Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her place, and thanking her for the tone and substance of her remarks? She is right to underline the fact that we are marking a new era but also marking the passing of an era, and it is right to pay tribute to all the people who worked in our coal-fired power stations and, indeed, who worked underground to dig coal for our country. It is a big moment of change and the passing of an era.

On the hon. Lady’s broad points about CCS, my philosophy is that we want zero-carbon power where possible, but we also need carbon capture, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors and so that we can have not unabated gas, but gas with CCS or hydrogen power. She raises the question of cost. Imagine if we had had this conversation 15 years ago, when I was Secretary of State and much younger—15 years younger, to be precise. [Interruption.] Yes, I am good at maths. Some people were saying at the time, “Why are you subsidising offshore wind? It can never be competitive with fossil fuels.” Now, it is among the cheapest technologies to build and operate. That is what deployment does for us, and that is what the combination of public and private sectors working together does for us. Yes, there is an investment here, but a far-sighted, forward-looking Government have to make such investments, and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

I had rather hoped that my right hon. Friend was going to start his statement by saying, “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted—”. I have waited so long to hear a Secretary of State make such announcements from the Dispatch Box, and I am delighted. However, my right hon. Friend knows that carbon capture technologies reduce the energy intensity of fossil fuels by up to 25%, which makes such electricity much more expensive than that produced from renewables. Can the Secretary of State confirm that CCUS will be used not simply to allow the continued extraction of fossil fuel for our power sector, but only for the hardest-to-abate heavy industries and for the production of green hydrogen, thereby keeping domestic fuel bills low and delivering on this Government’s commitment to decarbonise our power sector by 2030 through much cheaper renewables and nuclear, not more expensive gas with CCUS? Finally, may I caution him against swallowing too much of the hype around blue hydrogen?

[Ed Miliband]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he speaks with great knowledge and expertise on these issues. He is absolutely right about the hard-to-abate sectors. I say to him what I said to the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson): there is a role for both blue hydrogen and gas with CCUS, but that is within the context of a primarily renewables-based system that uses nuclear as well. It goes back to the point about needing all the technologies at our disposal if we are to surmount the challenges we face.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend not just for his intervention, but for all the work he has done before and since his election. He has been a dedicated campaigner on this issue and has raised it a number of times with me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend’s point about collaboration is incredibly important. We have reset our relations with the devolved Administrations across the country. In particular, on Grangemouth, we have been working hard with the Scottish Government to find a solution. That has been a far more helpful set of interventions than we had from the previous Government. For example, on Project Willow, we have committed to joint funding with the Scottish Government to drive forward to find a solution. We are leaving no stone unturned to secure an industrial future for the Grangemouth site, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue to campaign on the issue.

The future of the North sea more generally depends on having a plan for the industries of the future, whether that is carbon capture and storage, hydrogen or, indeed, renewables. The just transition is critical and it is something I take incredibly seriously, so we will work with North sea communities to develop a credible long-term plan. That work will be supported by a British jobs bonus to incentivise developers to build their supply chains here in the UK and to create good jobs in our industrial heartlands and coastal communities. We will make sure that our offshore workers are the people who decarbonise our country and deliver our energy independence, and that there is a strong, resilient workforce in the North sea for decades to come.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend, very importantly, mentioned the role that carbon capture, usage and storage has to play in the decarbonisation of our economy. I am sure he will have seen the latest National Audit Office report on CCUS and will therefore be aware that the Department has increased its reliance on CCUS substantially since this was first mooted. The NAO is clear in its report that uncertainty remains about the funding available for future stages of the CCUS project proposals; that the previous Government were behind in agreeing support for track 1; and that future progress on the programme is dependent on reaching financial investment decisions for at least some of the track 1 projects very swiftly. Will he give us an update—if not now, at some point later—on how this essential part of the programme will be handled?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The Department is reviewing the NAO report at the moment. This area will need investment, but we also need a concerted effort to understand what some of the barriers are. It is very clear that carbon capture and storage will be a critical part of the North sea infrastructure in the future, so we are taking those issues very seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I disagree, particularly on nuclear, because every single operational nuclear power plant in this country was started by Conservatives.

I will offer some suggestions for questions that Labour Members might like to ask. They like to say that renewables are cheap, and they are cheap to operate. After all, wind and sunshine are free. However, if we want to know what a type of power will do to our bills, we have to look at the full system costs. If we race ahead with renewables at the same time as making our gas power stations uninvestable, what will be our back-up when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, and how much does that cost the system? New technologies such as small modular nuclear reactors, carbon capture, and batteries of long duration storage are all welcome, but they will not be ready by 2030. What will be used, and how much will it cost?

Will the largest nuclear expansion in 70 years, which I set out, be sacrificed to pay for GB Energy? I know that Ministers barely refer to it any more, but nuclear will be critical to our energy supply in the years ahead. Have they made an assessment of how much their plans will increase our reliance on the current dominant provider of pylons, cables, batteries and solar panels, which is China? If not, when will they do so? How much private investment into the energy transition will they lose through their plans to tax the North sea into oblivion and ban new oil and gas licences? It is not a coincidence that many integrated energy companies in this country pursue both oil and gas and renewable projects at the same time; it is because they use the same skills, supply chain and workers. Industry says that more than £400 billion is at risk from these plans. GB Energy, at £8 billion, will not touch the sides of replacing that. How much will be lost, and where will the extra money come from? Will it be from central Government through people’s taxes, or will it be through the bills and standing charges of all our constituents?

The Government keep claiming—I think the Minister did so today—that GB Energy will turn a profit. I believe he said that “every single project” will make a return, but the slice of the pie that they want to invest in is the slice that even businesses do not think they can make money from. That is what de-risking means. Members should ask on what basis the Secretary of State thinks that he can turn a profit for the British taxpayer when highly experienced energy companies believe that they cannot.

If I were to give one piece of advice to the Minister it would be to do what I did when I first started the job. He should not listen to just one side of the climate lobby who pretend that there are no costs involved in this transition, but go to speak to industry, and to oil and gas workers, and listen to how much those families value secure, well-paid jobs on their doorstep. He should not follow the Secretary of State’s path of quoting only from the Climate Change Committee, and never from business or industry. The Minister’s job, first and foremost, is to keep bills down and the lights on. He should not forget those last two priorities, or he will find that those on the Benches behind him will turn very quickly.

[Barry Gardiner]

The right hon. Lady said that Members should not quote only from sources that they feel are friendly to them, so I will not quote from the International Energy Association, but perhaps she might accept a quote from the World Economic Forum, which stated:

“Renewables are now significantly undercutting fossil fuels as the world’s cheapest source of energy”,

according to its report.

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but as I said, we have to look at the full system cost. He is very experienced in the energy sector, and he knows as well as I do that the flexible capacity that is used to back up an intermittent system is where the true costs lie. It is fair for Opposition Members to ask for an assessment of what those costs will be, and what they will mean for British bill payers.

The other area where the Government must be honest with the public is about what they are going to build. The Secretary of State’s first week in the job saw him approve 4,000 football pitches’ worth of solar farms on farmland in Rutland, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Those projects were not sat on my desk, as the Secretary of State has claimed. I had made a decision to reject Sunnica on the basis of a scathing examining authority report, and I changed policy to protect our best agricultural land. These are not projects that were likely to be approved; these are bad decisions. Work was being drawn up to be announced, but the decision had been taken in the case of Sunnica. The Secretary of State will know that from civil servants, who are duty bound to brief him honestly in the Department.

