Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

As always, you are right, Ms Nokes, so I will temper my remarks. I hope that common sense will prevail and that a thumping majority will ensure that the clause is retained so that the Bill can progress to its next stage intact. The clause is important to Government policy, so it should not be taken out and disabled in the way suggested.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I rise to speak in defence of clause 204, and I agree with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, that the Government have suggested an interesting tactic.

Our housing stock has been described as the least energy-efficient in Europe. That means we are the least prepared to absorb future price hikes, like those experienced in recent years, and to address future temperature changes. In England alone, more than 13 million homes—59% of them—are below a C rating on the energy performance certificate standard. As a result, housing is one of the main sources of carbon emissions in the UK, accounting for around 20% of total emissions.

We should be making massive efforts and strides to improve in this policy area, yet energy efficiency programmes have been cut and home insulation rates have plummeted over the past decade. In 2013, the coalition cut energy efficiency programmes, after which insulation rates fell by 92%. The number of energy efficiency insulations peaked at 2.3 million in 2012, yet fewer than 100,000 upgrades were installed in 2021. That is rather pathetic, it has to be said.

The Bill and clause 204 in particular provide a golden opportunity to put in place the financial structures and programme to give the necessary upgrades to the 19 million homes in our country that are below band C on the EPC scale. Clearly, that is what a Labour Government would do.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady heard of our ECO4 scheme?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes.

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

Has the hon. Lady heard of the issues with the ECO4 scheme? The energy companies have not met the target number of properties because it needs to be rewritten.

[Olivia Blake]

Those are the exact problems. In recent years a number of Government schemes have either failed because they have not had the workforce to deliver them, or experienced challenges because people have been drawn into other roles, particularly in the building sector and in relation to cladding issues and so on. That is exactly why the Opposition would be very pleased if the clause were protected. We need that action plan. Delivery is only worth something when it happens. We cannot just have targets that we repeatedly continue to miss. It would be exceedingly challenging to argue to the public that we should not prioritise getting their bills down by £1,000 a year or come up with an action plan to deliver that.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Yes, the British public would experience significant benefits through bill reductions as a result of insulating their homes, but who is the hon. Lady suggesting should pay for the intervention that would produce that benefit? It would be a significant scheme, especially given that 30% of the housing stock is really old. Who would foot that bill?

[Olivia Blake]

Moving away from this Bill, Labour has a fully costed plan for achieving that and it is targeted at the 19 million homes.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Government are reticent about placing this clause on the statute book, surely the fact that they are Government targets means the money will be found anyway?

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely, and I will come to that point. This issue is so significant: it is important that we find the funding for these sorts of interventions because almost 9,000 neighbourhoods in England and Wales have very low incomes but higher than average energy costs because of poor insulation. That requires Government action, and I fully support Labour’s plans, which I believe would cost £12 billion a year—I might be wrong about that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is £6 billion.

[Olivia Blake]

Sorry, £6 billion—I have doubled my ambition. That is a large amount of money, but it would be very welcome in meeting the challenges we face.

I am not alone in my concerns about delivery in this space. In January, the Environmental Audit Committee rightly said that we need a national war mobilisation to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon. The public are crying out for action to address fuel poverty and household emissions: 80% of respondents to National Energy Action’s polling supported funding retrofits for those on low incomes and, according to the New Economics Foundation, 64% of Conservative voters and 65% of people in the north support a national retrofitting taskforce.

Without the clause, the Bill will be another missed opportunity to tackle the cost of living crisis, to bring forward the emergency energy efficiency measures we need, and to start a national 10-year mission for home insulation. Delivery is important, and without an action plan I am not clear how those millions of homes, and the millions of people living in them, will benefit from better energy efficiency. We need to get on top of our carbon emissions and we need to ensure that housing is not forgotten, given its vast contribution to emissions.

It would be a mistake for the Government to remove the clause. All it is asking for is a warmer homes and a business action plan to set out how His Majesty’s Government intend to deliver energy efficiency. It is important to keep that clear ask in the Bill. I will be deeply regretful if the Government do not support the clause, because it will be another missed opportunity.

