Oral Answers to Questions

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I would completely reject that, based on the many conversations that I have had with industry and experts. The plans that we have set out have been assessed by the Climate Change Committee as being realistic. The plans that the Labour party has set out have been criticised by pretty much every single part of the energy system. Rather than playing politics with this issue, the hon. Gentleman should consider the reality of the taxes, the raised bills and the problems with the economy that Labour’s plans would force on Britain.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Last year, the Government promised that they would publish their decarbonisation plan by the end of 2023, but they have failed to do so. Is that because the Secretary of State is too embarrassed to admit the truth? She is way off track, even for delivering clean power by 2035, because she has bungled the offshore wind auction, is failing on energy efficiency and refuses to end the onshore wind ban. Is it not the case that she wants to attack Labour’s plan because she cannot defend her own?

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the hon. Lady, but that is an extraordinary question. There would be much more credibility from the Labour party if it would recognise that the UK is the first country in the G20—the 20 largest economies—to halve emissions. While Labour Members might play politics with this issue, I am absolutely happy to defend our position on dealing with our climate change obligations in a pragmatic way that protects household finances.

Civil Nuclear Road Map

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I lose track of where the Liberal Democrats sit on nuclear. I know that their current leader was against it, then he was for it, and then against it again. Right now, I am not quite sure.

I do take issue with the hon. Lady’s insinuation that we are not leading the world in renewables. We have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth—and, soon, the sixth—largest offshore wind farms in the world generating power right now for Great Britain. We are investing at pace in solar and in a host of new and emerging technologies because, unlike some parties, we believe that we should not invest all our time and money in one technology. We need a broad range of technologies if we are ever to meet our legally binding net zero commitment. I look forward to the day when the Liberal Democrats can hold a policy for more than five minutes and come to the House and actually support us on the journey to our net zero future.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, what lessons will be learned from previous and current projects on value for money? The National Audit Office was scathing about some of the decisions that had been taken on those projects. What more can be done to support manufacturing in this area right across the UK?

[Andrew Bowie]

Building up the UK’s supply chain is essential. One of the huge benefits that will be accrued through this biggest-in-70-years investment in new nuclear is the ability to build up our manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, creating those high-wage, high-skilled jobs that we want to see in more communities around the entire country. Of course, lessons will be learned from previous projects. We are always looking at value for money for the British taxpayer, which is why, for example, we are using the regulated asset base model for funding Sizewell C.

Offshore Wind Contracts

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

As ever, my hon. Friend is well-informed. We are working on all those fronts. FLOWMIS applications closed just two weeks ago, and we are working flat out to analyse them. I hope that by the end of the year we will have shortlisted to the primary list and those schemes will move forward to due diligence, as we take forward not only our floating wind deployment, but the supply chain in the south-west, Wales, Scotland and around the rest of the UK. We are working on all those fronts and are determined to do that. As she rightly highlights, seeing our first geothermal projects come through the CfD is fantastic, as are the 11 tidal projects. I pay tribute to all colleagues who have worked so hard to promote tidal energy and make sure that we continue to be a world leader in that as well.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

This is an embarrassment for the Government and shows that we are falling further and further behind in the race for green jobs internationally. We have the lowest growth in these industries among the eight biggest economies. Should the Government not be focusing much more on broadening and increasing the capacity of offshore wind, rather than not listening to industry and making fatal errors?

[Graham Stuart]

If the Labour party is not nationalising or creating some state-owned behemoth, it wants just to hurl money in the direction of business. Our judgment is to balance those things and I am pleased to say that we have been successful; we have the largest offshore wind sector in Europe. This country and this Government, through the CfDs, transformed the economics from the situation we inherited after the right hon. Member for Doncaster North and his colleagues had been in power.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax]

It is. I have read many articles, not least by Mr Bean who, as we know, is a car expert. He wrote a very good article in The Guardian about why we are not quite ready for battery cars. If my wife or daughter is travelling from A to B, I want her to get there safely, as she can in a petrol or diesel car, without having to wait in a petrol section for some minutes to recharge her car, which then takes half an hour or so.

Our actions have consequences, and I urge the Government to think this through very carefully. We cannot impoverish our country to meet what I would call, in some cases, an almost cultish policy to turn this country into something we cannot afford. When we can afford it, and when it works, that is when we should adopt all these policies. I urge caution as the Government go forward.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, as my husband is the company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield.

I rise to speak in support of a number of amendments that would be vital additions to the Bill. It was a pleasure to sit on the Public Bill Committee to debate, at great length, many of the issues that have been raised today. I still feel the Bill is missing its intended purpose, as the Government put it, to

“deliver a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system for the long term.”

We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we are now seeing its effects. We are also facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Although I am pleased the Minister has listened to Members on both sides of the House on the hydrogen levy, there is still a lot more to do.

The Bill could have been our opportunity to tackle these issues head on, transitioning away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels while making energy affordable for everyone. Sadly, in its current form, it fails on those fronts. First and foremost, the Bill will fail to make energy more affordable for my constituents. National Energy Action has warned that 6.3 million households could be trapped in fuel poverty this winter, and by 2024 some households will face spending up to a quarter of their income on energy bills.

We need to overhaul our broken energy pricing system, not have more tinkering around the edges. I am proud to support new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which would introduce a national energy guarantee. This idea needs to be considered, as we need to make sure that the burden of the transition does not fall on those who are least able to meet it.

