowledgement that routine flaring and venting should be phased out by 2030. However, I emphasise that, although those words are there, the problem remains that enforcement is patchy and measures are found only in non-binding guidance. I believe that this amendment seeks to manage this situation and help us move forward.
The one point on which I would like to press the Minister picks up on the conversations and discussions that we had at Second Reading concerning the amendment put down by the Member of Parliament Alok Sharma and the suggestion from the Minister in the other place that there would be another look at this. I would just like an update on whether those discussions have progressed and, if they have not so far, would the Minister be prepared to meet with us to talk about how we could come to some agreement or consensus—a way of moving forward that would satisfy the serious concerns that have been expressed in different debates?
Referencing Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also signed by my noble friend Lord Knight, I do not honestly think that we emphasise enough in our discussions around this agenda just what an opportunity is presented. This was the basis of the discussions of the chief executive of the CCC over the weekend. We should be talking about the growth potential and opportunities that should be created, not only in jobs, as we have heard about today, but in attracting investment into this whole area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank everybody who contributed to what I think has been a positive debate on a number of important issues.
Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to prevent the NSTA inviting applications for licences until regulations banning non-emergency flaring and venting on new offshore installations are in force. After two years, it would also prevent the NSTA inviting applications until additional regulations banning all flaring and venting on existing offshore installations are in force.
Flaring and venting are controlled processes to dispose of gas. These activities can take place for emergency or safety purposes, during non-routine operations and on a regular basis, as a result of the design of existing platforms. This latter category is known as routine flaring and venting.
The Government are clear on the importance of having a target for zero routine flaring and venting in the North Sea. This is a key measure for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from production. We are committed to the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative, which aims to eliminate the practice globally by 2030; indeed, we are going further with a commitment to ending not just flaring but venting for both oil and gas by 2030.
The North Sea Transition Authority’s current strategy includes enforceable obligations on industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from a range of sources, including flaring and venting. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Lilley pointed out, the NSTA’s current guidance to industry also makes it clear that all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. Further, the new OGA plan, published last month, confirms the expectation that there should be zero routine flaring and venting on all platforms from 2030 and requires industry to report in more detail, including on financial planning, to ensure continuous improvements in flaring and venting.
The UK’s proactive approach is already reaping rewards. Based on the latest data, North Sea flaring is down by 50% since 2018. The sector is on track to deliver on the ambitious decarbonisation target in the North Sea transition deal to reduce emissions from operations to 50% of 2018 levels by 2030, ultimately ensuring that the UK continental shelf reaches net zero by 2050. Key to delivering a 50% emissions reduction by 2030 will be eliminating routine flaring and venting in a responsible manner and electrifying platform operations to enable this to happen.
I say in reply to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that it is the Government’s view that our 2030 flaring and venting target is already ambitious. Significant changes to infrastructure, which require appropriate time and planning, need to be made. If we do not carefully manage the ending of routine flaring and venting, it will lead to the early closure of platforms—I suspect that some noble Lords would welcome this—and the potential loss of both the appropriate UK production and the jobs, tax revenue and economic activity that go with it.
Of course, as I have pointed out repeatedly, loss of domestic production will also increase our reliance on imports, including liquefied natural gas, which, as we have said repeatedly, has higher production and transportation emissions. My submission is that that would make no sense either economically or from the point of view of emissions. As drafted, this amendment would also prohibit flaring and venting for emergency and non-routine purposes after two years. That would create unacceptable health and safety risks for workers and would likely result in a shutdown in production in those circumstances. Taking on board the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, I am always happy to meet further with the Opposition to discuss this important matter.
Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would require the Secretary of State to publish a green skills retraining plan for oil and gas workers before the NSTA could invite applications for offshore production licences. I can reassure the Committee that the Government absolutely recognise how important the skills, expertise and resources of the oil and gas industry are for our transition to cleaner technologies. A report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector.
It is vital that the transition to cleaner energy is managed carefully and responsibly. We must ensure that oil and gas jobs are not lost before renewables and other clean technologies grow sufficiently to take up those valuable skills and workers. That is why we are taking action, including by introducing this Bill to safeguard those jobs for the future.
To take an example, a key commitment of the landmark North Sea transition deal between the Government and the industry is to ensure that people and skills from the existing oil and gas workforce are transferable across the wider energy sector. This includes the development of a digital skills passport to facilitate this transferability, which is being funded by the Scottish Government and industry. We are interested in this work and keen to take it forward. Indeed, we are working with the Scottish Government, the industry, relevant skills bodies and trade unions to support the delivery of this work, which is led by Offshore Energies UK and Renewables UK.
In addition, the Government are shortly due to launch our green jobs plan in the first half of this year, supported by the green jobs delivery group. This plan will provide the actions needed to ensure that we have the skills and occupations within the UK workforce, at the right time and in the right place, to develop our net-zero, nature and energy security targets.