In the case of Mallard Pass, the site has been signed off, 40% of which will be built on our best and most versatile agricultural land, taking no notice of legal planning guidance that says that best agricultural land must be avoided. The Secretary of State and his Ministers will have to justify that, and many more decisions, to his new colleagues, many of whom now represent rural communities and whose constituents will be rightly concerned that they are next.

I wish the new Minister well for his time in the Department. The energy sector is one of the most interesting and important policy briefs affecting this country, and it is in all our interests that he does his job well. However, what the Government have done so far —make claims during the election that they cannot stack up now they are in government—will just not do. They have set out a hard target to decarbonise the grid by 2030, and the Secretary of State stakes his entire political reputation on it, without being honest about the costs. These issues are far too important for Government not to take seriously, and they are far too important for Labour Members to follow the Government blindly without asking questions. They did that during the election with promises to save households £300, and they can no longer stack up those promises just three weeks into Government. I humbly suggest that this is their first lesson of the Parliament: they should not give the Secretary of State a blank cheque again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am only mentioning how important community energy is to Liberal Democrats. The Labour manifesto did not seem to have as much emphasis on it, but if we agree on it, hurrah! We all win.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. On the issue of undergrounding power lines, although that may in some cases be necessary for communities, does she not accept, given that it is 10 times the cost, that it is possible to screen the power lines and, in doing so, create biodiversity corridors that can connect biodiversity from one part of the country to another, so that biodiversity can cope with climate change?

[Wera Hobhouse]

Indeed, there are not easy answers to all these questions. We need to look at the fine balance of cost versus getting community buy-in. There is going to be a transformation of our landscape, and we need to be aware of that. We must also make a good case for why it is urgent that we get to net zero, and in my view that balance in the argument was not struck properly by the previous Government. It is important that communities buy into our big landscape transformation, but it is also important that we do this at an affordable cost for the whole of the UK.

We Liberal Democrats are calling for all new homes to be net zero immediately. It is crazy that we are building homes today that will need upgrading in a few years’ time. We are proposing a 10-year emergency upgrade programme for homes, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. That will not happen without incentivising private landlords and having tougher energy efficiency targets. The private rental sector has the most energy-inefficient homes. Nearly half of households living in these properties are in fuel poverty, but local authorities have taken limited action to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.

Whether it is tighter regulation on private landlords or further sanctions to ensure that they comply, the Government must put their mind to the private rental sector. We will ensure that energy efficiency for rentals is not brushed under the carpet. That includes incentives for the private rental sector. From discussions in the previous Parliament, I know that the Labour party is relatively reluctant to give money to private landlords, but without incentivising the private rental sector, I do not think that a home insulation programme will happen, particularly for low-income families. I urge the Government to think about that.

As well as landlords, businesses must be incentivised to invest in the green transition. The U-turning of the Conservative Government sparked immense distrust from industry, with the UK chair of Ford warning that her business needs three things from the Government: ambition, commitment and consistency. That is exactly what they must deliver. Years of stop-start investment have left the energy sector reeling. Businesses and trade organisations have long been calling for a detailed plan of action that offers the clarity and certainty that will make the UK an attractive country to invest in. I hope that this Government can finally deliver the certainty that the country so badly needs.

Climate change is happening, but every cloud has a silver lining. Seizing the economic opportunities of net zero will help us spread wealth and opportunity to every corner of the UK. From insulating homes to providing thousands of new jobs in the energy sector, it is clear that everyone can benefit from a thriving green economy. I look forward to working constructively with the new Government to combat climate change, reduce energy bills and be a leader in the journey to net zero.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. The plans that we have set out represent the largest expansion of nuclear in 70 years, with radical reforms to the grid. However, it does take time to build things. Labour’s 2030 policy is mad, bad and downright dangerous. I have yet to meet a serious expert or a single person in the industry who believes it is possible. We have a record to be proud of, becoming the first major economy to halve our emissions, but Labour’s plans would heap costs on to taxpayers, in stark contrast to our pragmatic and proportionate approach.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

If grid decarbon-isation by 2030 really did cost the billions of pounds that the Secretary of State claims, she might care to explain why her own policy is to achieve 95% of full decarbonisation by the very same date. She knows that independent analysis actually says that Labour’s plan would reduce families’ energy bills by £300 a year, so will she ’fess up? Will she admit that the true price of her failure will be paid for by hard-pressed families in their energy bills?

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I would like to speak to our amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, to comment on other amendments before us today and then to place all this into the context of the Bill as a whole by way of what will effectively be a stand-part contribution. This Bill remains an ill-advised, pointless piece of political posturing—

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Don’t pull any punches!

[Dr Whitehead]

That was the mild version.

As the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) has informed us, the Bill legislates for something that happens anyway. It will make no difference to bills, according to the Secretary of State. It will make no difference to our energy security, according to the former chair of BP. It will undermine the independence of the North Sea Transition Authority, according to the NSTA’s own board, and it and will reinforce the perception around the world that the UK is rowing back from climate action, according to the former COP President, the right hon. Member for Reading West. We regret that this insubstantial and damaging Bill has proceeded this far, and we will vote against it on Third Reading.

We do not need this one-clause Bill. We need instead a strategy for managing the North sea that supports our energy security, meets our climate commitments and secures the economic and jobs benefits of the transition to a low-carbon economy. We would have liked to debate a new clause setting out a new principal objective for the North Sea Transition Authority that would have put such a strategy into effect. However, because the Bill is so short and tightly drawn around the narrow issue of mandatory licensing rounds, amendments to put a more sensible strategy into place are regrettably not in order. We must therefore take the Bill on its own terms, even if that means treating it with significantly more respect than the drafters have treated this House with in presenting such a trivial and nakedly political proposal.

We have in the Bill at present two tests that should be passed if the Oil and Gas Authority is to proceed with mandatory licence issuance, and we know that the two tests cannot be failed. It is a fact that if properly drafted—we might come to that in a moment—liquefied natural gas will always be more greenhouse gas-intensive in production than UK natural gas and we will always be in a position where gas and oil produced in the UK and in a declining North sea field will not meet our total demand for gas and oil.

I learned in my first year at university—as I think the Minister did, because he did a similar degree to me—that a proposition that cannot be falsified cannot stand as a valid proposition. Here we have two completely non-valid propositions in the Bill. They are bogus and cynically contrived to give the appearance that something has to be achieved before mandatory licencing takes place. At the very least we need a test or tests that can be failed and that produce a proper level of judgment into the advisability of proceeding with such mandatory licences. The best test surely has to be whether such action is compatible with our climate change goals. The Government had previously introduced climate change compatibility tests into production generally. It is strange that these appear nowhere in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

The best way to make use of those skills is by making sure that we put resources behind those workers so that they can make the transition, which so many of them want to do, into renewables. Right now, those workers are actually having to pay to make that transition themselves. They have to pay for the training. [Interruption.] They do. I tabled an amendment to a previous piece of legislation on education and training to try to make it much less onerous for oil and gas workers to shift into, say, the renewables sector. We need to have those plans, and we need the resources behind them to make that a lot easier than it is today.

The result and the reality is that the number of jobs in the oil and gas sector has already dropped by more than half over the past decade, despite hundreds of drilling licences being issued. The just transition plans test would be met in a year if the Oil and Gas Authority assessed that all existing seaward area production licence holders have published just transition plans for their workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°. Amendment 14 specifies that those plans must be agreed through formalised collective agreements with unions, and that they apply to all workers whether they are directly or indirectly employed—or, self employed, which is vital with the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce.