Secondly and shockingly, the Bill fails to deliver any energy efficiency measures. There is nothing about how we will achieve the targets that have been set. The latest CCC report is clear that the Government need to rapidly scale up and accelerate energy efficiency to stand any hope of meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets. Obviously, the greenest energy is energy that is not used, and the more we can do to reduce the need for energy in poor-quality housing the better.

New clauses 33 and 35 aim to correct the current position by making it a legal requirement for the Government to produce an energy demand reduction plan and providing local authorities with funding for the decarbonisation of homes. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for tabling those new clauses, and I urge the Government to support them.

Finally, the Bill fails to decarbonise at speed and scale. Again, the latest CCC report could not be clearer:

“Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero”.

New clauses 2 and 29 would prohibit coalmines and new oil and gas respectively. New clause 30 would phase down UK petroleum, and new clause 59 would decarbonise electricity supply by 2030. They could and should have been central pillars of the Bill. They are about how we can transform our energy system and meet Labour’s ambitious plans to be a green energy superpower by 2030. However, the Government have removed many new clauses that were won in the Lords—for example, the one on banning new coalmines—and Ministers are refusing to support any such measures today. Instead, they waited until MPs went home over the summer to give the green light to hundreds of new North sea oil and gas licences, without proper scrutiny, in a damning indictment of this Government’s record on climate action. Those are not the only amendments that would help to raise the ambition in this Bill that the Government have removed.

Finally, I wish to mention the importance of new clause 7. The treaty that has been outlined is holding us back and we need to be on the front foot with this. I hope that Ministers will reconsider whether or not we should be part of this treaty in the future.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

This is a great Bill and I congratulate the Government as it takes us a huge step forward. Back in 2015, when I believe the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) was the shadow Energy Minister, I was Energy Minister and we announced we were taking coal off the system by 2025. I recall that at that time the whole world was up in arms, saying, “Oh no, the lights will go out. This will never happen.” Yet by 2020 coal was almost off the system and today there is hardly ever any use of coal. That demonstrates what can happen when a Government set a direction of travel, put the funding behind it and let businesses and investors get on with it. It is a huge accolade for a Conservative Government, who then stand aside and let private investment come in. It is time that we committed ourselves to building new nuclear baseload, as that is vital. We can be proud of our achievements on offshore wind and the commitment now to carbon capture, usage and storage—that has been too long in coming but I am pleased to see it.

Time is tight, but I wish to refer to my new clause 60, which calls for a specific problem to be tackled in a specific way. We all have major concerns in our constituencies, where communities do not wish to see huge electricity pylons, great big wind turbines and great big industrial sites related to energy in their area. Yet we know that we need new onshore wind, lots of solar and lots of electricity pylons. My new clause proposes to make it much easier to build the 600 km of new electricity cabling and pylons that we need by 2030 to meet our power decarbonisation targets alongside major road and rail routes. As things stand, communities understandably object to these huge pieces of kit going through their areas, and then these things get delayed and delayed. In the past eight or so years, we have built only about 30 km of new pylons but we need about 600 km by 2030. We need to get our skates on. The Government can help by making it much easier for planning—

Oral Answers to Questions

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

Unfortunately, we do not have public data by constituency and do not yet have the full data for 2022. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that in 2021, north Northamptonshire generated a total of 362 GWh of renewable electricity. The people of Kettering, like their representative, want Kettering to be one of the greenest constituencies in the country.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

T9. The Secretary of State has signalled that his party will finally drop the nonsensical proposed hydrogen levy—another welcome Government U-turn. Will he confirm that it is, in fact, a U-turn? Will he outline exactly how the much-needed investment in green hydrogen technology will be paid for without already struggling households being made to foot the bill? [R]

[Grant Shapps]

The whole House will welcome the hydrogen economy as an important way to store power. It is becoming increasingly apparent that that power is most likely to be used in heavy industry as well as heavy transport. This Government are committed to hydrogen power, but we are also keen to ensure that it does not impact on people’s energy bills, just as those bills are starting to fall thanks to the support that we provided families with this past winter.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eighteenth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could email your speaking notes to [e-mail]. Please switch your electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The only refreshment permitted in the Committee is the water that is available in the room.

New Clause 86

Investment protection agreements and climate change targets

“Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must—

(a) initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty;

(b) lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(i) the list of investment protection agreements to which the UK is a party which offer protections to the energy sector, and

(ii) an assessment of the risks they pose to the Secretary of State fulfilling duties in this Act with regard to the achievement of targets set by the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Olivia Blake.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. It is the first time, I think, that we have been in the room together for this Bill. New clause 86 requests that the UK Government commence withdrawal from the outdated investment provisions of the energy charter treaty, which risk undermining our Climate Change Act 2008 targets, internationally agreed emissions reductions and duties in this Bill in respect of the impact of energy production on habitats, species and the climate.

As many Committee members are aware, the energy charter treaty is an investment agreement between 50 countries for the energy sector. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty allows foreign companies to sue Governments outside the national legal system in somewhat secretive tribunals. The amounts at stake can be in the billions, and the ECT has already generated at least 135 claims, making it the world’s most litigated ISDS agreement. In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, UN climate scientists warned of the risk that ISDS agreements are

“able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”.

The report even name-checked the energy charter treaty, yet the UK continues to be party to it.