All in all, the Government’s spending and policy ambitions will support up to 480,000 green jobs by 2030. The additional requirement that this amendment places before further licensing can take place would damage investor confidence and cause confusion for industry, employers and the workforce. It would therefore only undermine the ongoing work across the UK and could be inappropriate, given the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations also in this area.
Amendments 6 to 8 are in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Amendment 6 would remove requirements on the NSTA to invite applications for production licences when both the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee of the purpose of the Bill: it is designed to give industry certainty on the future of licensing rounds. By providing industry with this confidence, the Bill will support the required ongoing investment and protect the jobs and skills required to support the energy transition. Amending that duty on the NSTA when the net importer and carbon intensity tests have been met would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the confidence that it is designed to provide, and will put these important benefits at risk.
Amendment 7 would modify the duty that the Bill places on the NSTA, so that only companies that have committed to investing half their profits from activities carried out under licences in the green UK economy would be invited to apply for production licences.
The Government have a tremendous record for attracting investment into green industries. Since 2010, we have seen around £300 billion of public and private investment in the low-carbon sectors. According to BloombergNEF, total public and private investment in UK low-carbon sectors reached £60 billion in 2023—up by 71% in real terms from 2022.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was just making the point that the licences provided for in the Bill, where granted, will give exclusive rights to explore an area. Additional permissions will be required before any activity can take place, such as the drilling of a well or construction of a development facility. At each stage and ahead of every such permission being granted, an environmental assessment takes place including, where necessary, public consultation and consultation with nature conservation bodies, to ensure that the impact on the environment, including MPAs, is taken into account in the licensing process.
In response to a specific question, I am not aware of my department having received any communications from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee about the Bill, but noble Lords can be assured that the Government remain committed to ensuring that we meet our Environment Act target on MPAs.
The Government’s marine spatial prioritisation programme will ensure that a strategic approach is taken to identifying future marine development sites. The programme is exploring opportunities to optimise the use of the seas and enable marine activities to co-exist.
Similarly, the strategic spatial energy plan, which the Government will commission in spring 2024 from the National Energy System Operator, will assess the most efficient locations and types of energy infrastructure, reducing inefficiency in infrastructure build. The Bill will not undermine our ability and ambition to ensure co-existence between strictly regulated human activities that may be both possible and necessary in an MPA and, of course, the wider marine environment, including fishing, offshore wind construction and offshore oil and gas, to ensure that we continue to strike the right balance between the full range of our different priorities.
I hope that with those assurances and the explanations that I have been able to provide, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who took part in this very useful debate. I very much take to heart the comments made by those with long experience in the North Sea about the need to make sure that the scale and pace of change is appropriate. I remain unconvinced that the voluntary system on venting and flaring is going fast and comprehensively enough to meet the targets we need. The Minister said that the 2030 target we have is “ambitious”, and others questioned whether we could get there by 2026 or so, which is the date in my amendment. I will say only that the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place thought that those were attainable targets. So, there is a lot to think about and I hope a lot to talk about with the Minister between now and Report.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is not in his place. I would have said to him that I take the stricture that using the licensing process to institute a ban on flaring on current installations is not a very elegant way. However, it has one enormous advantage: it is in the scope of this very narrowly drawn Bill. But with that, and hoping that we can have further conversations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lennie
“(aa) the climate change test (see section 4ZD);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the other in the name of Lord Lennie, sets out the climate change test to be applied by the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for seaward new production licences.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 3 and 18 in my name. These amendments set out the climate change test to be applied to the Oil and Gas Authority before inviting applications for new seaward production licences. Before detailing what the amendment calls for, I point out, as I said at Second Reading, that this is an unnecessary and damaging Bill. It undermines the independent authority of the NSTA and reinforces the perception around the world that the UK is rowing back from climate change, as described by Sir Alok Sharma MP, the highly respected former president of COP in the other place. So, nothing we can do in Committee or on Report would improve the Bill better than ditching it altogether; no improvements can make fresh fruit out of rotting vegetables.
The tests that the Bill sets are fundamentally flawed, and any tests that we may introduce would still be weaker than Labour’s overall position of no new exploration licences. Labour recognises—this is to reassure those who are concerned—that production will continue in the North Sea for decades to come. Oil and gas will continue to supply our domestic energy market well beyond the lifetime of most of us in the Room.
The Bill could or should have set a strategic direction or plan for how we deal with North Sea workers transitioning to new jobs in renewables, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. However, how we manage our North Sea assets for the long term and maximise the low carbon potential of the North Sea are also missing from the Bill. It does not do any of this; it just sets these tests that cannot be failed and demands that the NSTA carries out annual licensing of new oil and gas fields.
These tests are, first, that the carbon intensity of domestic natural gas is lower than the carbon intensity of liquefied natural gas imported into the United Kingdom. It is, and it always will be. The second test is that the UK is projected to remain a net importer of oil and gas. It is, and it always will be. The amendment that replaced these tests states the following:
“The climate change test is met in relation to a relevant year if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the mitigation of climate change publish a report following the passing of this Act which makes a finding that the granting of additional seaward area production licences is consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
It is the Government’s policy to achieve 1.5 degrees centigrade. It was agreed at the Paris Agreement that 1.5 degrees centigrade is what we should achieve. This test is very straightforward and consistent with government advice of achieving 1.5 degrees of global warming. The IPCC has previously said that the Bill as it stands is not compatible with our climate change goals. However, unlike the Government’s tests, this test is not set up so that we cannot fail. If the evidence base was updated to suggest that this action was compatible with our climate goals because the climate science had changed, or because the technology around oil and gas extraction developed, the Labour test could be passed.