[Andrew Western]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. At the risk of repetition, I too rise to defend clause 204. It is interesting that, in my first Bill Committee, we appear to be having something of a groundhog day moment. When we had a similar discussion about low-carbon heating last week, the Minister stood up and gave us various assurances that these things would be done, while resisting with all his might any attempts to compel the Government to do that in law.

It is incredibly challenging when the Minister says that superb progress is being made on these issues and that we have gone up to 40% over the past 13 years. In fact, on current projections we have something in the region of 200 years to go to upgrade the energy efficiency of the UK’s draughty housing stock. National Energy Action says that progress on energy efficiency is too slow, and the UK Business Council for Sustainable Development has calculated that the pace of the Government’s recently announced scheme would take almost 200 years to reach homes in need of upgrade. It is clear why the Opposition are so keen to see the targets in the Bill; clause 204 is therefore so important.

I warmly welcomed the addition of the clause in the other place because although the Minister talks about the energy White Paper, the net-zero strategy, the heat and building strategy that was published alongside it, and the future homes standard, none of those things actually compel the Government to act. That is the problem. The Government can miss their targets time and again because there is nothing that forces them to take the action needed. Warm words will not provide warm homes—it is that simple. This will not get us where we need to go unless it is on the statute book. We know that because we are already missing the targets.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government did not consider that. There were discussions at the time of the earlier smart meter roll-out about radio systems that could get over precisely those problems by patching in—that is, going on the back of a good radio signal and patch in on the next radio signal, where the overwhelming radio signal is against signals operating properly. But that decision was not made at the time. It was a one-frequency signal for the south of England and phone arrangements for the north of England, with the results that we now see.

Halfway through the roll-out it was decided to change the specification of the meter itself. Because the process of changing the specification was so slow, a number of retail companies that had large stocks of the original meters continued to install the SMETS1 meters long after they should have stopped installing them—just because they had those stocks, which the new specification had not got round to replacing because of the delays in the so-called SMETS2 meters coming on to the market and being installed. Consequently, a number of meters are still not operating in smart mode, because they are either awaiting update or replacement so that they can go into the smarter system. Of the 31.3 million smart and advanced meters that are currently in homes, only 28.1 million are operating in smart mode. The roll-out is worse than it looks from the overall statistics.

What do we do about all that? The Government have put a clause in the Bill that simply says to retail companies, “Okay, we are going to give you more of the same. We are going to regulate you and give you targets”—which, by and large, the retail companies are not achieving—“and if you don’t achieve those targets we are going to fine you and whip you harder to ensure you achieve them.” Frankly, if we go on in the present direction we will get to 2028, and we do not need detailed maths to demonstrate that we will not be much further forward in the roll-out.

That is important because, in terms of the use of smart meters across the board to collect aggregate data for marking our system as a whole, we probably need about 70% penetration to get the figures right under the circumstances. We are way away from that, and we will be for a quite some time. We may well have a situation where our smart systems are racing ahead, but the means of communication on those smart systems are not, thus the smart system itself is compromised in the medium to long term.

Amendment 100 seeks to put some options in front of the Government. It states that

“the Secretary of State must produce and lay before Parliament a report setting out options for securing a guaranteed roll-out of smart meters to at least 70% of premises in all regions and nations of the United Kingdom by 2025.”

That is a reasonable target to try and aim for. Not that we would necessarily adopt this approach right now, but the amendment then states that the report must consider, among other options, different ways of rolling out smart meters for the future.

Members may push back substantially on obligatory smart meter installation. Do we transfer responsibility for the remaining smart meter roll-outs from the retail companies, perhaps to distribution network operators? That would put an end to the current system, in which literally four or five installers could go up the same street on the same day to try to install smart meters on different premises, depending on what retail company the person was with. There would instead be one body that would be installing smart meters in the various regions, and doing so in a much more systematic way. By the way, a lot of the to-ing and fro-ing that goes on when someone switches supplies to their smart meter, and how that can be transferred in an operable way, would be ended as well.

I am on record from about 2015, I think, saying that it was not a bright idea to have given the roll-out of the smart meter system to energy retailers, and that it should have been given to distribution network operators at that particular point. That is now a widespread view, and, looking back with the wisdom of Captain Hindsight, it is something that we should have considered. We can still consider it now because smart meters are not owned by the companies that install them. They pretty much all employ third parties, which actually own the meters in people’s homes, to run them. We could relatively easily —without transferring the ownership of the smart meters from those third parties—transfer the contracting agent from energy retail companies to district network operators.