The treat is not just a potential risk. There have already been several high-profile cases of fossil fuel companies suing Governments through the treaty. For example, German energy giant RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4 billion over its coal phase-out. The UK oil company Rockhopper won a case this summer against Italy over a ban on offshore oil drilling. It won more than £210 million—more than six times what it had spent on the project. UK fracking firm Ascent Resources launched legal action against Slovenia over requirements for an environmental impact assessment, which is quite a benign ask of any project. It has also launched legal action over Slovenia’s subsequent ban on fracking, introduced by its Parliament, and that case is still pending.

The energy charter treaty poses a huge threat to climate action. As states take the necessary steps to phase out or phase down fossil fuels, more and more fossil fuel giants will turn to such mechanisms to sue Governments. It has been estimated that if the UK Government follow the International Energy Agency’s recommended pathway and cancel oil and gas projects that are in the pipeline, they could face claims of up to £9.4 billion from the ECT alone.

Globally, there is a risk of up to $111.5 billion in claims, but that is clearly not the only risk. The most recent IPCC report warns that there is a risk of regulatory chill from investment agreements, and again it particularly highlights the ECT. The fear of being sued is causing Governments to delay or decide against taking the necessary action on climate. Last year, two countries acknowledged that that is already happening.

Countries across Europe are seeing the risks for what they are and are already taking action. Towards the end of 2022, there was a cascade of announcements from countries planning to exit the ECT. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Denmark all said that they are leaving, and Italy has already left. The European Parliament has voted for a co-ordinated withdrawal of all EU countries, and the European Commission is now recommending that as well, because reform of the treaty has not worked and will not work. Current proposals for modernising the treaty are weak and do not have the support of many countries. They will mean that existing fossil fuel projects will remain protected for at least 10 years, and that some gas projects will be protected until 2040. Projects that have just been given new or extended licences, such as the Cambo oilfield, will be protected and all existing projects can still continue.

Reform has ultimately been a failure, and exiting the treaty is now the only option. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia have all referred to the incompatibility of the ECT with the Paris climate agreement and climate goals, and the EU Council recently decided that it will not support reform. If countries exiting the ECT do so in co-ordination, as seems to be happening, they could agree between each other not to apply the 20-year sunset clause, as has been suggested by several countries that are leaving.

In June, the Energy Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said:

“The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.”

That was stated in a press release on 24 June 2022. Back then, the Government wanted to put their trust in the reform proposals to fix the problem, but we have since seen country after country doing its own assessment and concluding that reform is not possible or has failed.

If the UK does not step up and become part of the vanguard for exiting the ECT, it could be left behind in an obsolete and collapsing treaty, bearing all the risks while others move on. Put simply, while we are still members of the ECT we will not be able to achieve the aims of the Bill and meet our net zero obligations without facing huge costs from the agreement. A co-ordinated withdrawal is the most effective way to protect taxpayers’ money, the planet and our future from this damaging treaty, and I urge the Minister to have a rethink.

I will not push this probing new clause to a vote, but I hope that it will allow the Minister the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this very important issue. It is right that it is considered in this debate, but I accept that I probably will not get the support of Government Members in a vote.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma, on the last morning that we gather together in this room to debate the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for tabling her important new clause, which relates to an issue that I addressed in a Westminster Hall debate not that long ago.

The UK is committed to addressing the urgent need for climate action at home and abroad through our ambitious net zero targets and international commitments. The new clause would initiate procedures for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the energy charter treaty. His Majesty’s Government completely recognise that the treaty needs to be updated to reflect the current energy landscape, which is why we worked hard for two years at negotiating to modernise it; hence, the comments to which the hon. Lady referred—by the former Energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands)—were absolutely correct.

We wanted to bring the treaty into line with modern energy priorities, international treaty practice and international commitments on climate change. Unfortunately, the European Union and its member states were unable to endorse the adoption of modernisation at the energy charter conference. Yes, the European Parliament has voted to update the treaty, and the European Commission is advising that member states or the organisation withdraw, but the EU Council was unable to reach an agreement on modernisation, which is why we are where we are today.

Since the energy charter conference, we have engaged with stakeholders across business, civil society and Parliament, and we are carefully monitoring the positions of the other contracting parties—including the countries to which the hon. Lady referred—and the EU, in relation to the adoption of modernisation. In a context that continues to develop near weekly, we are carefully assessing how to take forward our priorities in relation to the treaty, but we cannot accept the new clause, which would require the UK to initiate procedures to withdraw. As I said, we will carefully consider where we stand.

The new clause would also require the Government to lay before Parliament a report detailing UK investment treaties covering the energy sector and the risks that they pose to the Secretary of State fulfilling their duties under the Climate Change Act. The UK has investment agreements with around 90 trading partners, and the agreements are the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade. The Government’s right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards, is recognised in international law, and the Government are clear that when negotiating trade and investment agreements we will continue to protect our right to regulate.

I hope that that provides the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam with the reassurance she needs, and I humbly ask that she consider withdrawing her new clause.

[Olivia Blake]

I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that I am not satisfied with it, but I will not press the new clause to a vote. There are many risks in this area. Other countries have already taken the lead, and we are being left behind, which exposes us to a higher level of risk. I hope that the Minister will not only continue to consider the modernisation of the ECT but consider withdrawing from it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 87

Government support for community energy

“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the financial, policy and other support that the Secretary of State plans to make available to widen the ownership of low carbon and renewable energy schemes and increase the number of such schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.