If we are to take our responsibilities seriously as a prime mover in the fight against climate change, we should adopt the strategy that carefully manages our North Sea oil and gas production, while maximising the low carbon potential of the North Sea. The government tests just simply do not achieve this. We need proper policy developed in the round for this to happen. The Bill as drafted does not allow for this. It is concerned only with the unnecessary mandatory licensing rounds, and as such is a nakedly political proposal, as has been suggested by others.
Does the Bill even attempt to approach the fact that demand for gas will undoubtedly decline as we decarbonise our power sector and electrify more? Can the Minister say what the Government’s strategic thinking is in this area? Instead of doing the hard work and producing holistic plans, they have played politics with the UK’s reputation and workers’ futures. We can and should do better than this.
As for the other amendments in the group, I highlight those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. They remind us that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero confirmed that the Bill would not reduce energy bills, and that that is not its purpose. With the cost of living crisis hurting everyone, reducing energy bills should be a priority for the Government, and the Bill should reflect that—but it does not. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 4 and 19, but I also want to say that I very much enjoyed the introduction to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He said that this is a very damaging Bill, and that is absolutely true—but what offends me so deeply is that it is so old fashioned and out of date. It does not take into account any of the science that has happened over the past 10 years. But luckily, these amendments expose the falsehoods that have been told by the Government in attempting to justify new fossil fuel extraction in the midst of a climate crisis.
First, the Government are deluded in saying that new oil and gas licences can in any way be compatible with delivering our climate targets. That is impossible. Secondly, they are deluded in thinking that propping up the oil and gas industry can possibly be in the interests of workers—and doing that rather than genuinely engaging with the need for a just transition and the practicalities of how that can be delivered. Thirdly, they are deluded in thinking that new oil and gas extraction will do anything to reduce domestic energy costs rather than be exported on the world market to the highest bidder.
Amendments 3 and 8 would establish a climate test, which is very necessary. The UN Production Gap Report has warned that the worlds’ Governments already plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The IPC’s sixth assessment report was clear that
“projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees centigrade”.
Closer to home, the Climate Change Committee observed in its latest progress report that
“expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero”.
Regardless of the claims from some people, possibly on the opposite Benches, that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas up to 2050, again to use the words of the Climate Change Committee,
“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
The issuance of new fossil fuel extraction licences will directly contribute towards global heating. The Government will not accept a climate test in this Bill, because they know that new oil and gas is incompatible with a safe climate. If the Minister would like to hear more about this, I would be very happy to meet him and explain it as simply as I possibly can.
My Amendments 4 and 19 set out the just transition test. It is ironic that this Government try so hard to invoke the destruction of working-class communities by the Thatcher Government when they attempt to use oil and gas workers as an excuse to continue pumping new oil and gas, which will further inflame the climate emergency and actually make life harder and harder for people. The choice that we are facing is between a managed and fair worker-led transition now, or chaos later, when the reality of the planet crisis bites even more fiercely. Without serious plans for a just transition, communities will once again be left behind and hollowed out as a result of Conservative policy.
This proposal would require just transition plans for the North Sea workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. It specifies that these plans must be agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions and that they apply to all workers, whether they are directly or indirectly employed, or even self-employed—which is vital, given the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce. This amendment will be a step towards delivering a just transition that would see workers at the centre of transition planning, with a clear and accessible pathway out of high-carbon jobs. We have to do this—we absolutely must, if we care about people and their work.
So, rather than propping up jobs that we know will not exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sectors while also addressing their very real concerns—such as around the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves. The failure to deliver a just transition is not inevitable; it is a political choice. If the Government were serious about listening to workers and protecting jobs, they should have no problem supporting this amendment, which puts job security at the heart of the transition to a green future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 5 and 17, which would introduce a cost of living and consumer energy price test that the OGA must conduct before inviting applications for seaward area production licences. The cost of living and consumer energy price test is met in relation to a relevant year if the production of domestic natural gas will clearly, first, lower energy prices and, secondly, reduce the cost of living.
Originally, as was alluded to, the Minister in the other place claimed that this Bill would reduce energy prices but very quickly had to retract that statement from the public domain. My question is: why are we passing this Bill if it will not have any impact at all on reducing the cost of energy bills for consumers? Some 80% of all the natural oil and gas here will be exported. As we have heard, the Bill will do little, if anything, to help our energy security, protect jobs, transition and help the green economy, which is the energy of the future. Instead, we are investing in the energies of the past, and that investment seems to bear few benefits for people or the planet.