The Minister is a little less advanced in years than I am, and may not remember the switchover in television lines from 405 to 625. That was basically accomplished by saying, “You can keep a 405 line television—you don’t have to have a 625 one—but it might not work in a few years’ time if you have kept your 405 TV.” The switchover was accomplished pretty much in good time, and universally. We are asking the Government for a report that considers all the different options for getting us out of the hole that we are in regarding the smart meter roll-out, to ensure that smart meters can fully play the role that we want them to play in our future low-carbon energy economy, and that we have the means to do that and can confidently come back with something better than the flog-a-sickly-horse routine in the amendment.

I hope the Minister will have a positive response to the amendment. I feel so fed up with yet again considering a Bill that just seeks more of the same that I am tempted to press it to a Division if he is unable to come substantially towards what we are saying regarding the future of smart meters. It is that important. I am trying to ensure that some Government Members go home so that we can win, but obviously it is up to the Minister how far he can come towards that view regarding the future of smart meters.

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

The amendment is eminently sensible. I speak with the experience in my constituency before Christmas of what is now referred to as the great gas flood of Stannington. Hundreds of millions of litres of water entered the gas system, causing 3,000 properties to have water ingress, in some cases it was so harsh that water was coming through gas appliances and hitting the ceiling with force, or wrecking the whole interior of people’s properties. I mention that because almost every property involved in the crisis had to have its meter replaced. To the exasperation of some of my constituents, their smart meters had to be replaced with refurbished meters. We had issues with the second-hand meters that were put in.

I am still carrying out conversations with the energy companies because there were differences in the units of some of the meters. Some measure cubic metres and some measure cubic feet, which means that some people are getting a very good deal at the moment on their energy, because their energy company does not know that they changed the unit, and some people are getting awfully ripped off. It is very complicated, but because Cadent, which did a fantastic job during the crisis to make people’s homes safe and to ensure that the faulty gas meters were immediately replaced—I have no problem with that—did not have any agency providing smart meters, there was a missed opportunity to upgrade or keep them.

We have actually seen a decline in the number of smart meters in my constituency because of that major incident. We know that such incidents will probably become increasingly likely and with climate change there are likely to be more problems with water ingress—although hopefully not at the scale we had in my constituency, which left constituents without hot water and gas for many weeks during a very cold snap when there was snow on the ground.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the problems being encountered in the hydrogen trials is the question of precisely what the Government think they are doing in relation to participation under these clauses, and the extent to which that is clouding the ability to conduct the trials reasonably in the first place. With at least one of the trials, there has been considerable push-back from the local population because of how they fear it will be conducted. The amendment would enable trials to proceed much more expeditiously, and potentially more successfully, because the people being asked to take part would have guaranteed routes forward if they did not wish to participate. I, for one, wish the trials success—I do not wish to see them undermined—but they need to be conducted on the basis of a clear understanding of how to address the local population’s concerns. That would ensure the trials are a success and shape our thinking about hydrogen and local heating policy for the future.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I rise to support the amendment, because this is a fundamental issue. The Minister talked about households only, but will the offer that he outlined be available to businesses? That is important, because businesses have different energy needs, even in residential areas.

It is important that we take people with us. They must have the option to say no to such trials and get low-carbon heating by another means. That is all I wanted to say on the amendment.

[Alan Brown]

There is another hydrogen trial ongoing—the H100 project in Fife, which is the world’s first trial of green hydrogen for heating and hot water. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I hope that that experiment is successful.

That trial in Fife highlights the issues that we are debating today. Will the Minister update the Committee on the number of properties signed up to H100? Investigative journalists have reported that the £1,000 sign-up offer was not enough of an inducement to make households sign up. That is the conundrum: it is fine to say that there will be a financial incentive or a consumer offer—the Minister says that we will never need to resort to using the powers in these clauses—but it is clear that some people are reluctant to sign up. If the financial inducement is not enough, how will the Government and the gas operators take those people with them and get this over the finishing line?

It is absolute critical that we take people with us. It is critical that consumers understand the offer they are getting, the risk and the way that the hydrogen trials are being undertaken. It is important that there is transparency in the reporting of the trials. In particular, we need to understand how risks and leakages will be reported. The worst thing that can happen is for rumours or wrong perceptions to circulate.