(2) The report must set out—

(a) all policies, programmes or other initiatives with which the Secretary of State plans to support the development and construction of new low carbon community energy schemes;

(b) the level of financial support which will be made available for—

(i) the Rural Community Energy Fund,

(ii) the Urban Renewable Energy Fund, and

(iii) any other fund or support package designed to support the development of new low carbon community energy schemes;

(c) all policies, programmes or other initiatives the Secretary of State intends will increase community ownership of local low carbon energy schemes through shared ownership schemes;

(d) the steps the Secretary of State is taking to develop new market rules to make it easier for low carbon community energy schemes to sell the energy they generate;

(e) the number and the capacity of the new community energy schemes the Secretary of State expects to be constructed as a result of the measures set out in the report.

(3) Not less than twelve months after the publication of the report, and not later than the end of each subsequent period of twelve months, ending five years after the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish an assessment of the progress made by the policies, programmes and other initiatives set out in the report.

(4) The assessment must set out—

(a) the total amount of financial support provided by the policies in the report;

(b) the number and capacity of low carbon community energy schemes —

(i) completed, and

(ii) in development;

(c) the number and capacity of new shared ownership schemes;

(d) any changes the Secretary of State proposes to make to the policies, programmes and other initiatives included in the original report.”—(Olivia Blake.)

This new clause is intended to replace clauses 272 and 273, if those clauses are removed as indicated by Government Amendments 15 and 16. It would require the Government to report annually for 5 years on the support it is providing to Community Energy schemes and the number and capacity of such schemes that are delivered.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Olivia Blake]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I redeclare my interest: my husband is a company secretary of an organisation called Sheffield Renewables, which is a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield.

It might seem strange that I tabled new clause 87, given that the Lords passed Labour’s much stronger new clause on community energy. I am extremely disappointed that the Government voted to strike out any attempt to use the Bill to further support community energy schemes. Although the Minister made some comments about wanting to support community energy, the Bill is somewhat lacking in that regard. New clause 87 gives the Government an opportunity to support some elements of community energy schemes.

A Bill that talks about energy security but fails to help many community groups across the UK that are raring to provide clean, green energy seems to have failed from the outset. Many community groups are being offered funding, but they are unable to take up the opportunities because they are unsure and there is uncertainty in this space. I spoke last week about the huge and growing public support for community energy projects and the failure of Government policy to respond to it. I hope that my new clause, which I admit does not go nearly far enough, will focus minds on this important issue.

The new clause is quite straightforward: it gives the Minister three months to report on what support will be provided for community energy for the next five years. I chose that timescale because Ministers often assure us that the Government’s review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA, will improve community energy’s access to markets and thus improve its viability. I am therefore asking for reports on the stop-gap measures that are needed before those arrangements come in and for an extension to the period to deal with any delays.

I have to be honest: I am almost embarrassed by the new clause. With sky-high energy bills and the climate crisis, we should be acting, not reporting, but perhaps reports will stimulate a bit of growth in action on the Minister’s part. The new clause also does not propose new policies to support community energy. I stress that that is not because such policies are not needed. Were we to have a Labour Government, there would be something much more robust in the Bill on this policy area, like clauses 272 and 273, which the Opposition defended last week but the Government were successful in stripping from the Bill.

The new clause asks the Minister to report on how he will refinance and restart the urban and rural community energy funds, which closed when the initial money allocated was used up. In its former shape, his Department supported those schemes at the time, so there is no reason why, if the Minister wants to see more community energy, he could not relaunch them now, or look into doing so. The new clause leaves scope for other initiatives to be included in the report, whether new funds, new policies or a new approach to allowing community groups to buy into and benefit from larger commercial schemes in their area. It would require assessments of progress and updates to be done annually for five years after the report is published, to check that we are on track.

As I say, we should be doing so much more with the Bill in this space, but I would love to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause and to the idea that the Government should, at the very least, restart the support schemes that they have let lapse and report on progress until REMA is completed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

Far be it from me to spoil the enjoyment for hon. Members! I said this when we debated it last week, and I say it again: we continue to work on this. We continue to look at what more the Government can do to support community energy projects across the United Kingdom, and I will commit to provide an update on the next steps ahead of Report. I hope that is suitable for hon. Members. I do not believe that this new clause would add any value, so I encourage—indeed, I humbly beg—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam to withdraw her new clause.

[Olivia Blake]

Beg the Minister might, but I will be pushing this new clause to a vote. The comments made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, show why we are not completely confident that information from the Minister will be forthcoming, but I welcome his comments and his statement that he is currently looking at this and that there will be something ahead of Report. However, I truly feel that this new clause is the bare minimum requirement in this space, so we will push it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosebank Oilfield: Environmental Impacts

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The majority of public opinion is on our side, and everyone from the Women’s Institute to the scientists is saying the same thing.

I want to talk about climate leadership. Approving Rosebank would destroy any last shred of the UK’s climate leadership. The UK’s record was built on the Climate Change Act 2008 and on being the first major economy to enshrine net zero in law, but as the Climate Change Committee’s report makes clear today, it has been decimated by the Government’s approval of the UK’s first coalmine in 30 years, and by the fact that they have issued more than 100 new exploration licences and are now failing to rule out this enormous oilfield. In the words of the CCC, the UK

“has lost its clear global leadership on climate action”.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable and important debate. I will speak freely and say that it is quite absurd that we are debating this issue today—the day after the four-year anniversary of the net zero target becoming law in the UK, and the morning that the CCC has released its scathing progress report to Parliament. The CCC says that its confidence in the UK reaching net zero is “markedly less” than it was a year ago, and that approving new fossil fuel infrastructure is sending mixed messages about the UK’s climate plans. Does the hon. Member agree that this is a depressing conclusion from the CCC that shows a deficit in climate leadership where there should be none?