We are already seeing individuals with record debt for their energy prices. We have seen the war in Ukraine and the spike in energy prices. As long as we as a country continue not to invest in energy efficiency or renewables and continue to be dependent on the international energy markets, we will continue to suffer as those markets fluctuate. The Government themselves have had to invest £7 billion in subsidising energy bills—in effect, a continued and added subsidy to the oil and gas companies on top of the tax breaks that they already have. We have the most expensive energy prices in Europe so this amendment simply seeks to put in a test where the cost of energy to consumers should be considered.
On the other amendments in this group, Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would apply a climate change test. I fully support applying a climate change test. The question I would put to the noble Lord, in relation to these specific amendments, concerns asking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whether it is set up and in the best position to conduct that particular test for us as an individual country. I suggest that, if we want a climate change test, it might be better for the UK’s own Climate Change Committee to pass a judgment on whether that test could be met.
Finally, on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, although we on this side recognise that we will continue to have some oil and gas as part of our energy mix—even under net zero—we want to see a move to a just transition. I welcome this amendment as an attempt to do that.
However, the amendment is slightly ill defined. I would rather see that transition come about through the profits from the extraction of this energy being directly allocated to the green economy. So, while I welcome the amendment and we do not oppose it, my personal view is that that is a more efficient way of doing it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I share the frustration of many people that we produce our own oil and gas but base it on world market prices, and there is no immediate direct benefit to the consumer. I understand the reasoning behind it, but the public feel very frustrated: if we are oil and gas producers, there should be a direct economic benefit. Can the Government be a bit more creative and imaginative? They would argue that during the height of the crisis, they effectively used excess taxes to cut consumer bills, but is there a way in which to build in a formula that might have a more long-term connection that would be of some benefit?
It is also fair to say that I reject the argument that because we export a lot of the oil and gas, we do not really need it and therefore should not produce it. Of course, balance of payments do matter. The reality is that we have always exported a very substantial amount of our oil production and we import it back in refined products—more so than we did, because we no longer have the capacity to refine. Nevertheless, one pays for the other, but that is not immediately apparent. It is equally true that if we are producing our own oil and gas, and it is profitable, there is tax accruing to the Government which presumably funds public services or other tax cuts that could be directly connected to the consumer if the Government were prepared to be creative.
It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to ask why, if we are maintaining our oil and gas production, we cannot give a direct benefit to the consumer from that. I acknowledge that there are real benefits. Those who suggest that because we go for the world economic price there is no benefit ignore the balance of payment effect and the taxation effect. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not in his place because in a Committee exchange I asked him why, if oil and gas is part of the mix, right to and through net zero, we would not maintain some of our own production, if we can do it sensibly, efficiently and rationally while we are accelerating the transition? His reply was that we should set an example to the world, that plenty of other people produce oil and gas and we can import it. I found that extraordinary and irresponsible. If we are going to use it anyway—there is a further group of amendments that relate to the carbon base of our gas, for example—we know perfectly well that domestic gas has a much lower carbon footprint than imported gas, certainly liquid gas.
It is naive to suggest that there are no real benefits from producing oil and gas. There is a real economic benefit, but I tease the Government to say that it might be interesting if they could find a way of making a direct connection that people could feel in their cost of living, specifically in their fuel bills. People would find that an extra justification for maintaining what we are trying to do.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I intervene briefly to express a little scepticism about Amendments 5 and 17. I declare an interest because I used to be deputy chairman of Shell for a time. I think the answer to the very fair question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is that we cannot, unless we nationalise the companies or direct their sales, because they will sell at the market price. I do not think that the condition that Amendments 5 and 17 would impose will ever be met. We will never be able clearly to demonstrate that prices and the cost of living would be lower X many years out. First, one cannot be clear. It takes five, seven or eight years for a project to come into production and guessing prices and the cost of living that far ahead, as I saw at Shell, is not an exact science. It is difficult to do “clearly”—the wording in the amendment.
Secondly, I am not clear whether this third test is a cumulative condition, like the carbon intensity test and the net importer test. If it is cumulative, then no licenses will be issued at all, because that will never be able to be proved.
I am afraid that, for the same reasons, my scepticism also extends to the net importer test. I do not understand the Bill. We are setting out a perfectly reasonable set of propositions for a nationalised industry, but if you want the North Sea to be developed as it is now, or for the development to continue as it is now, run by commercial companies, then the commercial companies will sell at the world price. They will not allocate a little bit to you at a better price so that you can satisfy your tests; in particular, a cost of living test. It does not work like that. I am making everybody in the room angry, because I do not really agree with Amendments 5 and 17, and I do not actually agree with the Bill when it comes to the net importer test.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the expertise of the noble Lord who has just spoken, but I think that the two tests in the Bill—which is the subject of this group of amendments, because we are looking to see whether it is feasible and appropriate to add to those tests—are important tests.