Indeed, a report in 2020 revealed a high level of concern about job security and working conditions in the oil and gas industry, and that 80% of surveyed workers would consider moving to a job outside that particular sector. Furthermore, given the opportunity to retrain to work elsewhere in the energy sector, more than half would be interested in renewables and offshore wind. Workers are ready to lead a just transition, yet a more recent report has revealed that

“companies are increasingly announcing net zero targets—but there is no example in the UK oil and gas sector of worker involvement in decision-making on decarbonisation.”

That must change.

This amendment would be a step towards delivering a just transition that would see workers at the centre of transition planning, with a clear and accessible pathway out of high-carbon jobs. Rather than propping up jobs that we know are not going to exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sector now, while also addressing their very real concerns, such as the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves, or the inferior employment protections offshore, which can lead to wage under-cutting. There are even some cases of seafarers working in the offshore wind sector being paid below the minimum wage. That is a scandal, and the Government should urgently establish a wage floor to apply to all offshore energy workers, regardless of nationality, who are carrying out any work on the UK continental shelf. The failure to deliver a just transition is not an inevitability, but a political choice. If the Government are serious about listening to workers and protecting jobs, they should have no problem supporting this amendment, which puts job security at the heart of the transition.

I note that the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) has tabled amendments 10 and 11 on a just transition, but I have to say that I do have two serious concerns. First, according to the drafting of amendment 11, the SNP test will be met

“if the OGA assesses that…new licences will support the delivery of the North Sea Transition Deal’s…emission reduction targets”.

Yet, as we know, the 50% reduction by 2030 which is in the NSTD proposal, against a 2018 baseline, is far weaker than the 68% reduction recommended by the Climate Change Committee, which it says is achievable. It is also important to note that this only includes scope 1 and 2 emissions, so it fails to take account of emissions produced when oil and gas is burned. Secondly, there is no provision to consult workers as part of this test. Therefore, given that it would fail to deliver a worker-led transition and it also exceeds the advice of the CCC, I sadly cannot vote for that.

Before concluding, I offer my support to a number of other amendments. First, I support amendment 12, on banning flaring and venting, tabled by the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma). As others have mentioned, Norway banned routine flaring back in 1971, giving the lie to the Government’s claim that UK gas has lower emissions.

Secondly, I support amendments 19 and 20, tabled by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to amend the carbon intensity test and to include all gas, not just LNG. Given that we import most of our gas through a pipeline, it is utterly ridiculous to compare UK production with LNG that is vastly more polluting.

[Barry Gardiner]

There has been much debate today about the alternative of LNG from Qatar, but there has been a failure to take into account whether our being more dependent on LNG from Qatar would in any way change what Qatar does about its own production. It has been recorded that Qatar will increase its production by 67% by 2027, which means that that energy will be produced and will have certain emissions. At the end of the process, we might have produced something with fewer carbon emissions, but it would be better not to produce them at all.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member makes a characteristically wise and useful point. That figure of 67% is startling and deeply worrying.

Thirdly, I support amendments 22 and 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—I hope I can call him an hon. Friend—setting out a home energy efficiency test. As we all know by now, that is the most effective way of delivering real energy security for households that are struggling so much to pay their bills.

Fourthly, I support amendments 23 and 25, again tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, requiring the UK to have made arrangements to withdraw from the energy charter treaty before new licences can be awarded. It is totally unacceptable that the Government are mandating annual licensing rounds without having withdrawn from a treaty that allows companies to sue for lost profits. The Government previously committed to reviewing the UK’s membership of the ECT, including consideration of withdrawal from the treaty if proposed modernisation reforms were not agreed at November’s energy charter conference. As I understand it, those proposals were not even discussed at the conference, so may I ask the Minister, when he sums up, to say what is holding up their withdrawing from that treaty, given that they acknowledge that

“there is now no clear route for modernisation to progress.”

Finally, last week it was reported that British Gas profits soared tenfold last year following the changes Ofgem had made to the price cap. In the same week Government figures showed that almost 9 million households—well over a third—spent more than 10% of their income after housing costs on domestic energy bills, and it was also revealed that not a single new proposal for public onshore wind was made in England last year despite the Government’s policy changes. Those three examples are all from just one single week; this week and next week there will be more, and together they demonstrate the utter failure of this Government to make decisions that would benefit people and planet and to unleash our abundant renewables, massively upscale energy efficiency installations and work to get us off expensive and volatile gas altogether. Instead, each week we see yet more evidence that this tired and divisive Government are prioritising increasingly desperate attempts to save their own skin over measures that would improve all our lives by ensuring that everyone has a warm and comfortable home to live in, communities have been supported to make the most of the green transition and our one precious and infinitely fragile planet is finally restored.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

This February is on course to break an unprecedented number of heat records, and the dangers of failing to reach net zero are staring us in the face. This Bill flies in the face of our climate change commitments, and it will do nothing to secure energy security and nothing to lower energy bills, and we Liberal Democrats continue to oppose it.

I will mention two amendments that we strongly support, as they are on areas where we Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the past. The Bill is silent about methane and needs amending. We therefore strongly support new clause 12 to prevent methane flaring. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the warming effect of CO₂. It accounts for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It has often been seen as a quick win. Methane stays for much less time in the atmosphere, but it is still there. Reducing methane emissions is such an obvious thing to do.

The UK has signed a global pledge to cut methane levels by 30%, and a ban on oil and gas flaring and venting in the North sea would dramatically reduce methane emissions. The International Energy Agency has said that UK oil and gas operators could reduce methane emissions by more than 70% by tackling venting, flaring and leaking. That is supported by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Government-commissioned independent review of net zero. However, the Government’s track record is not good enough. In his last few days in office, the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), unconditionally approved the new Affleck oil and gas field, whose operators will be able to burn methane until 2037.

We must also mandate monthly leak detection and repair activity. As we have said in the past, it is incomprehensible why the Government are on the one hand saying one thing, but on the other not acting. We must do something about methane. It is a complete dereliction of duty if we do not support that new clause.

The other amendment I want to speak to new clause 23, which would insert a new energy charter test. Many of my constituents have voiced strong concerns about our continuing to be part of the energy charter treaty. That energy charter test would be met if we withdrew from the treaty. As it stands, remaining part of the treaty leaves the UK vulnerable to compensation claims from investors for the early closure of coal, oil and gas plants. Attempts to modernise the ECT to protect countries from libel and to drive investment in renewables have failed. Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and the Netherlands have all announced their intention to withdraw. Italy withdrew back in 2016. Why should we not join them? The new clause provides a vehicle to do that. It is incomprehensible that we have to discuss this Bill. It is a bad Bill, but the amendments I have just mentioned would make it a little better.

[Barry Gardiner]

I wish to speak primarily to amendments 13 and 14, but I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). May I begin by paying tribute to the newly elected Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan)? His electoral victory shows that parties with ambitious climate policies win elections, and those that choose to pursue culture wars are punished at the ballot box. I hope the Government can learn that lesson in relation to this Bill, which is a textbook example of performative politics.

This Bill will not secure British energy independence or help to meet UK or global climate targets. We know, because the Energy Secretary told us so herself, that this Bill will not lower energy bills, yet here we are debating this Bill instead of focusing our minds and time on real solutions that will accelerate the energy transition that is already happening all around us. That energy transition is not only underpinned by a strong scientific consensus to address climate change, but founded in a mission to make energy affordable and to unleash new economic opportunities across Britain, particularly in the regions left behind by previous energy transitions.

I pay tribute to all the workers in oil and gas, who help to keep Britain’s lights on. Their hard work over many years powers our country, and their skills will be essential in making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is why we must respect those workers, and why we should be truthful with them. They deserve no less than that, and we in the labour movement remember only too well what happens when communities are faced with the sudden loss of jobs. We remember the closure of the pits and the communities that were left with nothing, because Government failed to put in place genuine alternatives and a just transition.

