Energy Bill [HL]

Baroness Blake of Leeds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register as a director of Peers for the Planet.

I shall speak to only one amendment in this group, Amendment 33, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, to which I have added my name. It aims to ensure that decommissioning funds, as the noble Lord has explained, are available for decommissioning when the time comes. I support it not least because it complements Amendment 222A, which I tabled in Committee, on transparency of decommissioning, particularly with respect to future taxpayer liability for decommissioning relief deeds, which are agreements between the individual oil and gas companies and the Treasury. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both expressed concern about this public liability. I quote from the 2019 NAO report on decommissioning:

“With decommissioning activity increasing, the government is paying out more in tax reliefs for decommissioning at the same time as tax revenues have fallen due to a combination of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure.”


That represents a triple whammy for UK taxpayers since, as the report says, for the first time ever, in 2016-17,

“the government paid out more to oil and gas operators in tax reliefs than it received from them.”

The scenario under which that public subsidy of oil and gas production took place in 2016-17—that is, the triple whammy of lower production rates, a reduction in oil and gas prices and operators incurring high tax-deductible expenditure—is the future outlook for the gas and oil sector as the world moves ever more rapidly towards decarbonisation. The USA’s inflation reduction Acts and the imminent EU response via the green deal industrial plan will turbocharge that transition, and rapid transformative change is very visible on the horizon.

While oil and gas expansion currently looks secure, it is only artificially so, given the very generous tax reliefs, subsidies and other support that the Government continue to provide, not least via decommissioning relief deeds. With over 100 new licences for exploration and production on offer, the risk of stranded assets is compounded hugely. Why do the Government persist in giving preferential treatment to fossil fuel producers? That is a question that I have put to the Minister before on several occasions, and I hope that this time there might be an answer.

It used to be that a ceiling of sorts was kept on the overall cost to the taxpayer by the fact that a firm could not claim back more in decommissioning tax relief than it had previously paid in tax. That makes sense but, since 2017, the Government have explicitly said that when firms default the partner firms that pick up the bill can claim back more in tax relief than they have ever paid. That certainly needs some digesting.

It cannot be right to put on life support an industry that has had its day—life support that is publicly funded. The amendment asks the Government to take precautions with the public purse, uphold the “polluter pays” principle and ensure that operators of new fields and buyers of existing ones accept that they cannot escape their responsibility to our planet, the one and only planet that we have.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for the well-informed and detailed explanation of why the amendments in her name and that of my noble friend Lord Foulkes are so important and relevant. What we heard was the crossover between the considerations within these amendments and the discussions that we had on the previous group regarding the work that we believe needs to be done to strengthen the hand of Ofgem, particularly to justify and evidence decisions, as we heard, enabling strategic anticipatory investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 18 in respect of who should be paying a hydrogen levy. I do not consider that hydrogen is going to play a large role in our broader economy. I think it will have specialised uses: it will be used where it is already used, in the production of fertilisers and in certain chemical processes, and it may well be used as a back-up fuel in extremis when we have no other forms of storage. I say that because it is going to be a relatively expensive commodity, it is not going to be easy to handle and it is not necessarily going to be very safe. For those reasons, I think we are overexcited about hydrogen in general, and the Bill is overexcited about hydrogen—and probably, as a result, about carbon capture and storage, which will also be quite expensive.

The reason I lent my name to this amendment is that it seems particularly egregious to expect electricity billpayers to be picking up the price of this expensive commodity, which is not very safe and quite unlikely to be very useful. Therefore, I think it is really important that the Government listen, and listen to everyone outside this Chamber who is saying that we should not be loading any more costs on to electricity consumers but should be doing the opposite. I am looking forward to the Government taking on this issue to redress the balance of how we are tackling climate change and who is paying. At the moment, the electricity consumer is paying nearly everything and the gas consumer almost nothing.

It is time that we started to recognise the value of electricity. It is hugely efficient, and it can be indigenously produced from our nuclear and homegrown renewables and offshore wind. It is that which we should be supporting, not necessarily this rather expensive alternative. Gas, oil and coal companies will continue to promote it, but it is not for the electricity billpayer to pick up the tab. So I fully support Amendment 18.

I would love to hear a little more from the Minister on new subsection (3) inserted by Amendment 20 in relation to the regulations. It is my understanding that that will enable payments to be made back to consumers, but could those regulations also decide not to impose any hydrogen levies on electricity consumers? I would like to understand the extent to which those regulations could solve this problem.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I make reference to the Minister’s amendments, particularly the issue he highlighted of including the new subsection that would allow regulations to make provisions requiring that energy consumers benefit. I want to ask just one question on that. While we welcome that provision, there is a concern. If we are allowing regulations to make this provision, what guarantee is there that they will actually be used? Are the Government committing to using them, if they use Clause 66 powers?

I support all of my noble friend Lady Liddell’s comments on her amendment. The main amendment for me is that just referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. We spent a significant amount of time talking about this area in Committee, so I will not go through all the detail. However, as the noble Baroness mentioned, in the circumstances we are in, with the extra pressure on the cost of living from energy bills, why are we looking at a situation where we could be asking householders to pay more money? I acknowledge that there will be further consultation but I hope that, as well as it being done thoroughly, its conclusions will lead to the spirit of our amendment. As shown in our amendments, we believe that the Secretary of State could put a levy on gas shippers but not on gas and electricity suppliers, thus preventing responsibility for the levies falling on households.