On the net importer test, it is fundamentally important as a country to have security of supply. Security of supply comes through diversity of supply, and that security of supply has been shown to be exceptionally important recently, not least with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact that had on western Europe’s gas, being at the end of the pipeline from Russia. It was important to bring home the reality that we need to develop our own energy sources efficiently and economically, in the most benign, sustainable way that we can possibly do with modern technology. The net importer test is important, and I am pleased that it is in the Bill. It absolutely underpins the concept of security of supply, which has always been the basis for our energy system in the United Kingdom.
The carbon intensity test is also relevant, in this day and age of developing reserves internationally and bringing them here with LNG, then transferring that LNG, through a process, to natural gas for power generation in the United Kingdom. If the LNG had a lesser carbon footprint than what we produce in the North Sea, then there would be a very real argument for not having further licensing rounds in the North Sea, because the environmental impact of what we do in this industry is vital, and that is shared on both sides of the Committee.
It is important to question whether we should move towards a position whereby we go to a global test, which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, suggested, through what was probably a probing amendment rather than one that he would like to see in the Bill. We have an important but minimal impact on whether that 1.5 degree average surface warming above pre-industrial temperatures under the Paris Agreement is achieved. We should be looking to make sure that, as far as possible, everything we do in the North Sea is as sustainable as possible, with the lowest possible carbon footprint. As far as I am concerned, sustainability is one of the four pillars for the consideration of our energy sector. We must address sustainability concerns; we must address GHG emissions; and we must ensure the protection and stewardship of our environment. As I have mentioned, at the same time, we need to have security and reliability. That is the second pillar. We must ensure that current and future energy demand is supplied reliably and responsibly, and, as I said earlier, is able to robustly withstand system shocks.
The third pillar is accessibility and affordability. We must enable energy provision to consumers while minimising cost, and we must support social and economic development. That is one of the reasons we have diversification of supply in the country and the free market to ensure that that is the case.
That free market point is important because we need economic viability of investment. Investment in, and the adoption of, energy solutions characterised by a sustainable return on investment is the fourth and most fundamental pillar. I would just question whether we need to go further than the two tests in the Bill.
I have never, either at Second Reading or in Committee, thought that this Bill was top of the agenda in terms of importance to any Government. I am not sure that it is. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we can have annual licensing rounds if we want them. In any event, if it is important that they are annual as opposed to biennial, to me, is debateable. The important thing is that all the licences that are awarded must be awarded against a set of criteria; increasingly important in the set of criteria is the environmental footprint around every single aspect of offshore oil and gas production.
We need firm, reliable energy in the United Kingdom to underpin a growth in renewables, but that firm power must be uninterrupted. At a time when we are not moving towards new nuclear as fast as we should be, gas is that basic firm power that will fuel the whole electrification of our system. The other side of this coin is that we are looking for far greater electrification of our rail and wider transport system. Well, for that, you need firm power.
How renewables are at the moment, as well as the lack of good battery storage power—it is interesting to note that the existing battery storage power in the UK covered approximately only eight minutes of average UK electricity demand for the whole of 2023—this lack of battery technology and breakthrough on renewables, without firm power, shows just how much further we have to go. We must have improved and enhanced battery technology. We need firm energy as our lifeblood in this country, not sporadic energy, although moving towards a greater reliance on renewables is, to me, critical. That needs to be underpinned by maximising our gas reserves in the United Kingdom.
Given the limitations of this Bill, those two tests seem reasonable and appropriate to me. I am not sure that the additional tests that are being recommended in the amendments are necessary or helpful in achieving the four pillars that I set out in response to the noble Lord’s very good introduction, if I may say so, of his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all those who contributed. I start with Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, which seek to impose a new climate change test as part of this Bill.
I say at the outset, in response to the challenge presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this Bill is entirely consistent with the Government’s target to reach net zero by 2050. Even with continued exploration and development, UK oil and gas production is expected to decline by 7% a year. This decline is faster than the average annual global decline needed to align with the IPCC’s 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. The noble Baroness might not like those facts but they are facts nevertheless.
As net importers, we produce less than we need—a point made ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This is projected to remain the case even as our demand for oil and gas shrinks as we achieve net zero. There are already a number of climate checks to ensure that offshore oil and gas activities remain consistent with our climate goals: the climate compatibility checkpoint ensures that the compatibility of future licensing with the UK’s climate objectives has been evaluated before a new licensing round opens; and the North Sea Transition Authority has a specific obligation to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the net-zero target. The recently published OGA plan makes clear that, for production to continue in the North Sea, it must continue to become cleaner. Adding a new test to this Bill is, in our view, therefore unnecessary.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, at Second Reading, I quoted Alan Whitehead MP saying that this Bill was cooked up over a long lunch and should have been buried before the effects of that long lunch had worn off. Unfortunately, it has not been, so we have to try to deal with it. The Minister appears to be not complacent but content that we are making the progress we need to make. The Government believe that we are on track to hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 but the test would introduce an independence to the measurement of that, through the IPCC—the global body and the right body to do the test. It is not a body in this country but a global body that can measure, compare, contrast and make judgments about whether our plans do indeed meet the intended targets.