Amendment 118 is intended to give people an alternative to being part of a hydrogen trial. I support that principle, but that still leaves us with the dilemma of what happens if a household says, “I don’t want to be part of a hydrogen trial and, by the way, you can forget these heat pump things. I am quite happy with my methane gas, thank you very much.” What would happen in that circumstance?

That brings me to the Minister’s argument on Second Reading that the powers will not be used to either force people into the hydrogen trial or leave them disconnected from the gas network. What happens if not enough people are signing up? Frankly, the Government will then have a dilemma. If they want to facilitate these hydrogen trials, they need enough people on the hydrogen network, otherwise the trials will not be sufficient to get an understanding of, or see, the proper operation and benefits of hydrogen.

What will the Government do if not enough people are signing up? How will they facilitate people signing up without forcing them, and how will they get these powers to be successful in terms of mass criticality? There is the old phrase, “You can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” It might well be that the Government are going to upset some people, but they will have to be honest about it. Just saying, “There is no way we will use the powers in the Bill” might be unintentionally disingenuous. I am curious what the Minister’s thoughts are. It is fine to say that the Government will not use them, but that remains to be seen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

Thank you, Ms Nokes, and I apologise for not prosecuting my arguments procedurally in the correct way earlier. I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has said. I completely accept that he has tabled his new clause in the spirit of public safety, but I do think that this is an area that could be better understood by the public. I gently suggest to him that there might be a slight misapprehension in some of the material that he just quoted from.

What the hon. Gentleman was describing was neutrons degrading a physical structure, as a by-product of the plasma. There is an analogy here: it is almost like it getting shot at or water going through a concrete structure and then causing rust and degrading the steel within it. That is not necessarily the creation of a nuclear radioactive source; that is something being peppered with neutrons. And that is why it is not a commercially viable facility at the moment—because there are still things to be worked out, not least how we ensure that we do not build a very expensive thing that, by its own nature, then degrades over time and use. But that is not the same as creating a radioactive source.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned deuterium and tritium, which are different types of naturally occurring hydrogen elements. Tritium sounds, to my ear, almost like something that the Terminator would be using to do something particularly exciting. In fact, it is only a hydrogen that occurs in nature and that has a single proton and two neutrons within the nucleus, so it is a bit bigger and heavier than is typical. What that means is that it is a little more unstable. The natural half-life of tritium is 12 years, whereas the nuclear regulations that the hon. Gentleman seeks to apply or partially apply in this instance are designed to deal with things that have half-lives of thousands of years. Someone will tell me that I have this wrong, but with uranium-238 we are talking about very different orders of magnitude—

[Olivia Blake]

I am a biomedical scientist by background, so I come to this with a medical perspective. The issue with tritium is that it produces beta waves, which are a more damaging form of radiation to human tissues—only in a minor way, as it has a score of 1 compared with 20 for alpha waves, but there is an underlying risk. Exposure of the workforce to that level continuously could put DNA stability at risk, because it is an ionising form of radiation. If there is a problem—containment is always a big challenge that gets raised by scientists—hopefully we will overcome it, but it is right to have the protections, particularly for the workforce. That is why I welcome new clause 51.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course beta radiation is produced when a nucleus is separated, when the neutrons in tritium move away. For me, it is a question of proportionality and risk. At the moment, there is no viable commercial solution, so there is not a workforce but a research community, which is publicly and privately funded. On that becoming a workforce solution, I agree with her that ensuring that people are safe at work is vital but, should this come about, the Health and Safety Executive will not leave it unmonitored. However, new clause 51 is not about workplace safety; it is about putting something that is fundamentally not nuclear fission, as opposed to nuclear fusion, into a set of regulations designed to deal with such things.

I wondered about the criteria, given that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned radioactivity occurring in the fusion environment. What percentage of Cornwall, with its radon gas, might be caught up in the thresholds? I will be interested to pursue on Report what we are actually talking about. As a scientist, the hon. Lady knows that 100 is very different from 1, even though 1 poses some risk.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause, but given the opportunity for clean, net zero energy—which really could be the panacea for the world, as tree-huggers like me would say—in the UK we should look to tread lightly, but carefully, with any regulation of an industry that has such a level of potential and to which the UK has contributed so much already. He mentioned torus structures, but those are only one of a series of different potential generational tools—torus might be the research tool, not the commercial tool, so his concerns could disappear with a completely different production facility, perhaps based on electromagnetic rather than physical containment.