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree. In one sense, it is quite exquisite timing to have this debate and this discussion about Rosebank on the very morning of the CCC report, which is not only depressing but frankly damning when it comes to the Government’s lack of action. On leadership, I will quote Lord Deben, the chairman of the Climate Change Committee, who has noted that the Government’s commitment to the ongoing expansion of North sea oil and gas means that they have

“perfectly properly been called hypocrites”.

Let me briefly turn to some of the bogus arguments that Ministers traditionally advance to try to justify the unjustifiable. I have been told time and again in this place that new licences are essential for our economy and for energy security. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth, especially when it comes to Rosebank.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixteenth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and point him to the remarks that I just made regarding the huge investment that we are already making in the transition, the fact that we were the first G7 nation to sign a transition deal, and the £100 billion of private sector investment by 2030 that we hope to see, and that we are driving into British industries, supporting 480,000 green jobs by the end of the decade. We are looking to meet that target, unlike the Scottish Government’s green jobs target, which of course they have not met—alongside failing in four years out of five to meet their climate change targets, as was announced just last week. Since delivering a net zero workforce transition needs joint action by Government and industry, as I have said, we are continuing in that regard.

With respect to the scrutiny advised in the new clause, the Government already report progress on delivering our net zero ambitions through multiple channels—through parliamentary Select Committees, the Public Accounts Committee, independent bodies such as the National Audit Office, and—under the Climate Change Act 2008—the Climate Change Committee. I should point out that the hon. Member’s colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), has recently taken up the chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and will, I am sure, ably hold my Department to account. I hope that that provides the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun with the reassurances that he needs to withdraw the motion.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I have asked a few written questions in this space and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that the just transition should have already started for many workers. A survey two years ago found that workers were looking to move from the fossil fuel industry to renewables but that they were being put off by training fees. I have asked repeatedly about that.

I asked the Department whether it knew what the average cost of retraining would be for oil and gas workers but was told that it does not know or does not hold that data. However, I have heard at first hand from oil and gas workers who want to move into renewables that they face training costs of many thousands of pounds and that the quality of such training is questionable in some places. Government inaction risks leaving those workers behind when they want to be part of the transition and already have transferrable skills in those industries. I also recently asked a question about the Department’s discussions with the offshore wind industry on recognising an energy skills passport to help oil and gas workers, but was told in response that no such discussions have taken place.

I thank the Minister for his kind words about a transition. However, when will we see action for oil and gas workers? When will the inaction turn into action and delivery so we can get on with developing the green skills we need in this country to deliver net zero and compete in a global market?

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for the tone of her words. The Government believe that the best way to secure jobs for oil and gas workers is to continue to give them support and, indeed, to support investment into the North sea, which not only provides secure employment for them now and into the future but provides for our energy security needs, which is something the Labour party might take note of moving forward.

As a representative of a constituency in the north-east of Scotland, I am fully aware of the pressures that workers in the North sea oil and gas industry face and the desires of many of them to transition to new green jobs. We see that in the city of Aberdeen, which is transitioning from being the oil and gas capital of Europe to the energy capital of Europe. That is why we have set up our green jobs delivery group and why we are identifying recommendations and actions for central and local government, industry and business, and the devolved Administrations.

We are also exploring how we can support local areas to deliver a successful transition, and the Department for Work and Pensions is expanding sector-based work academy programmes to help those who are out of work develop the skills they need to re-enter the job market. The programme runs in England and Scotland and is developed by jobcentres in partnership with employers and training providers. The Government take that incredibly seriously and I have a particular interest in the matter.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but we are clear that it is very important to support people who are reskilling and upskilling from traditional oil and gas jobs into new green jobs, while also investing in our oil and gas industry to ensure that investment continues to support the traditional jobs that will be needed for some time yet.

--- Later in debate ---

I am interested to hear from the Minister. I understand, of course, that our attempt just to excise sections 9A to 9I from the 1998 Act may cause similar issues as arose with new clause 43. If that is the case, I would be interested to hear what he has to say about it. However, this looks to be a rather simpler procedure than the one concerning the North Sea Transition Authority; we just excise what went into the Petroleum Act in 2015, and allow that Act to do its work of ensuring that we have a viable, profitable and economically useful North sea oil and gas sector in the very long term.

[Olivia Blake]

It has been an interesting discussion. “Maximum economic recovery” might sound like three benign words, but they could be a toxic combination. If we are not careful, they could be rephrased as “maximum economic crisis”. The climate catastrophe that will unfold if we do not cap global warming at 1.5°, and maintain that on average over 20 years, will be incredibly tough for any Government and for everyone internationally. Some reports suggest that if we wait 10 years, it will not take 1% of GDP to tackle the climate emergency; that will jump staggeringly. About 8% of GDP expenditure will have to go on resilience alone, and dealing with the consequences of the climate catastrophe. The cost of changing to a green energy system in that same decade would double as well. It is really important that we understand what that means.