The cost of living issue is a probing one but it reminds us what the Secretary of State said in response to a question about it—the Minister has repeated it—which is that it is not the purpose of this Bill to reduce energy costs. Surely the question of how we make sure that we reduce energy costs must be fundamental to all our considerations of energy policy in this country. There has been a reduction since the massive inflationary pressures of the post-Covid years, but they are not low and we can do more to reduce those costs to customers.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the carbon intensity test applies to gas, oil, and any other petroleum products on an equal basis, and probes why the government has chosen to only apply the test to natural gas.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
All the amendments I have tabled here reveal the scam that is absolutely built into this Bill—it is really offensive to the general public—because this carbon intensity test has been deliberately drafted so that UK oil and gas are always deemed to be low carbon, as compared to international comparisons. So there will never be any limit to the number of oil and gas licences issued. My Amendment 11 probes why the Government have chosen to apply the carbon intensity test only to natural gas. It is our first example of how the Government are fudging the numbers with egregious greenwashing.
Why is the carbon intensity of crude oil being ignored in the Government’s test? The answer is obvious: oil is more carbon intensive than gas and the North Sea produces far more oil than gas, making North Sea production more carbon intensive than most of the countries we import oil and gas from. So the Government fiddle the numbers by ignoring oil altogether, thereby making North Sea extraction look like it is somehow tackling climate change rather than pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere and making it ever harder to reach net zero.
The second part of the scam is that the Government do not compare like with like. Despite the fact that most of our imported gas comes via pipeline from Norway, which has less than half the carbon intensity of UK oil and gas, the Bill compares the UK’s gas with liquefied natural gas. LNG is almost four times as carbon intensive as a UK gas and almost 10 times as carbon intensive as gas from Norway because of the processing necessary to liquify, import and regasify the LNG. By comparing UK production with imported LNG instead of all natural gas imports, the Government have added another layer to this dubious test that will green-light new oil and gas licences for decades to come.
The Government have drafted this Bill at an extremely well liquified dinner—if my guess is right—to exclude the bulk of UK oil from the equation, despite oil being the most carbon-intensive component of North Sea production. It is an absolutely outrageous piece of draftsmanship, and yet another example of this Government legislating against reality to create whatever legal conditions are required to force through government policy.
Taken together, my amendments will ensure that the carbon intensity test compares like for like. The amended carbon intensity test will compare all UK oil and gas production with their equivalent imports and include all relevant processes for the extraction, transportation and delivery of oil and gas in usable form to its final customer. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that, if a carbon intensity test is to be used, it must properly assess the carbon intensity of North Sea oil and gas relative to their imported equivalents. It is essential to amend with the Bill along the lines that I propose. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
I speak in favour of the amendments in this group. They all relate to the two tests in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said. The LPG and the UK net importer test are both one-way gates, where the answer is always yes. That is not good enough. There needs to be a proper test that counts the carbon cost of doing these things.
My slight issue with this is that a lot of the amendments in this group are not in scope in this very short, almost Private Member’s Bill-type of legislation. Inevitably, the amendments were gathered around the little bits that are in scope in the Bill to be amended. From our side’s point of view, there are lots of amendments seeking to change these tests. I am not minded to say which is the best amendment to take forward. From our side of the Room, some thought should be given to coalescing around one of those tests. I am happy to support that, but we need to go away and do some thinking to get a unified position.
On the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remove Clause 1, if that were to be pushed to a vote, I would be prepared to support it. The Minister makes a lot of grand claims for this Bill. In his summing up, he keeps saying that the granting of licences do X, Y and Z. That may well be true, but nothing in the Bill commits to anyone granting any licences. The only thing that the legislation does is to say that there should be tenders. The joined-up logic that the Minister is giving us for the Bill does not, in point of fact, bear relevance, because it could be passed but no licences ever granted again. Equally, we could continue to have licences every year without this Bill.
The Bill does little other than to drive a wedge between us and our commitments to protect the environment, and serves as a way in which to politicise this issue in the run-up to the election. That is all I have to say.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I acknowledge the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. To repeat the concerns as outlined at Second Reading, our belief is that the tests identified in the Bill will be impossible to fail and are thereby fundamentally flawed, as my noble friend Lord Lennie has previously outlined.
Amendments 12 and 15 in my name are straight- forward. The intention is to be as simple as possible, leaving out “liquified” from the Bill to include all natural gas imported into the UK. We need to achieve clarity, which is not present in the current wording. If the Government want to keep it in, they should be open about the consequences. Liquified natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas intensive in production than UK natural gas. The North Sea field will not meet our total demand for oil and gas, as we know. We need to replace these tests with ones that produce a proper judgment about whether a licence should be issued. The main consideration should be whether issuing a licence is in line with our climate change goals.
Another disappointment with this Bill, as we have discussed, is that there is no reference to previously introduced climate change compatibility tests into production generally—quite an omission. Including only LNG presents a serious problem. We acknowledge that substantial amounts of natural gas come into the UK from Norway via the pipeline. The production of that gas is substantially cleaner than that of UK natural gas. Indeed, we need to be sure that managing the decline in demand for gas is at the heart of a successful net-zero transition. The best and fairer test would be to consider gas imports in the round.