I know that British exceptionalism is almost an article of faith or mantra with this Government, but being the first country that sells the last drop of oil is not a feasible strategy. That is not just because the world signed up to transition away from fossil fuels at COP 28, but because the North sea is a declining basin that is nearly empty. New licences between now and 2050 will only provide 103 days of gas. That is just four days of gas every year. Saying that we will expand oil and gas licences in a declining basin and pretending that that will make any real difference to jobs in the North sea is nothing short of dishonest. It may provide campaigning material to pretend otherwise, but people’s livelihoods are more important than political game playing, and we ought to stick to the facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

I feel almost obliged to intervene, if only to agree totally with what the hon. Member just said. The Aberdeen University study relates specifically to the decline over previous decades. We have lost a lot of workers in the industry, not just because of the decline in production, but because of new technology and the desire to remotely operate offshore platforms in the interest of safety. There has been decline. What he seems to be missing is that we are talking not about a return to the glory days of peak production in the late ’90s, but managing that decline with reference to how much energy we need. As was mentioned, we need to promote a Goldilocks period in which we make the most of the skills and technologies in that industry for the renewables-based future.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we must manage the decline, but we must manage the decline in the community’s livelihood, which is not necessarily the same thing. If we make sure that we have a just transition, and introducing support for retraining and gaining skills, as outlined in the amendments that I am supporting, he will find that his constituents and many others around the country will much better weather that decline and prepare for the sort of future that we want.

The Bill, unfortunately, does the opposite. It ignores the 30,000 hard-working people directly employed in today’s oil and gas industry, and the further 100,000 individuals supported by the supply chain. It provides false hope. It sends confusing signals to energy companies, to investors, to the global community, and indeed to unions and the workers they represent. It pretends that nothing needs to change—that business can continue as usual, and that jobs in oil and gas are safe. The Government are acting as if maxing out the North sea can happen indefinitely, or at least until they are no longer in office and therefore do not have to pick up the pieces.

Amendment 14 sets out the need for formalised collective agreements with unions and the workforce to create just transition plans. In Spain, we have seen what can be achieved when Governments, businesses, workers and unions come together. The just transition agreement that the Spanish Government have negotiated with affected workers, unions and businesses is popular, economically responsible and environmentally sound. It is a settlement for all involved. That is the approach that ought to be taken in the North sea. The region needs a new settlement, in which: there is an increase in domestic manufacturing; a new generation of renewables, such as green hydrogen, turbocharges employment in energy-intensive industries; the technology of carbon capture, usage and storage and the UK’s unique storage capacity for sequestering carbon can provide a new service that is exportable to the world; the benefits of the energy system are shared fairly; jobs are truly safe and secure; and, above all, those communities who were once the proud purveyors of our fossil fuel energy become our proud sequesterers of the world’s emissions and the champions of the renewable powerhouse of the future.

Before I conclude, I want to mention one further spurious reason that the Government have put forward to justify the Bill: that it stops us from being dependent on oil and gas from dictatorial regimes such as Russia. Yesterday in the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) pointed out that a loophole in our sanctions regime means that countries such as China and India import Russian crude oil, process it and then sell it to the UK as refined oil. In 2023, we imported 5.2 million barrels of that oil. That means we sent something like £141 million in tax revenue to the Kremlin’s war chest. Britain is also the biggest insurer of Russian oil moved by sea, most of which is sold at prices well above the price cap, again violating sanctions. If the Government really wanted to stop such dependence, they could tighten the sanctions regime—they know how to do so, but they do not.

I will not vote for this piece of 20th-century legislation that instructs the House to look backwards and not forwards. I will not vote to make Britain colder and poorer. I will not vote to increase flooding. I will not vote to leave communities and workers behind. I will not vote to lock volatile fossil fuels into our already broken energy system. Sadly, we must wait for a future Parliament—and, I trust, a future Government. I look forward to working with Members from across the House in pursuit of those goals.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I rise to support amendment 15 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), and in particular subsection (b) to proposed new section (1ZA), which relates to Grangemouth. There is something perverse and absurd about using Scottish oil if Scotland’s refinery is to close.

We have to transition. It has to be a just transition, which cannot just be a glib phrase. It must also be paced, because we cannot get there overnight. In my constituency of East Lothian, we can see the turbines on the Lammermuirs, and we can see them growing in number daily, and the growth in the number of columns, as offshore wind capacity comes. But we require fossil fuels to deliver that renewable capacity. We require diesel for the trucks, and marine diesel for the ships, out setting the columns and turbines. We also require the plastics that go with much of that. So we need to continue using and exploiting oil to get to a renewable future. We have to do so at a pace that is appropriate, but also ensure that our country benefits. That is why subsection (b) is so important.

There is something perverse in the fact that Scotland is energy-rich, yet people face fuel poverty. In my constituency, we are not seeing the benefits in employment that should come from being in a county that is so energy-rich. The county faces the same problem as Scotland: it is energy-rich, yet people can only look wistfully at the turbines offshore, while they are unable to pay their bills. We must ensure that we get jobs and work here. The refinery at Grangemouth is pivotal to that.

I grew up not in East Lothian but in West Lothian. The Grangemouth refinery has been there for a century—since 1924—not for North sea oil but for its precursor: the shale industry, which was centred in West Lothian, from which came BP, Paraffin Young and others. BP was the centrepiece, along with Imperial Chemical Industries in its various iterations; it is now Petroineos. The refinery initially dealt with the shale industry, but, once North sea oil was discovered, we used it for that oil.

The Forties pipeline comes ashore from the North sea at Cruden Bay, and oil is piped down to Grangemouth because it was meant to be refined there. Grangemouth is also capable of refining oil from elsewhere: a pipeline runs from Finnart in Argyll through to Grangemouth, which allows oil imported from abroad to be refined in Scotland. Yet we face a situation where unless we support the amendment, Grangemouth refinery will likely close. Although a spat has been going on between the SNP, Labour and the Tories about the North sea and its oil, little has been said about what is happening at Grangemouth. The threat has been growing, and action from the Government both here and in Scotland has been in inverse proportion to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon, which has been wide-ranging, well informed and genuinely interesting. I thank Members from across the Committee for their participation and for playing an important role in scrutinising this important piece of legislation.

Before I move on to specific amendments I will, if you allow me, Dame Rosie, briefly outline the importance of this Bill. The UK leads the world on tackling climate change, and is the first major economy to halve emissions. The Bill will protect jobs, tax receipts and sovereign capability, so that we can continue that world leadership. As one of the world’s most decarbonised major economies, the UK remains dependent on oil and gas and will continue to be, albeit in reducing amounts, according to the Climate Change Committee. Even when we are at net zero in 2050, we will require oil and gas. However, we are a net importer and, as has been discussed, UK production is falling fast.

The ambition of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) to destroy UK supply ignores industry, the unions and his own Back Benchers, and would simply replace UK oil and gas with higher-emission imports. That is at the heart of this; that is why we want to pass this legislation—it is because of the policies of the parties opposite. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) looks a little confused. The parties opposite are very clear that they want to end new licensing, and we would thus have to import more from abroad. It is as simple as that. That would mean more LNG, which has four times the embedded emissions of domestically produced gas. That is the reality. That is at the heart of the Bill; that is why it is so important that we legislate today to send a signal to industry that continued fast-declining production in the North sea is the right thing to do environmentally, economically, in terms of tax—on every front. If it was not, we should not and would not do it.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will make a little more progress.