I say “toxic combination”, but there is also the very real and significant risk of stranded assets. The financial sector, the insurance industry and pension funds are all very aware of the issue, and we see that in how they are changing the way that they invest in projects, and the divestment policies of many of the institutions in this space. Nature published an article in 2022 stating that 60% of oil and gas and 90% of known coal should remain in the ground if we are to get to 1.5°C, but the issue of stranded assets is a reality. We cannot have our cake and eat it; we cannot inhale our cake quicker and hope for the best. Every drop of oil and gas and every lump of coal that we burn contributes to the Anthropocene we are seeing. We have decisions that we can take, and we know that those decisions have an impact.

Stranded assets are really important in this debate. A report in 2022 suggested that the oil, gas and fossil fuel industry had £1.4 trillion of stranded assets. That means that there will be a cliff edge for jobs. There will be assets that people can no longer use or get value from. It will mean that we have barrels of oil, gas and coal that we cannot use, because—a very senior scientist makes this argument in the report—the world will have moved on. We hope that the world will move on as a result of the Bill; if we do not scale up net zero measures, UK households could be spending £500 a year on foreign gas, rather than saving £1,500-odd through a move to renewables and energy efficiency policies, and retrofitting.

This is an incredibly important point. We cannot just hope that things will get better, and squeezing every last drop out of the North sea is not compatible with our aim of 1.5°. We cannot set a date for getting to net zero, but then produce as much carbon and other greenhouse emissions as we like and hope for the best. There must be carbon budgeting, as we all know. We have had all this conversation about a just transition, yet we are giving massive tax breaks. For example, if Rosebank goes ahead, it will receive a tax break of £3.75 billion for something that may soon become a stranded asset.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I will be brief. Will she share the definition of a stranded asset? Some oil and gas extraction areas have enormous potential for carbon capture and storage; it will be a matter of pushing stuff down a pipe, rather than pulling stuff out of it. Has any of that been taken into account in her slightly apocalyptic analysis of what we can do in the North sea and other areas?

[Olivia Blake]

It is apocalyptic because going above 1.5°C will be catastrophic.

[Katherine Fletcher]

We are talking about a transition.

[Olivia Blake]

I absolutely agree that it needs to be a transition; that is exactly my point. In the scenario we are discussing,

“Fossil fuel resources that cannot be burned and fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, power plants) that is no longer used may end up as a liability before the end of its anticipated economic lifetime.”

The assets are not being valued at their value over their lifetime; it is that simple. Say we give a value to an asset for its lifetime—25, 50, 100 years or whatever. Its lifetime will fall short of that period, and there will be catastrophic consequences for the financial and economic world; things will go into freefall. This is about economic risk, not just what we have, where. It is that fundamental. That understanding is missing from a lot of this debate, but financial services, pension funds and the insurance industry are all saying that they are very aware of the issue.

[Katherine Fletcher]

The hon. Lady has just read quite a detailed definition of a stranded asset, which included fossil fuel reserves remaining under the ocean, if I heard her correctly.

[Olivia Blake]

We would have to leave them there, but figures for them would be baked into the economic analysis and the business planning for those sites. That is why there is a financial risk; financial plans will come into play that will be unrealistic and unmeetable. That is why the assets will become stranded assets; it had been planned that they would produce a profit over a period, but we will not get to that time because of the situation.

[Katherine Fletcher]

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is worrying about a figure of £1.5 billion in stranded assets, which includes fossil fuels that are left under the ground. That does not take into account the fact that the assets could be repurchased for an energy transition. Would she agree that there is perhaps more analysis to do?

[Olivia Blake]

To be clear, it is not £1.3 billion; it is £1.4 trillion, and that is why this is significant. I am not the only one worried about this—so are financial institutions around the globe. This massive financial risk could spin us into financial crisis if we are not careful. This is not just a climate catastrophe; it is an economic situation that we need to monitor, and we need to ensure that we do not have a cliff edge that lands us in a spiral that we cannot get out of. That is why a transition is so important, and why we need development of industry in the North sea, but cannot rely on our valuations of assets at the moment.

We need to take into consideration changes in the use of oil and gas, so that we can reach 1.5°C. We cannot deal with those two issues in isolation. As much as that would please everyone at the moment and allow them to make a quick buck, it is economically illiterate to think that we can continue as we are. That is a big problem. There are huge opportunities for Government, and I welcome a lot of the things in the Bill that will help to unlock them.

At household level, the move to renewables would significantly benefit people. Renewables are three times cheaper than oil and gas-related heating and electricity. A record number of households are suffering from energy insecurity. It is important that we look at the issue in the round. We cannot just say, “We need this” or “We need that,” and expect it to add up. If the financial sector gets scared, and much suggests that it is, it will look to invest in other places. If insurance companies say, “We are not going to insure these facilities because there is such an economic risk to us,” we are in trouble. If pension funds flee from the sector, we are in trouble. Our financial sector is incredibly important in this area, and those in it are saying loud and clear, “Governments are behind us, and we need them to catch up.” This tiny phrase, “Maximum economic recovery”, and what it asks for, could lead to the cliff edge that we have all been saying that we do not want. That is why this is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, and for Sheffield, Hallam, for their impassioned contributions to the debate. There has been talk of apocalypse and catastrophe, and there has been some idea that the country is not taking the issue seriously. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam suggested that we were just setting a date and hoping for the best. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have decarbonised faster than any other G7 nation. Off the coast of this country are the first, second, third and fourth-largest offshore wind farms in the world. We created an entire Department to focus on the challenges of net zero, and we are passing this Bill, which will enable us to unlock so much of what we need to do to move this country forward even more quickly.