We are trying to amend a Bill that is deeply flawed, as I have previously recognised. I recognise the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to the Bill as a whole. I believe that this a simple way in which we could make some improvements; I look forward to the Minister’s comments with interest.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, tabled notice of her intention to oppose Clause 1 standing part of the Bill so let me begin my remarks by briefly outlining the purpose of that clause. Under the Petroleum Act 1998, offshore oil and gas licences are administered by the Oil and Gas Authority, which is operating as the North Sea Transition Authority. A seaward production licence grants exclusive rights to the licensee to explore, bore for and produce oil and gas from the geological formations that lie beneath the UK’s offshore waters, within an area defined by the licence. Additional permissions are required before any activity can take place.
Periodically, the NSTA launches licensing rounds inviting companies to apply for such licences. During this process, interested companies submit bids and licences are awarded to bids that promise to ensure the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources, while of course supporting the drive to net zero by 2050. This existing arrangement means that industry does not have certainty as to when—or, indeed, if—the NSTA will launch a new licensing round. This clause provides that certainty by amending the Petroleum Act 1998 to place a duty on the NSTA to invite applications for seaward production licences in each annual period, which runs from October to September each year. This is subject to two tests being passed: that the average carbon intensity of domestic UK gas is lower than the average carbon intensity of imported liquified natural gas; and that the UK remains a net importer of both oil and gas.
Together, these tests, which will be conducted by the NSTA, will ensure that the annual duty on the NSTA applies only where this supports our wider energy security and energy transition objectives. If the annual duty is triggered, the NSTA proceeds with the current licensing process. It will remain a matter for the NSTA as an independent regulator to decide how many and which blocks or part-blocks to offer for applications—with a minimum of one block—and to ensure and apply the appropriate criteria for determining those applications. It will remain the responsibility of the NSTA to decide whether to offer and grant any licences at the conclusion of that process and whom to offer them to; the NSTA will retain the discretion to grant licences outside of this new annual process in the usual way where needed.
I assure noble Lords that the offering and granting of licences under the new annual process will remain subject to the existing rigorous environmental regulatory requirements. These include the obligation written into the NSTA’s strategy to assist the Secretary of State in meeting the target of net zero by 2050. Indeed, I want to be clear that nothing in this clause contradicts our steadfast and, of course, legally binding commitment to achieving net zero by 2050. We do not need to choose between either delivering net zero or supporting our domestic oil and gas sector; the two things are not mutually incompatible.
Amendments 11, 13, 14 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and Amendments 12 and 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to amend the carbon intensity test. This test looks at historical carbon dioxide emissions from the production and supply of natural gas during an assessment period spanning the preceding three years. The test is passed if, during that timeframe, per unit of energy, the carbon emissions of producing gas domestically were lower than the average carbon emissions from the production and delivery of liquefied natural gas from all geographic locations.
The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to change the test to include in the comparison all imported and produced petroleum products, including crude oil, and all forms of natural gas. The amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, seek to include an assessment of the carbon intensity of all imported natural gas.
It is important to recognise that the markets for oil and gas work very differently; it is not possible to make the same comparisons for oil as it is for gas. In the case of gas, we have a choice either to maximise domestic production or to import more. The more gas we produce domestically, the less we need to import; that seems obvious to me. For oil, we do not have that same choice because oil has to be refined before it is used. For historical reasons, UK oil is generally processed abroad—predominantly in Europe, where our production supports the energy security of our European allies. So a comparison of the carbon intensity of imported oil versus domestically produced oil would be the wrong one to make.
Turning to the test for gas, LNG has been chosen as the relevant comparator as it is a critical marginal source of energy, providing an essential buffer source—especially in winter, when gas demand is higher. Over the past decade, LNG has become an increasingly important method of moving natural gas to market. This will only intensify in the coming years because UK natural gas production peaked in 2000 and the UK has been a net importer since 2004 in order to meet domestic demand.
It is fortunate that some of the UK’s gas imports, in particular pipeline imports from Norway, have relatively low production emissions. However, it is a fact that Norwegian production, like our own, is declining. We will still need gas in the coming years as we transition to net zero. With both UK and Norwegian production declining, it is likely that LNG will play an increasingly important role. During periods of high demand in winter, LNG is a key, flexible source of supply; this role will only increase over time as UK and Norwegian production declines. Producing less domestically means importing more carbon-intensive LNG, which is why a comparison with LNG is the right one to make, in our view, and why we have included it in the Bill.
With the explanation I have been able to provide, I hope that it is clear why the test focuses on LNG and not comparators with oil, which is completely different, or other forms of gas. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is hard to summon up the energy to rebut anything. What the Government proved to us yesterday with the Rwanda Bill is that they are prepared to deny reality. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, we are reliably informed that there will be a Division in the Chamber in about half an hour—hint, hint.