We need to reflect on the spirit of the Bill—the whole idea is that, while reforming energy systems, we do everything we can to protect consumers and their ability to pay their bills. Every possible action should be taken to minimise the impact on consumers, focusing always on affordability. I am disappointed that the Minister has not gone further on this point. Unless he indicates a willingness to do so, due to the strong feelings surrounding the protection of consumers from inflated bills, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I will start by addressing Amendments 18 and 19, which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, have retabled from Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her contribution. She requested further detail; I will provide clarification in writing, if that is okay with her.

These amendments seek to ensure that funding for the hydrogen production business model can be provided through the Consolidated Fund. They also seek to restrict where a levy may be placed, removing the option for levying energy suppliers and requiring that a levy could be placed only on gas shippers. They are intended, I assume, to take responsibility for levies away from households.

The powers in the Bill already enable Exchequer funding of the hydrogen production business model, which will initially be Exchequer-funded. It is therefore unnecessary to include additional provisions that enable the business model to be funded through the Exchequer.

The proposal in these amendments to require that the levy could be placed only on gas shippers will limit options for the levy design, with possible implications for its costs and ultimate impact on consumers. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A gas shipper levy would be a completely novel scheme, with administration and set-up costs that could be considerably higher than those required to implement a supplier levy; this is well understood.

The Government have set out their intention not to levy gas shippers in the near term. Levies on energy suppliers have been used in the past to support the deployment of low-carbon electricity and increase the proportion of green gas in the gas grid. These levies are well understood by the private sector. By taking a similar approach with the hydrogen levy, we can help provide investors with the confidence they need to invest in low-carbon hydrogen production projects and support the delivery of our 10-gigawatt production capacity ambition.

By seeking to ensure that the levy could be placed only on gas shippers, these amendments appear to try to protect energy consumers from the costs of a levy. However, as I outlined when they were tabled previously, we anticipate that any costs associated with a levy on gas shippers would ultimately be passed on to energy consumers in a very similar way to levies on energy suppliers. As I say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is the opinion of all the policy analysts that it is unlikely that the amendments would have their intended effect.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Blake of Leeds]

18: Clause 66, page 57, line 25, leave out “relevant market participants (see subsection (8))” and insert “the Consolidated Fund or gas shippers”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means the Secretary of State may put a levy on gas shippers, but may not put it on gas or electricity suppliers, thus taking responsibility for levies away from households.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of consumers I express my disappointment in the Minister’s response, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

My instinct says that the best place for fossil fuels is in the ground, out of harm’s way. Any system that perpetuates their production must also ensure that we bear down meaningfully on reducing their production. Only the hardest-to-abate residual emissions would be captured and locked away, and I hope the industry will pay for it. With that proviso, ultimately I support this amendment because I too want to see carbon capture and storage a reality. It may well be that DAC—direct air capture—will be necessary to stop runaway climate change. It seems right that storage facilities should be developed and paid for by the companies that made it necessary.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I acknowledge that this will be her last meeting for some time; I think I am allowed to say that. In my relatively short time here, I have come to value her passionate interjections and her incredible knowledge on the subjects on which she has spoken. I wish the noble Baroness well in her temporary visit overseas and look forward to when she is able to come back and join us. I hope that we can keep in contact in the meantime.

While we do not support new fossil fuel extraction licences, we have to be mindful of existing licences and renewals. We have to take these issues seriously.

It is fair to say that we do not want to turn off the taps, so there will be merit in reducing carbon emissions from those existing licences. To what extent are the Government considering geological storage as a solution? I am sure we have all received briefings giving us the background on how successfully CO₂ has been stored over many years. There is an opportunity, but how much can be stored, and can we make full potential of the opportunities that are presented to us off the shores of this island?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I also pay tribute to all the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has done. It is indeed a great mystery to all of us why she seemingly wishes to swap the lovely, warm, calm weather of southern England for California, but I suppose that will become clearer over time. I thank her for the contribution she has made, and I am sure that we will hear a lot more from her in the future.

I am happy to contribute to this debate on Amendment 40 and the issue of the carbon take-back obligation for fossil fuel extraction. The concept of such an obligation is indeed worthy of debate, but the noble Baroness will understand when I say that its inclusion in the Bill is a little premature. Our primary instrument to decarbonise the UK economy is the emissions trading scheme, which provides a market price for emissions of carbon dioxide, incentivising investment in decarbonisation and ensuring that it happens wherever—and however—it is most cost effective to do so.

Introducing a carbon take-back obligation now, at such a pivotal time for the development of CCUS in the UK, could create uncertainty for industry and have a detrimental delaying effect on investment, resulting in investors looking to opportunities that exist in many other countries—perhaps even in California; one never knows. Such an obligation could also increase the costs of CCUS, making UK production of steel, chemicals, refinery products and other industrial products more expensive than that of their competitors, potentially impacting on our industrial competitiveness. All these issues need further detailed policy consideration before further legislation can be considered.

As I mentioned to the noble Baroness before the debate, the CCUS Council is the Government’s primary forum for engaging with representatives across the CCUS sector, and we have indeed asked the council to consider and provide advice on carbon take-back obligations. The concept indeed warrants further consideration, but I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that it is not for this Bill at this time. With that explanation, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.