Annual licensing will improve our energy security and that of our neighbours. It will support 200,000 jobs and safeguard billions in tax revenue and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) set out so well, it will safeguard the skills needed for successful energy transition. Hon. Members can listen to everyone from Offshore Energies UK to Robert Gordon University for evidence of the need for that. These things are not in tension; they mutually complement each other and need to be supported.

[Barry Gardiner]

Is the Minister going to give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I promise to come to the hon. Gentleman before I finish.

Turning to the amendments selected today, I first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma) for amendment 12 on flaring and venting. As has been discussed, the guidance from the North Sea Transition Authority is clear that all new developments should be planned on the basis of zero routine flaring and venting. The Government have already committed to ending routine flaring and venting by 2030, going further than the World Bank’s zero routine flaring initiative. That voluntary North sea transition deal is reaping rewards. Based on the latest data, North sea flaring is down 50% since 2018, and the sector is on track to deliver the 2030 target.

I fear that the amendment would risk replacing voluntary momentum with a slower, compliance-based, more resistant approach from industry. However, I will continue to engage with my right hon. Friend as the Bill moves to the other place, with a view to delivering the end of flaring and venting by 2030 at the latest, which is an ambition he and I share, as do the Government.

With that, if the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has not lost his mojo and his moment, I shall give way to him.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way, and no—I would not lose my mojo on this. We all know that there is 110% more oil and gas already in the world than we can use if we are to remain within the 1.5°C threshold. Does the Minister think the climate really cares where that oil and gas are used? His argument about imports implies that he does believe that the atmosphere cares. The damage will be done; the only way we can reduce its impact is by ensuring that the proposed additional exploration licences are not achieved.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He has taken a long and deep interest in this issue, for which I pay him respect. It is the burning of oil and gas that is the primary issue. He mentions 110%—we probably have 200%, 300% or 400%. There are countries setting out to massively increase their production. That is all driven by demand. If we—as a species, as a globe—are to get to net zero, we will have to cap wells all over the world. We will have to leave it in the ground. The most important thing is to ensure that the demand curve is going in the right direction. Despite all the issues, challenges and difficulties of maintaining our role as the leading major economy in cutting emissions, the UK’s biggest challenge in dealing with climate change is not domestic, despite the difficulty of that; it is to get others to join us on a net zero pathway. The idea of producing our own emissions to ever-lower standards and replacing them with higher-emission products from abroad is for the birds. It makes no sense.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you were not around at the time, but you will know that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and the oil age will not end because of a lack of oil. It will end because decent people of all political persuasions, such as the former right hon. Member for Kingswood, are farsighted enough to recognise and brave enough to stand up against the vested interests that would consign our children and the natural world to a costly, disruptive and, frankly, terrifying future. He was right to say that history will judge harshly those who continue down the reckless fossil fuel path that this Bill represents.

This Bill is founded upon a lie—in fact, several lies. The Government say it will safeguard our domestic energy supplies and boost investment; it will not. They say it will enhance our energy security and reduce our dependence on imports from overseas; it will not. The truth is that it is a political distraction that will reduce investment in and delay our transition to the clean energy that is the only sustainable and secure future both for our country and for the global community. This Bill is not a credible plan to fix Britain’s broken energy system; it is a sad attempt to sew division and polarise our politics. It shows that the Government have given up governing and are out of step with the British people’s priorities. When 6 million people live in fuel poverty and when 4,700 people died last winter as a result of living in cold, damp homes, this Bill falls well below what our constituents deserve.

As the world’s hottest year on record was concluding, nearly 200 countries agreed at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels. The contrast between the promise made in Dubai and what the Government seek to do today could not be more profound, nor more depressing. By inviting Parliament to enable annual licensing rounds for offshore oil and gas extraction, the Government are failing to understand that to transition away from fossil fuels, we have to stop producing them. The Government argue, “But it is still a declining field.” “This simply slows the rate of decline,” they say. The problem is that it also slows the rate of investment in a just transition that will unleash the power of wind, solar, tidal and energy efficiency.

The North sea is a declining basin. Its reserves are predominantly oil, not gas. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide just 103 days of gas, which is four days of gas on average each year. The Government know that once oil and gas is licensed, it belongs to the companies that hold the licence. As the Government recently admitted to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), 80% of UK oil reserves are sent abroad by these companies and sold on the international market to the highest bidder. No wonder the former executive director of BP said last year that the Government’s decision to expand North sea drilling is

“not going to make any difference”

to Britain’s energy security.

If the Government’s ambition is to minimise gas imports, there is a very simple solution—insulate homes. The best way to cut imports is to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption by building renewables and insulating homes. This would have the additional benefit of reducing people’s energy bills and tackling fuel poverty. By channelling investment into oil and gas, the Government are heading precisely in the wrong direction. I do not deny that there is a role for existing oil and gas, but it is in the journey to a clean energy economy. What there is not a role for is the production of new oil and gas. We already know that to stand a 50% chance of keeping below the 1.5° threshold, 90% of the world’s coal reserves and 60% of oil and gas reserves would have to stay in the ground.

[David Duguid]

Is the hon. Member aware of this? He mentioned the pathway to the 1.5° target, and the IEA’s description of what is required is a 3% to 4% reduction in oil and gas production year on year between now and 2050. Does he agree with the assessment of the NSTA itself, which expects that, even with the new oil and gas licences, North sea oil and gas is predicted to decline by 7%, or twice that amount?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am well aware of that—of course I am—but the hon. Member will have heard the discussion that took place earlier about global leadership. He will know that other countries around the world are not declining at the required rate, and leadership is about taking a lead.

The logic of drilling for more when the world has already more than it can safely burn is that of the myopic salesman, not the visionary politician, or to use the Prime Minister’s words, it is the logic of the zealot. The Government’s actions are already making the UK a less attractive place for green investment. Three quarters of all North sea oil and gas operators currently invest nothing at all in UK renewables. The largest operator, Harbour Energy, has ruled out such clean investment altogether, yet last year the five oil super-majors—BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies—rewarded their investors with record payouts of more than £79 billion, so we know the money is there to do it.

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister is asking whether I will give way. The right hon. Member has long confused the scoring of party political points with the ability to debate an issue to arrive at the truth and get decent policies out the other end. However, if he has changed the habit of a lifetime, I will happily give way to him.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned a specific company, Harbour Energy, and it is absolutely investing in the Viking carbon capture centre and playing a positive role. That is true of the whole oil and gas supply chain in this country, which the hon. Gentleman, if he went to visit them, would find are working right across the energy sector. Weakening one part, as he would with no new licences, would damage the new clean emerging sectors, too.

[Barry Gardiner]

I recognise the work that Harbour Energy is doing and I also recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to attract more investment into green energy and renewables, and I welcome that work. I want us to have a cross-party consensus around getting to net zero. The trouble is that—and the Minister knows this to be true—he and many people on his side, including the Prime Minister, have tried to make this a wedge issue, a political issue to divide people. I think he really does need to step up to the plate. If he wants cross-party consensus, he has to try to build it, not score cheap political points.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The Liberal Democrats were actually introducing an amendment to stop flaring and venting of methane. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has just said it would be a very good thing to do yet the Government opposed it. That is an example of where we could have reached cross-party consensus.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I listened to her attempt to intervene on the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). We need to build a cross-party consensus and this shows how it can be achieved: there are concerned Members on the Government Benches who want to do the right thing, and we all know that sometimes the Whips make sure that they do not, but if we really build this consensus, we can get to the right place.

Another lie at the heart of this Bill is to say it will protect British jobs. It will not. Over the years there have been hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain. They have kept our lights on and our industry moving for decades just as the coalminers did before them. But pretending that employment in oil and gas can last forever fails to properly prepare those workers and their families for the inevitable transition that the world is making.