There was talk of economic illiteracy, but it is economic illiteracy not to support our outstanding British offshore oil and gas industry as it continues to produce the oil and gas that is required to keep the lights on in this country as we transition to a net zero future. It is the safest, most responsible offshore oil and gas sector in the world. Indeed, by 2035 we will have the first net zero offshore oil and gas sector, and the North sea will be the first basin in the world to be a net zero basin. I urge colleagues to stop talking down this Great British success story and start talking it up, as it contributes so much to our energy security and net zero ambitions.

[Olivia Blake]

I think the Minister completely missed the point of what I was saying. I am in no way doing down the industry. I am saying that there are financial risks linked to our climate risks, and they must be brought into this debate. That is fundamental, and future Governments will not thank us if we do not discuss and address that now.

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more that there are financial risks. That is probably why, just this morning, so many businesses expressed their worry at Labour’s Just Stop Oil plans, which were outlined a couple of weeks ago and which the former Labour leader of Aberdeen City Council described as even worse for an industry than the actions of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. That is from a member of the Labour party who resigned due to Labour’s policies on oil and gas.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Eleventh sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. You must be delighted to have the Thursday afternoon shift this week. I agree with the Government amendments on the expansion of definitions and capturing other infrastructure required to facilitate service offshore wind generation, especially given the scale of the build-out still required and the renewable energy offshore wind targets that we want to see.

I agree with the principles of strategic compensation for adverse environmental effects in clause 246. Such considerations have been a stumbling block for Berwick Bank offshore wind farm, for example, so having regulations that provide clarity on environmental considerations and possible compensation for other projects is certainly welcome. The key test will be whether sufficient clarity is provided and workable. If we want to deploy renewable energy at a much quicker rate to achieve cheaper bills and eliminate reliance on fossil fuels, we need to be able to look at the environmental impacts in the round and come to sensible, balanced solutions. That means creating environmental equivalence or improvements elsewhere by implementing solutions away from sites if it is deemed that they cannot mitigate the environmental impacts of the site of infrastructure construction.

I have one word of caution; I may not be quite as concerned as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but we need to ensure that these regulations and processes do not become an avenue or vehicle for developers to choose a much easier, cheaper financial solution for them, rather than looking at all avenues to mitigate the environmental impacts at the construction sites. It is critical that robust analysis is undertaken by the relevant regulatory bodies. I realise that subsection (4) is not intended to ensure that everything is looked at and worked through to the nth degree, but we need to ensure that that analysis is not overlooked in the dash for renewable energy and that no shortcuts are taken that allow developers to choose an easy financial solution.

I turn to clause 247. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Scottish Government have concerns that the clause gives the Secretary of State the powers to operate a marine recovery fund in Scottish waters without the consent of Scottish Ministers. Indeed, the Secretary of State will have the powers to completely bypass the Scottish Government and appoint another person or authority, and that is replicated for other devolved Administrations. I understand that the Minister has had ongoing discussions with Gillian Martin MSP—the Energy Minister at the Scottish Government—and other officials on these matters, but as far as I know nothing has been agreed yet. That is why I tabled amendments 176 to 180 to outline my thoughts and put down a marker. Clearly, my amendments were not selected for debate and cannot be voted on, given when they were submitted, but they put down a marker. There is still a window in which the Minister can come to some sort of agreement with the Scottish Government on amendments. It would be good if he could provide the Committee an update on how close we are to a solution. Some form of amendment is still required to subsection (8) in that regard.

There may be issues with clause 247(4), which gives the Secretary of State broad regulation-making powers that could be used in a highly prescriptive manner to direct Scottish Ministers as to how they determine that a compensation condition has been discharged. Again, it should not have been too controversial to agree a way forward. That should be done with the consent of Scottish Ministers before implementation.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the collegiate working with the Scottish Government and officials. Nobody is trying to being awkward or territorial for the sake of it, nor are they trying to introduce arbitrary red lines. That is why we are giving the Government a bit more time, rather than pushing votes and extending the debate on this; we are trying to find a collegiate way forward. Again, I hope the Minister can give some insight about a solution with regards to subsection (4).

Finally, in relation to devolution, clause 247(9) allows the Secretary of State to cancel functions that Scottish Ministers have consented to under that clause, which seems anomalous. Again, I am looking for some sort of compromise to protect devolved functions in that regard.

Clause 248 does not provide sufficient certainty that Scottish Ministers will retain consenting functions in the Scottish offshore region or waters beyond 12 nautical miles. I understand that the Scottish and UK Governments have discussed this, but what is the timescale for a possible agreement? I believe that the Scottish Government have suggested draft amendments, so what is the UK Government’s view on them?

Subsections (7) and (8) of clause 248 are too broad. They could alter executively devolved powers and fundamentally shift existing arrangements for the consenting and licensing of offshore wind projects in the Scottish offshore region. Does the Minister appreciate those concerns, and does he have a plan to resolve the situation?

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Gray.

I declare an interest, given that we are now talking about renewables: my husband is a company secretary of an organisation called Sheffield Renewables, which is a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. Although I hope that Sheffield will not become the coastline—if we do everything right so that vast swathes of east Yorkshire, including Selby, are not under water—I thought that it would be prudent for me to declare that interest at this stage.