With regret, because I understand the genuine and heartfelt nature of the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, I think it is important that we do not stifle a nascent industry with regulation. I will therefore support the Government’s position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I have nothing to say on the clause, but I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does.

[Olivia Blake]

I have a few concerns about clause 117, which would, as the Minister outlined, allow fossil fuel waste to be reclassified as renewable energy in the form of fuels for policies including the proposed sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is currently being consulted on by the Department for Transport. It seems the Department would like to be able to include recycled carbon fuels, including unrecyclable plastic, as eligible fuels under the sustainable aviation fuel mandate. That is why the Bill will permit recycled carbon fuel to be treated as renewable, to help us to meet our sustainability targets.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I take your advice, Mr Gray. One tries to push one’s luck, but I take your comments on board.

To summarise the comments I was going to make, which can wait until subsequent stages, there are several alternatives within the energy market that can be used to achieve some of the things we are hoping to achieve with the blunt tool of yet another tax on energy. Hydrogen will play an important part in the energy progress that we make going forward. These things will need capital funding to help set them up, similar to many things that were done when the North sea was first exploited. Government subsidies and underwriting helped to get that under way.

These are important areas. We must not be blind to the fact that the public are losing faith in the climate agenda overall. There are many reasons why that may be happening. It may well be just algorithms on social media that draw certain people together, but we cannot be blind to the fact that there is a growing movement against net zero. There is a growing movement in this House to talk about having a referendum on whether we want to achieve net zero. Some colleagues are now pushing that forward.

We have to act carefully and diplomatically, and show people that there are huge advantages to be had from this technology and this energy going forward. The Government raise a lot of revenue off energy production, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and I have outlined. I therefore feel that Government amendment 12 would be a mistake. However, the Minister has indicated that work is taking place in the background, and I have had indications that amendments may be brought in on Report. If the amendment is pushed to a Division today, I shall not vote against it, but I shall abstain.

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell. I know that this is not really a declaration of interest, but my mother, Baroness Blake, was actually the person who moved the amendment in the other place. It is interesting that mother and daughter are both working on this Bill in different ways.

[The Chair]

A record?

[Olivia Blake]

Possibly a record. Who knows?

I rise to defend the amendments made in the Lords and to speak against Government amendment 12, predominantly because of the aims of the Bill that the Secretary of State outlined when it was brought forward. Those aims were about security, but also about tackling fuel poverty. The facts about fuel poverty in the UK at the moment are very telling. I will cite the End Fuel Poverty Coalition’s numbers: 1,000 people died in 2022 as a result of living in cold, damp homes, unable to heat them because of costs. We also know that 7 million people in the UK last winter were living in fuel poverty. Taken together, those are staggering numbers, and it is important that they are at the forefront of our minds when we discuss the levy.

It is telling that there seem to be unified voices against the policy. The figure of £118 that the shadow Minister mentioned came from Onward, which is a Conservative think-tank. The discussion is also about who has the broadest shoulders to help with the changes that desperately need to be made to our energy system. I completely agree with the shadow Minister that the Bill gives the public all the risk and potentially none of the benefits.

There are 37 independently published reports that set out that they do not believe that the UK will move fully to hydrogen for home heating. Obviously there are massive benefits for steel—Sheffield is the city of steel—that could be unlocked through hydrogen, and there are many benefits for industry, but it seems wrong for Government amendment 12 to remove the protections given in the other place to the levy to prevent that cost from falling so dramatically on households. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell set out, it is really important that we bring the public with us.