Clause 2: Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment 20
Earl Russell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Act does not extend to Scotland.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief, as these amendments are pretty straightforward. I recognise that the amendment would have an impact on the Bill but against that, it must be said that Scotland has provided the UK with lots of North Sea oil and gas and very little is coming back to Scotland. There is no allocation of money for the green transition and no commitment to the green transition—nothing flows back to Scotland. There is no protection for the workers; not a single penny that is generated from this extra extraction of North Sea gas and oil is in any way directly allocated to come back to the people of Scotland or to their industry.
The other amendment in my name would delay the implementation of the Act until 1 September 2025. To my mind, the Bill is not really properly put together; it is not properly worked out or part of a full and coherent energy strategy. Everyone on this side of the Room has recognised that we will continue to be dependent on oil and gas, even under net zero—but there is no coherent, conjoined or constructive strategy for providing energy security or lots of the things that are claimed in the Bill. For that reason, there are good and sound reasons for arguing for the implementation of the Bill to be delayed. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will speak to my Amendments 22 and 23. I see the Bill as completely pointless and, as I said before, out of date—just not in touch with reality. My two amendments are to corral it slightly so that it does not spill over in any direction.
Amendment 22 would ensure that the provisions of the Bill are not brought in before 1 September 2025 and are brought into effect only by regulation, so that this stuff has to come to the House again. Amendment 23 would sunset the Act after 10 years, which is plenty of time to waste on this, unless a Minister of the Crown intervened, and it would give Ministers the power to disapply Clause 1 in any year, after consultation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I did not participate at Second Reading. I declare an interest as a Scottish income tax payer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is concerned with what comes back to Scotland. I am horrified at his idea that Scotland should be left out of the Bill.
As far as my memory serves me, in July 1998, in discussing Schedule 5, all energy was reserved to Westminster and, at a later date, renewable energy was devolved to Scotland. So if Scotland does not appear in this Bill and there is no continuing power to develop things in Scotland, this amendment would mean the end of any exploration for petroleum products in the Scottish area, in the surrounding oceans or on land.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate so far. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his proposal about omitting Scotland from the Bill, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his horrified response to the proposal to omit Scotland from the Bill. I am not sure about the debate on Scotland, to be honest, but on balance I think I would keep Scotland in the Bill. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I can see why these amendments would delay the Bill coming into effect, which would not be a bad thing. It would be better if the Bill were not here at all, but, hey, we cannot have everything we want.
The Government have admitted that the Bill will not take a penny off energy bills and will do nothing for energy security, because oil and gas are sold on the international market. The Bill will send precisely the wrong signals to investors about the UK’s commitment to the green transition: Amanda Blanc, chief executive officer of Aviva said that new oil and gas drilling
“puts at … risk the jobs, growth and the additional investment the UK requires to become more climate ready”.
The Bill has been slammed from many quarters, including some surprising ones, such as Theresa May, former Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, former chief executive officer of BP, said it
“is not going to make any difference”
to Britain’s energy security.
Annual licencing rounds will not boost the UK’s economy, as North Sea oil and gas is already in decline, as the Minister confirmed, and over the next decade, in Scotland and England, there will be 25 new jobs in clean energy for every job that is lost in oil and gas. That is what we have to secure: the transition of workers from oil and gas to the new green, clean energy. More extraction in the North Sea will not improve any security or lower energy bills. Remaining reserves are mostly oil, not gas, and 78% of that oil is exported, as it is not in the right form for use in the United Kingdom. The UK is already feeling the devastating impact of climate change, and granting licences simply amplifies the effects. Campaign groups have indicated that the current licences will send “a wrecking ball” through the UK’s climate commitments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank noble Lords for their brevity on this group.
Amendment 20 seeks to amend the Bill to exclude Scotland. Of course, the vast majority of offshore oil and gas activity takes place off the coast of Scotland to the benefit of all citizens across the United Kingdom. Excluding Scotland from the scope of the Bill, which I understand is the intention of the amendment, would significantly undermine the benefits that the Bill is intended to create. It would risk causing unnecessary confusion for industry and create considerable complexity for the independent regulator. This is particularly true as we transition towards a low-carbon economy and workforce.
As I have already mentioned in previous groups, a report by Robert Gordon University found that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce have medium to high skills transferability to the offshore renewables sector. Many of those, of course, are in Scotland, where OEUK estimates that over 90,000 jobs are supported by the oil and gas industry. If we rush the transition, or create additional uncertainty in the investment environment, we risk losing the jobs and skills that we will need as we scale up the clean technologies needed to realise that crucial net zero target.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I recognise what the Minister has said to me, but my understanding is that all the Bill does is require an annual tendering for licences to take place. While I recognise a lot of the sentiment and the answers that the Minister has given me, I do not feel that the consequences flow just from not having an annual tender for licences for Scotland. We could still have licences granted every year if the Bill was not in place.
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his contribution. Again, I do not see how it was my intention to remove in any way the whole of Scotland from the renewables debate, and I am not aware that this is a consequence of my amendment, but I will of course go away and have a look at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.