National Emergency Plan for Fuel
Debate between Lord Whitehead and Lord Bellingham(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to raise storage and resilience. As far is gas is concerned, we have reliable supplies from a range of sources. Most notably, 43% of our supplies come from UK fields. A further 20% comes from Norwegian fields, some of which can be landed in the UK only when it has come from the fields. Only a small percentage comes in from LPG and other tankered arrangements. The question of supply, therefore, is about supplementing those secure supplies with a reasonable amount of reserve facility. That is indeed in place, in terms of eight reserve supply arrangements, as well as the development of the former Rough field in the UK for gas supply purposes.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, on the Minister’s last point about resilience and the Norwegian fields, does he personally support the early development of Rosebank and Jackdaw?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that those two fields have exploration licences but do not yet have production licences. The general point about those fields, and indeed new fields, particularly in the UK, was made just recently by the director of the International Energy Agency, who said that those and other fields
“would not change much for the UK’s energy security, nor would they change the price of oil and gas. They would not make any significant difference to this crisis”.
Regarding the current crisis, it is right in general to continue to move away from reliance on volatile and possibly unstable sources of fossil fuel and develop the greater security that comes with renewable and low-carbon energy, which is what the Government are doing.
Tropical Forest Forever Facility
Debate between Lord Whitehead and Lord Bellingham(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
Yes, I agree with my noble friend. The UK continues to be one of the major donors to forest conservation and restoration, and we expect to deliver on the £1.5 billion of spending on forests pledged at COP 26. The UK is co-chair of the Forest & Climate Leaders’ Partnership, a coalition of more than 30 Governments working together to accelerate delivery of the goal to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. This played an instrumental role in delivering key commitments for indigenous peoples and local communities —who are, after all, the best stewards of tropical forest development and protection—including a commitment that will regularise land tenure in 160 million hectares of forest, one of the most effective ways to protect forests. We also backed the Belém call for the Congo Basin, which will deepen forest protection in the world’s second-largest rainforest.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s Question, is the Minister aware that Ed Miliband said that the TFFF is a key game-changer in reversing the destruction of rainforests and that that is why the Government worked closely with the World Bank and with the Brazilian Government to get this in place? The Minister mentioned that the last Budget was a problem in terms of UK decision-making, but France had similar issues, as did Germany, Malaysia, Singapore and Norway—I could go on—but all those countries came up with hard cash to support this very worthy scheme. Was Ed Miliband overruled?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
No. The particular circumstance surrounding the TFFF itself, as I am sure the noble Lord will be aware, was one of intense UK participation in the setting up of the TFFF. As the noble Lord mentions, we consider it to be an essential and significant initiative as far as the future of forests and biodiversity is concerned across the world. That is why we put so much effort into getting this off the ground and support the continued funding for the operationalisation of that fund. It is just that, at that particular moment, we were not able to produce some additional funding for the TFFF initiative. We very much welcome that other countries have initially put some in. As I have mentioned, it does not mean that the issue is gone and forgotten; it is under continuous review for the future.