Despite sustained support for the North sea basin over the past 14 years and despite 400 new drilling licences being issued across five separate licensing runs, the fact is that more than 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and its wider supply network have been lost. Today 30,000 hard-working people are directly employed in the industry. Those workers and the local economies they uphold need a coherent plan to move past fossil fuel production towards clean energy. The trouble is the Government have not developed one.

A further 100,000 individuals are supported through the supply chain and are waiting for a signal from Government so that they can seize the opportunities of the clean energy revolution. This Bill offers them nothing. It seems to override the already weak non-binding climate compatibility checkpoint. The production emissions reduction target set out in the North sea transition deal is already weak, setting a cut of only 50% by 2030. This Bill seems to weaken it even further. It includes no reference to how annual licensing will be judged against the NSTD targets for production emissions let alone emissions from combustion.

Critically, the Bill ignores the wider environmental consequences of the development of new fields and puts marine habitats at risk. Over one third of the 900 locations in the latest licensing round overlapped with marine protected areas, yet this directly contradicts the commitment the UK made at the convention on biological diversity conference COP15 in Montreal where we promised to protect 30% of UK waters for nature by 2030.

The Rosebank field that was recently licensed sees a pipeline run through the Faroe-Shetland marine protected area, which threatens ocean life. If a major oil spill from Rosebank were to happen, 20 MPAs could be seriously impacted. This Bill is an attack on nature both by its indirect impact through increasing emissions and its direct impact on the marine environment. The Government appear to believe that they know better than the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Secretary-General, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of the world’s leading scientists, all of whom are clear that new oil and gas licences jeopardise further the goal of 1.5°C. This Parliament’s own independent adviser, the Climate Change Committee, confirmed to Parliament only last year that the expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero and that the oil and gas field that is required in the UK as we make that journey to net zero does not require the development of any new fields.

But what I find most depressing about this Bill is not its arrogance or its ignorance, it is the way it seeks to break with the cross-party consensus for the sake of creating a party political dividing line in advance of a general election. That dividing line pretends that the rational, informed scientific view is held only by what the Prime Minister calls climate zealots and it tries to establish the recalcitrant fossil fuel lobby that is endangering all we hold dear across the globe as the reasonable middle ground. It is not. As the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said:

“the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”

The fossil fuel lobby is behaving like the tobacco lobby did when all of the medical evidence was against it. First, deny the science outright. When that is no longer credible, pretend that the concern is exaggerated. And when that is no longer credible, reframe the issue as one of personal choice.

Government is about establishing a framework of regulation for the public good; it is not about facilitating the freedom of those who would undermine the public good. That is why this Bill is bad for democracy. That is why this Bill is bad for our global standing as a country that has previously been regarded as a leader on this issue. That leadership is now passing to others who are responding positively to the pledge in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels by joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.

The floods that we are seeing devastate communities and lives around the country are but a foretaste of the terrifying impacts of climate change beyond 1.5°. This Bill does nothing to mitigate them. It does nothing to support the billions of people across the world who live on the frontlines of climate breakdown. It ignores the plight of millions of bill payers who find themselves priced out of our broken energy system. And it ignores the workers who power our country.

This Bill endangers our natural world and future generations. I cannot support it; I will consign it to the same vote of no-confidence that I predict awaits this Government later on this year.

COP28

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and it was good to see her out in Dubai following up on so many of the issues, not least in recognising the needs of the most vulnerable and the poorest communities and countries around the world to ensure that they are not left behind and that we do have a just transition.

My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that she was a parliamentary delegate there, and we were proud to support GLOBE International UK, of which the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I were previous chairs, to provide the first ever parliamentary pavilion at COP28. I pay tribute to Malini Mehra, who has headed up GLOBE. She came in when it was in a troubled position for a promised maximum of six months, and she is still there. She is committed to ensuring that parliamentarians are armed with the information they need.

The answer to my right hon. Friend’s specific question is, yes, absolutely. When we consider that the country that has decarbonised most over the 31 years from 1990 to 2021 has reduced its emissions by 48%—namely, us—and that the world, on a 2019 basis, has to cut by 43% by 2030, with many large emitters pointing in the wrong direction, we can see that the challenge and the gap are not to be underestimated. COP28, with the UAE consensus, is significant, but there is so much more to do, and it has to convert into real change if we are to bend the curve further.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

There is much in the Minister’s statement that I commend and agree with, and in particular I reinforce his praise to our officials who played such a significant part in the negotiations. I regret the tone of some of his responses to colleagues, because the cross-party consensus on this issue over the past 30 years has been fundamentally important to the progress that we have been able to make. The science is clear; the world’s Governments are not. Those who are ready to deliver the transformation required to win the war against climate change are now considering whether the United Nations framework convention on climate change process is capable of delivering it in time. How long does the Minister think it will be before we see coalitions of the willing, such as the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, imposing sanctions on those recidivist countries who are still driving our world towards disaster?

[Graham Stuart]

On the coalitions of the willing, the world is changing, and the EU has already legislated for a carbon border adjustment mechanism for selected parts of industry, which will put up a carbon tax or a carbon price at the border. There is a certain intellectual inevitability about that if costs of production in one country are not reflected in others, and ensuring that that is done in a just manner is important. I would hate to look back at COP28 and find that it was one of the last times that countries around the world were able, on the basis of mutual trust, to talk to each other and come to a common agreement. The hon. Gentleman, who is highly experienced in this area, knows just how tender—I am sure there is a better word. The hon. Gentleman knows just how fragile the process could be if we do not all step carefully and ensure that we carry people with us.

Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 9th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is often said that it is a great pleasure to follow the previous speaker, and it could not be more of a pleasure for me to follow the final speech in a King’s Speech debate by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), because he has been a champion in this House for a sensible way forward. His work on the Skidmore review was exemplary.

I also want to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) said about the need to maintain the cross-party consensus, which has been so vital to the progress that we have made over the past 10 years—and more than that, the past 15 years. Cross-party consensus has enabled us to progress. Yes, the past 10 years have been years of progress; the past 13 years have been years of progress. The foundation was laid very ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Government took advantage of that, and we are now in a good place. We are in the lead, but we are not showing leadership. That is the difference: we need to show more leadership now.

Last winter, there were 4,706 excess winter deaths in Britain caused by living in cold, damp homes. That was 1,520 more than in the year before, and last winter was considered mild—let us all pray that this winter too is considered mild. I will examine what the King’s Speech will do for those in fuel poverty and those who will struggle in any winter because their property is simply draughty, damp, cold and un-insulated. How will this King’s Speech prevent even more excess deaths this winter?

It is often said that the first job of Government is to protect their citizens. That does not just mean from external threat or internal crime, but in the basics of life. What could be more basic than the warmth of a decent home? Thankfully, energy prices have fallen since last winter, but they remain 70% higher than in the year before, so what is the Government’s strategy? What demands have they made of the energy supply companies to help customers get through this winter? What measures are there to improve the energy efficiency of buildings? Some 21% of UK emissions—over a fifth of all our emissions—comes from heating leaky and inefficient buildings; 21% of emissions, but 100% misery for those living in those buildings.

The majority of those 4,706 excess deaths were pensioners, who are most vulnerable to the cold. What measures are the Government taking to ensure the uptake of pension credit? The Secretary of State worked at the Centre for Social Justice and at the Housing and Finance Institute, and she has been a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, so she knows the plight of pensioner poverty. Yet this King’s Speech holds no hope that the Government will tackle the problem of 37% of pensioners not getting pension credit.