As a former shadow Minister for nature, this part of the Bill strikes a chord with me. There are things to welcome in the clauses, but I share some of the concerns that have been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. In fact, I agree with the words of an Environment Audit Committee report in relation to the development of offshore wind: we should

“be extremely sensitive to biodiversity considerations given the obvious risks of disrupting important habitats”.

That is important because the Bill represents an attempt to tackle not only the carbon crisis, but the nature crisis. What is bad for one is bad for the other, so it is important that we bear biodiversity in mind with every step we take through the Bill, not least because nature is a massive carbon sink. The UK already faces massive nature depletion—we have has some of the worst nature depletion in Europe—so it is right that we debate how the Bill takes such considerations into account.

I fear that clause 248 provides wide powers to ignore habitat regulations, marine Acts and general duties around assessment, which is problematic. There is also something of a misalignment between some of the wording in the Bill and that in the Environment Act 2021. When that Act seeks to alter habitat regulations, there are a lot of caveats, and it might be worth the Minister considering whether it would be right to have those caveats in the Bill, given that both measures represent Government policy and strategy.

I hope that the Bill does not conflict with 13 by 2030, which we have had a conversation about, and the protection of marine areas. I also hope that we will discuss protections. I particularly support our amendments 166 and 167, because it is important to have that switch-off or death switch, I suppose—I am trying to think of a way of phrasing it. We need to keep those protections in place where we can. If we allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that the impact on the environment off-sea will not affect us, we are really missing the point. It would have been nice if there had been a reference to blue carbon in the Bill. Obviously, that has not materialised—I understand why, because the Bill is predominantly to do with energy—but we are missing measures in that space as well.

It is incredibly important that the Minister considers amendment 165, particularly as it outlines some of my concerns about the Bill’s alignment with the Environment Act. It is quite clear that the Bill could do more to ensure that environmental protections exist and that we are not cutting our nose off to spite our face with some of our activity.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Tenth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

We have reached an important part of the Bill, concerning core fuel sector resilience. As the Minister stated, we need to ensure that our core fuel supplies are not cut or interrupted by external circumstances, that we have resilience in our supplies, and that we can be assured at all times that petroleum and so on is getting to and from refineries, and to where it is supposed to go. The Minister has reflected already on past disruption to fuel supplies, which hon. Members will recall. It is understandable that we wish to be assured that supplies are secure.

The Minister also stated that we have powers already to ensure that, where disruption takes place, action can be taken to secure resilience. However, these measures on the principle of core fuel resilience go further than that. As the Minister says, this is about trying to anticipate potential disruption and problems as far as core fuel sector resilience is concerned, and then providing the Government with powers to respond proactively, rather than reactively, to the anticipated issues.

I suggest that one needs to be very careful in how one drafts something for that purpose. I assume that what we do not want, although perhaps the Government do, is to get into the situation in the film “Minority Report”, quite a while ago, in which the lead actor, who happens to be Tom Cruise—not that I regularly watch Tom Cruise films—

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

Why not?

[Dr Whitehead]

Oh, all right. We can have a debate about whether Tom Cruise makes good films or not, but I think the general consensus would be no. The point about that film is that he was, as I recall, a detective who had to go round anticipating crimes before they were committed. Indeed, he did not just anticipate crimes—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East is looking this up on her iPad—

--- Later in debate ---

I personally think the amendment would be a good addition to the Bill. It has been put forward in a spirit not of animosity but of trying to ensure that we make the best sense that we can of a series of wide-ranging powers. As I said, Tom Cruise or no Tom Cruise, we should not stray completely into the area of trying to anticipate crimes and misdemeanours before they are undertaken, but take proper, proportionate action to ensure that the sector is able to work properly under possible disruption and that everyone works together to ensure that that resilience is as good as it can be.

[Olivia Blake]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I should say that I am a member of the GMB union.

I rise to support the amendment, which is very reasonable and is an attempt to help the Minister. I am sure he will stand up and say that the Secretary of State would never knowingly try to give directions in contradiction to the measure that we have tabled, but the point of the amendment is to get that on the statute book and make it clear to the industry, and those who are employed in it, that that safety net would be there, because “anything” is a very broad word, as outlined by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test.

There have been great relationships within the industry for many years, and as it is such a critical industry when it comes to health and safety, the working rights of those employed in it are critical to maintaining that safety. I hope the Minister will look on the amendment kindly and understand the reasons for it.

[Andrew Bowie]

The powers in the clause are important to ensure resilience and address disruption in the core fuel sector. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his amendment and reassure him, and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, that the powers are not intended to interfere with any rights to industrial action or any other employee rights. The Government have maintained a good working relationship with the industry over the years and aim to be aware of proposed industrial actions and to work collaboratively, as we have in the past, to understand the impact and potential mitigations for the risks that might arise.

Clause 224 enables directions to be issued for particular purposes only: to improve and maintain resilience, to restore continuity of supply or to reduce the risk or impact of a disruption. In a situation in which a proposed industrial action is assessed to cause a significant risk of disruption, the direction power could be used to ask core fuel sector participants to make contingency plans to mitigate the risk. It is not intended to cut across the rights in the legislation that the hon. Members have highlighted.

I emphasise that the Government will always seek a voluntary solution in the first instance before issuing a direction and, of course, we believe that industry participants will have a chance to make representations before a direction is made and to appeal a direction when issued. I therefore ask that the hon. Member withdraw his amendment.