Government amendment 12 is almost a wrecking motion for net zero, because the opposition to this will be huge. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether the Government want to champion such a burden on households when it is not clear whether the benefit will ever fall on households. We do not yet know the questions about hydrogen, let alone the answers, or what the benefits to home heating will be, if that is the path we go down as a nation when there are many alternatives growing at speed, as we have discussed. I think the Government’s amendment is very challenging. I urge them to think again for the benefit of all those who struggle to pay their energy bills now and for those who may struggle in future if the levy comes in.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I want to add to what has been said on both sides of the Committee Room today about how unwise it is for the Government to go down this path. I do not agree with what the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said about how we should not conflate public feeling about net zero with public concern about energy bills; the green transition and the move towards renewables will bring in cheaper energy and enhance our energy security, so I do not accept his arguments. However, if I were to argue that point with him, you would quite rightly say that I was broadening the debate beyond the parameters of the Bill, Mr Gray, so I will save my remarks for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the Government’s approach to net zero.

At the heart of the issue is what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, said: consumers want to know how this will come to us. I share the concerns—my hon. Friend listed the other green levies in legislation, but the difference is that we can see a benefit from investment in such fields—but the hydrogen levy will mostly be to the benefit of energy-intensive, hard-to-decarbonise industries, and consumers will rightly feel that they are paying for something from which they will not receive the benefit.

We know that there is huge concern. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said that there is fear in people’s eyes about how they will meet their energy bills. There is—I have seen that concern. In my public communications about how energy bills were predicted to rise, I was very worried about making constituents even more scared. It was a balance: I wanted to warn people about what is to come, but given the stress that they were under, I felt that it was important not to be alarmist. It is a difficult position to hold. As has been said, it could put about £118 on bills. Documents from the Department state that after 2030, the impact on consumer bills will ramp up even further:

“Once introduced, we expect its impacts will ramp up as we look to deliver our 2030 hydrogen ambitions to improve energy security.”

This is a deeply regressive move.

I do feel a bit of sympathy for the Minister, because he has to defend to the hilt something on which, given the reaction on Second Reading, he will end up having to U-turn. He will get all the flak, and his boss will get all the credit for having listened to people and changed his mind.

Somebody mentioned the think-tank Onward, which has contributed a piece to “ConservativeHome”. Onward has also said:

“The Government is walking into a trap with the hydrogen levy. It would be a mistake that risks stalling the development of a British hydrogen economy. It would also be unfair to ask households that won’t benefit from hydrogen directly to pay for it. The Government should think again. And the Treasury should get off the fence and back the role hydrogen can play in the economy.”

Clearly this is not an anti-hydrogen move. It is about ensuring that the people who will benefit bear the majority of the cost.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Sorry. I thought you were waving your hand. If people could stand up and make it plain to me that they wish to speak, I will call them. If they wiggle an eyebrow, raise a hand or otherwise, I will not see them and therefore will not call them. I call Olivia Blake.

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

Thank you, Mr Gray. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Having spoken to researchers at the University of Sheffield, and understanding that carbon capture and storage is more complicated than just the big carbon capture and storage programmes, I think his amendment is crucial. Modular and small carbon capture is really important, but where the captured CO₂ then goes is really important too. Having a CO₂ hub provider in this space is important for the circular economy of products, which, although not within the Bill’s exact remit, is fundamental to reducing carbon in the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is right that we should not seek to regulate everything out of existence. As she says, provided that the basic position is in place many industrial and commercial processes do not actually do harm, and there are all sorts of ways of making sure of that; then we can leave them alone.

My only point is not about separately regulating something that has otherwise been completely unregulated, but that this is an overall process and we need to make sure that, overall, the processes all point in the same direction. That is, one way or another, that we produce less carbon dioxide, allow less carbon dioxide to escape into the atmosphere and do what we can to use sequestered carbon dioxide in the best way. Normally, that means transporting it, for which we need regulations to make sure that there are no leakages, for example.

At the moment, we are considering a number of different options when it comes to the transportation of carbon dioxide. As the hon. Member for South Ribble will know, that does not just consist of trying to put down pipelines to deliver the carbon dioxide to the port of exit before it is put into the storage site. Obviously, sites themselves need proper regulation so that they are safe for the purposes of storage.

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell questioned the process of storage. It is vital that the storage itself is suitable. We know, from what we have to rely on, that the storage is likely to be sound—that means, frankly, that once we have put the stuff underground it stays there and does not leak out subsequently. That is quite a science in its own right. A great deal of the time spent looking at storage sites is about being absolutely sure that the site is as we thought it was in order to avoid disaster once we have committed ourselves to storage on the site. Given the different kinds of storage site, considerable work is under way, all of which needs to be regulated properly.