Where is the Bill to retrofit energy efficiency measures in all our housing stock, to save money and save lives by making sure people can turn their heating down because their property is not losing every therm it pumps out? There is nothing—well, not quite nothing. Ahead of the King’s Speech, the Prime Minister announced that he was dropping the proposal to oblige landlords to ensure that the properties they rent to their tenants are brought up to a minimum energy performance certificate standard of C by 2028. That will ensure that 2.4 million privately rented homes continue to be cold, damp and energy-inefficient. It will ensure that 1.6 million children who we know are currently living in what are officially classed as “non-decent” homes have no relief for another seven years, until the new date set by the Prime Minister of 2035.

Of course, it is not the wealthy landlord who pays the heating bill. That means insulating the properties properly is not something they have an incentive to do, unless it is mandated by Government. It is calculated that the tenants, who do pick up the bill, will end up paying an extra £1 billion in their gas and electric bills because the Prime Minister wants to show that he is not an “eco-zealot”. I would not be proud to wear a badge of moderation on the backs of some of the poorest private sector renters in our country.

I am sure that Government Members will wish to point to the £400 payment from the energy bills support scheme, funded from the windfall tax on oil and gas producers last year. Of course, that still left bills twice as high as they had been previously and provided no relief for off-grid properties or those who had to use prepayment meters. Their alternative scheme for those 900,000 households reached just 2,000 bill payers and returned £440 million to the Treasury. Could the Government not even have the wit to put that money back into the system to provide energy efficiency measures for those properties?

What about the warm home discount? Two years ago, the Government revised the qualifications for it, which means that those 37% of pensioners who are not claiming pension credit do not get the warm home discount either. More than that, not all energy providers are obliged to offer the discount, and even those that are obliged have a limited obligation, which is used on a first come, first served basis.

The job of government is to get the help available to the people who need it. Winter is coming. The Government need to look at this again. They should be introducing a social tariff to protect our most vulnerable, struggling, fuel-poor citizens. They should get rid of the unfair and regressive standing charge and introduce a rising block tariff, so that those using less energy pay less per unit of energy, so that the principle of “polluter pays” applies and so that those who need to heat their swimming pools pay much more per unit to do so.

What we have in this King’s Speech is not the Bill to tackle fuel poverty that we need, but a Bill to shovel yet more public money to the oil and gas sector through the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. The Government seek to justify the Bill by saying it will “enhance” this country’s energy security. It will not, because companies such as Shell and Siccar Point Energy sell their gas on the international markets and refine their oil abroad. The International Energy Agency has made it clear that we have already identified five times the amount of oil and gas that the world could possibly use if it is to keep within the 1.5° threshold of dangerous climate change.

These licences are part of a scramble to be the last country to sell the last barrel of oil. I gently remind the Secretary of State that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stone, and the oil age will not end because of a lack of oil—oh, but it will end! What my constituents living in cold, inefficient homes do not understand is why, under the tax rules devised by the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor, they are the ones who will end up paying to develop these licences. The taxpayer gives 92p in tax rebate for every £1 those companies spend developing these new fields in the North sea basin—companies such as Shell, whose own chief executive called his company’s profits “obscene”.

The Secretary of State tries to persuade the House and the public that these licences are justified because of the tax revenue they will bring. That might be an argument if the facts did not tell us that any tax revenues will not flow from these licences for the five to eight years that it will take to develop them. That might be an argument if the facts did not tell us that it will divert investment away from the real, cheaper, cleaner renewable energy that will actually reduce bills. It might be an argument if it were not the case that, even with the windfall tax, the tax take from oil and gas producers is less than the global average.

When the windfall tax expires next year, the UK tax take from oil and gas producers will fall back to the lowest tax rate in the world—not 10% less than the global average, and not 20% less, but 38% less than the global average. If we levied tax at the global average, we would get an extra £14 billion into the public purse that could address fuel poverty and retrofit those houses.

How does the Secretary of State explain that to the 4,706 families who lost loved ones to excess deaths, the 37% of pensioners not getting their warm home discount or the 2.4 million families now waiting an extra seven years for their landlord to insulate their homes properly? What will she tell them—that there was no time for a Bill to deal with the scourge of fuel poverty, but there was time to introduce a Bill to deal with the scourge of unlicensed pedicabs? Priorities; priorities.

Let me mention two further Bills in the Gracious Speech. I welcome unreservedly the Holocaust Memorial Bill and urge the Government to introduce it swiftly in the eight months before purdah sets in for the next general election. The significance of this Bill has only been heightened by the hideous terror attack on 7 October. Both sides of the House will give the Bill a speedy passage, so that we can build the memorial and learning centre. If there were ever a time that we needed such a learning centre against hatred, it is now.

Finally, I give a much caveated welcome to the leasehold and freehold Bill. If the Government see this Bill as a vehicle to end the feudal system of leasehold, they are wrong. It extends the right to enfranchise and own the freehold of one’s own home only to leasehold homes, not to the 5 million people who live in the misery of leasehold flats. England and Wales is the last redoubt of this antiquated and unjust property ownership. Every other country in the world has a commonhold or strata title system.

The fundamental problem with leasehold is the inequity of power. The leaseholder pays full market value for their apartment, but they have no power to take any of the key decisions that relate to it. They are told by the managing agent what repairs are required, who will do them and how much they will cost, but the leaseholder has to pay. It is not enough, as the Gracious Speech says, to improve leaseholders’ consumer rights. What we need is an abolition of leasehold. We need to abolish marriage value, and we need to enable enfranchisement, so that all leaseholders—not just leasehold house owners, but leasehold flat owners—are able to enjoy the full rights of property ownership, instead of being exploited as they are now.

Net Zero by 2050

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We have another debate to follow. I will try to get everybody in, but I will prioritise those Members who have not already asked questions in previous statements or who did not get in. Brevity would be much appreciated in both questions and answers.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I value the cross-party consensus that this country has enjoyed for the past 20 years, which is responsible for some of the strenuous targets that the Secretary of State has outlined. However, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s statement and, indeed, the tone of the Secretary of State’s remarks today. In the spirit of cross-party consensus, will she set out a hierarchy for the utilisation of the 10 MW of low-carbon hydrogen that the Government have now committed to, so that the limited supply of hydrogen power is delivered first to high-energy users such as those in the steel, ceramics, glass and cement sectors who need the extra heat that electricity cannot provide?

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that hydrogen possesses enormous potential when it comes to our industrial sectors. I will be meeting many people from the sector tomorrow and will be looking at that point very carefully, and I would be happy to speak further with him about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

The Environment Agency’s recent consultation on varying the environmental permit for the Beddington energy recovery plant closed on 1 September. The Environment Agency will carefully consider all relevant responses and issue a final decision in due course.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

In the Select Committee inquiry into preparations for this winter, one of the repeated calls that we have heard from expert witnesses is to support the vulnerable and fuel poor with a social tariff. Will the Minister do that?

[Amanda Solloway]

Of course we are aware of the challenges that are facing consumers this coming winter, which is why we are keeping the price cap as a safety net. To give the hon. Gentleman reassurance, we will be monitoring the situation in case we need to look at this further.

Net Zero: 2050 Target

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Sir Christopher, under your guidance, I will try to speak swiftly. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on introducing the debate; I welcome much that he said. We are debating the Government policy on reaching net zero by 2050, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to think about the Government’s barriers to reaching net zero by 2050, because the truth is that we are not on a path to net zero.

Not all is bad. Under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, the UK created a strong legal framework for achieving net zero emissions by 2050. We, on both sides of the House, should be proud of that. However, legal promises alone cannot stand. They must be accompanied by consequential and transformational political action. The question is not what we have committed ourselves to, but how we are implementing the steps that are required to get there.