We have to consider alternative forms of storage—saline aquifers, for example. It is not just a question of storing carbon dioxide in depleted oil or gas fields; a number of other geological formations appear to be suitable for the purpose. Whether those alternative formations can be used for storage onshore as well as offshore is a particular concern. People may raise the issue of carbon dioxide leaking out onshore—as well as offshore, potentially.

Throughout, there is a need to regulate how the process works. With respect to the hon. Member for South Ribble, I do not think that it is over-prescriptive to say that we need some regulation of the use of carbon dioxide—after all, in theory at least, using the carbon for the best purpose is an essential part of the process—hence the amendments that we have tabled, which I hope are constructive.

[Olivia Blake]

There are two points to this, are there not? There is a set amount of carbon at the moment, which is increasing annually. Usage allows us to reduce that—instead of new forms of carbon going into the atmosphere, we would reuse what we have. That is why the amendment is key. I hope that the Government take it away to look at again. It is also basic chemistry that if we are putting CO₂ into a chemical reaction, we will not get CO₂ coming out the other end until the product degrades, so it is a falsehood that it will all immediately leak—

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions must be brief.

[Olivia Blake]

Sorry, Mr Gray. There are two points there that I think the Minister has not considered fully.

[The Chair]

Dr Whitehead, perhaps you will be brief. We have already given this group quite a long debate.

Powering Up Britain

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is a member of a small, elite group of colleagues who are relentlessly focused on ensuring that the energy transition is done in the right way, leading to jobs and prosperity for her constituents and others. I can confirm that. Having announced the launch of FLOWMIS today, we look forward rapidly to supporting the port infrastructure that is critical to the delivery of floating offshore wind, and the maintenance of the UK as the world leader on this vital technology. Estimates show that only about 8% of potential offshore wind capacity globally is on a fixed bed. For those who have a shallow continental shelf like us, 92% is floating. There is enormous opportunity for the UK if we unlock the infrastructure and the jobs, because then we can export that capability all around the world.

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

The Minister spoke of making policy on the hoof, so I wonder why the Government’s policy seems to be chasing a unicorn. What happens if the unicorn of carbon capture and storage turns out to be a donkey with an ice cream on its head? Would it not be better to unlock the stables of the reliable horses of home insulation, solar and onshore wind?

[Graham Stuart]

So can I take it that the hon. Lady’s party is opposed? It failed to support the regulated asset base regulations in Committee to allow new nuclear to go ahead, despite its protestations to the contrary. Now, she seems to be opposed to carbon capture and storage, which offers enormous opportunities for all sorts of industrial parts of the United Kingdom—another failure. On solar, I am delighted to announce the launch of a solar taskforce precisely to accelerate the take-up.

I cannot believe the gall of the Opposition party, which left Government with just 11% of our electricity from renewables, when it is around half now. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) failed in government, and now he chunters from a sedentary position. We will drive forward the solar taskforce. Having transformed our solar base, which is greater than that of France—despite the larger area—and about equivalent to the radiated country of Spain, we will increase it fivefold by 2035. That is why we have the taskforce—because we deliver. We do not just talk or chunter from a sedentary position. We transform the UK’s energy system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

There is still a considerable chunk of this Parliament left to run. As I have explained several times—I will say it again for the hon. Lady, who may have missed the point—we have already got pretty close to half the homes in this country being rated A to C —up from just 14%. We are well on our way to getting this job done. I appreciate her encouragement, but we will finish this off ourselves.

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

2. What discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the potential scope of a co-ordinated withdrawal from the energy charter treaty.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

I have not held discussions with EU counterparts on the scope of co-ordinated withdrawal from the energy charter treaty and note that the EU itself does not have an agreed position as yet. We are closely monitoring the situation on the ECT.

[Olivia Blake]

The energy charter treaty allows fossil fuel companies to sue Governments for loss of profits caused by decarbonising. Does the Minister agree that any treaty that punishes attempts to tackle the climate crisis is fundamentally wrong? Does he also agree with France, Spain, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia, the European Parliament and the European Commission that modernising the ECT is impossible and that it is time to participate in a co-ordinated withdrawal from this deeply damaging treaty?