The Government know that. The 2021 net zero strategy clearly outlines the fact that achieving net zero

“will require the transformation of every sector of the global economy.”

In the 2023 environmental principles policy statement, the Government commit themselves to

“a system that places environmental considerations at the heart of policymaking across government.”

Again, I welcome the language, but the net zero growth plan does not follow that vision. Instead, it sets out a vision for a market led and technology driven net zero transition. A technology centred, market led approach is Government-speak for a voluntarist business-as-usual approach. This is too important to get wrong.

Rooting our net zero approach in technological developments blinkers us to the essential unity of the twin crises of climate and the environment and ignores the very nature-based solutions that the UK Government have rightly championed internationally. It shows a fundamental incoherence in the Government’s philosophical approach. We will neither achieve our environmental goals nor reap the benefits of the economic opportunities of the 21st century if we leave it to the market to lead. The Climate Change Committee has pointed out that while currently more than 31,000 people across the UK are employed in offshore wind alone, that is set to rise to 97,000 by 2030. This is a huge opportunity.

I welcome some of the investment that the Government have committed to achieving net zero, with £30 billion of public investment for a green industrial revolution, £36 billion of funding for improvements in energy efficiency, £20 billion for carbon capture and storage and a billion for low-carbon technologies. The Government appear to remain perfectly convinced that their approach will catalyse around—they say—£100 billion of private investment in developing those new industries and new carbon technologies, such as offshore wind and carbon capture and storage. That is a combined total of £187 billion.

By contrast, the Climate Change Committee has made it clear that we need between £300 billion and £430 billion of investment to achieve our goals. More importantly, it is clear that a strategic programme is required to reform the regulatory frameworks and to remove those barriers to the planning and construction of renewable energy infrastructure. It is not just about money; it is about the whole regulatory framework. The 2022 Climate Change Committee report points out that that has not been done; there is no adequate policy framework for catalysing the large-scale transformations necessary to achieve the established net zero targets by 2050. It is concerned that there does not seem to be any urgency on the part of the Government to do so.

I welcome the independent review conducted by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). He recognised the barriers that remain in place. His review said that the Government should take immediate action, and it recommended 25 short-term policies that the Government should achieve by 2025. The review called those policies “25 by 2025”. The idea was both to remove barriers that prevented business and industries from supporting the net zero ambition and to provide an immediate signal of intent to the private sector that the Government were serious about delivering their net zero target.

We were disappointed on the Environmental Audit Committee when the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), responded to questions in our most recent hearing. When asked about wood pellet biomass at the Drax power station—a technology that emits 18% more carbon than coal, yet still remains a critical part of the Government’s net zero agenda—the Secretary of State said that he hoped he might be able to say more in a future session. Well, we all hope that, because we have been eagerly awaiting the Government’s biomass strategy, which was due to be published last year and has still not made it into the public domain. His response on hydrogen, supposedly a key part in the Government’s plan, was equally disappointing. The Secretary of State—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. We have limited time and the hon. Gentleman has now gone over his time limit. I call Virginia Crosbie.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero (Graham Stuart)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and to listen to this excellent and important debate. I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing it. Of course, I come to this debate with some trepidation, as I am facing someone who did my job previously and then, unlike me—yet, anyway—went on to be Secretary of State at what was then the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He made immense progress on our path to net zero and energy security

I would not normally be rude, but I hope that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) can perhaps move on, as we debate more often, from a rather adolescent approach to one that more genuinely engages with the substance. His was not a particularly brilliant contribution to this debate in comparison with those made by other Members, which I thought actually had some substance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne oversaw the publication of the landmark, world-leading net zero strategy. The independent Climate Change Committee described it as

“an ambitious and comprehensive strategy that marks a significant step forward for UK climate policy”

and as

“the world’s most comprehensive plan to reach net zero”.

It is worth highlighting a couple of points. When we came to power in 2010, just 7% of this country’s electricity came from renewables; now it is well over 40%. The issue of insulation and the number of houses being insulated was also raised. I do not know why the Liberal Democrat member who raised it, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), is no longer here for the winding-up speeches, but anyway—he raised it before leaving the Chamber. It is worth noting that in 2010 the figure was just 14% and by the end of this year I expect that 50% of homes will have reached energy performance certificate level C or above, which is a huge—indeed, transformative—change, albeit one that needs to go much further and faster.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne oversaw COP26, which was the biggest summit that this country has ever hosted. It brought together 120 world leaders and over 38,000 key figures from Governments, civil society, businesses, youth and more, in order to tackle the urgent challenge of climate change. It is also worth noting that we have met all our carbon budgets to date and that we are the first major economy to legislate for net zero—done under this Government. So this country is more on track than almost any other country and certainly more than any major economy on earth. That is the context that people could be forgiven for not realising was in fact the case from the rather adolescent contribution of the Scottish National party spokesman. I will leave to one side any comments that the chairman of the Climate Change Committee has made about the Scottish Government’s performance in meeting their climate targets, because doing otherwise would be to descend to the level that the SNP spokesman stayed at throughout his speech.

[Barry Gardiner]

When the Minister says that this country is “more on track”, does that mean that we are “on track” or that we are just closer to being “on track” than anybody else?

[Graham Stuart]

That is an excellent question—we have exceeded every carbon budget to date. We not only have the net zero strategy but we had the net zero plan on 30 March, setting out how we will do it. Of course that stretches through to 2037. Not every aspect of the way in which we will fulfil that aim has been set out to date—people would not expect them to be 14 years before that date—but we are on track. What we have to do is make sure we stay on track. I would not try to represent to the House today anything other than the fact that it is an extremely challenging business to ensure that we continue on track. That is what we are working on flat-out.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne oversaw the publication of the British energy security strategy, which raised greatly the ambition set out in the net zero strategy, and since those documents came out the Government have continued to progress. In March, we published the Powering Up Britain package, which demonstrates that we are on track to reach net zero, and in the net zero growth plan we are bolstering delivery. That plan responds to the expert recommendations made in Mission Zero, the independent review of net zero, to which there has been reference in the debate, which explored how we can achieve net zero in the most pro-growth, pro-business way.

Our net zero ambition needs strong public and private partnership, and we are forging these links in a number of ways. Government policy and funding commitments are already leading to real outcomes, and we are leading the world in so many ways, not just on offshore wind.

The Government are committed to accelerating renewable electricity deployment. The Powering Up Britain package sets out our delivery plans for meeting those ambitions. It includes important announcements on a range of technologies, including up to £160 million of new funding to kick-start our investment in port infrastructure to deliver on our floating offshore wind ambitions, which were referred to earlier, and a new solar taskforce to drive deployment of that important technology as we seek to increase that fivefold by 2035. We launched the taskforce on 25 May, getting key players from Government, industry, regulatory organisations and other relevant organisations round the table to drive forward the actions required to deliver that ambition of deploying 70 GW of domestic and industrial rooftop and ground-mounted solar by 2035, all while cutting installation costs, boosting British skills and jobs, and improving grid access to support a solar power revolution.

[Barry Gardiner]

The Minister rightly refers to the need to improve our electricity supply from solar. Has he looked at the interconnection that is proposed from Morocco to come in at the Hinkley juncture? Are he and the Department now considering a contract for difference, which would enable that contract to go ahead?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are looking at the Xlinks project. We have set up a team to look at it with no further commitment other than to make an assessment. It will be reporting to me shortly on that. We will look at the outline business case going forward. We are looking at it; I do not want to go further—positively or negatively—than saying that.