Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

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

[Dr Whitehead]

No, in line with the IEA and the IPCC, I am not in favour of new exploration licences. The point is that, in a declining market, Norwegian supply will continue to be very substantial, even if no new exploration licences are granted in Norway.

The figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is almost right —the actual figure is 34%. The United Kingdom supplies 38% of its own gas, with the United States supplying 14%, Qatar supplying 9% and other countries supplying smaller amounts. Norway already occupies a very substantial position in our present gas supplies, and I am sure it will continue to do so.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be useful to remind Conservative Members that, according to the UN production gap report, Governments are already planning for their existing developments to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with keeping global heating to 1.5°C or below? The idea that anyone can have vast new developments is not compatible with keeping below our climate target.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. New licences are an international issue. If we had new exploration licences around the world, we would simply produce far more oil and gas than is compatible with the 1.5° climate target. We should just keep it in the ground.

Finally, amendment 21 would go some way towards correcting another element of the carbon intensity test. As currently drafted—the Minister will want to listen to this bit—the test will not take account of methane emissions, which is a serious flaw. The whole case for comparing UK-based natural gas with LNG is based only on production emissions. The emission of methane at various stages of the production and transportation of LNG is, in aggregate, worse than the emissions of UK-produced and piped natural gas, but they are not carbon dioxide emissions, which is what the Bill says should be measured.

LNG’s potential carbon dioxide emissions upon burning are roughly the same as, or perhaps slightly greater than, the carbon dioxide emissions from UK natural gas. As the right hon. Member for Reading West said, that is elevated by the current UK practice of flaring surplus gas, which can be measured in carbon dioxide emissions.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over 20-year and 100-year timeframes. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is shorter than the lifetime of CO₂, but its impact is far more significant. The Climate Change Act 2008 is quite specific on how this should be measured. Section 93, which the Bill mentions but does not act on, states that

“greenhouse gas emissions…and removals of greenhouse gas from the atmosphere shall be measured or calculated in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.”

Proposed new section 4ZB(1) of the Petroleum Act 1998 mentions the carbon intensity of natural gas, but proposed new subsection (3) defines “carbon intensity” as

“the carbon dioxide emissions attributable to its production”.

But carbon dioxide emissions in production are not the principal concern here, as the gas has not been burned at that point. Indeed, I can conceive of smart climate lawyers challenging the test’s validity on precisely that point. The Minister might therefore see amendment 21 as providing a vital lifeline to the integrity of his Bill. To that extent, the amendment might be seen as helpful, but I somehow doubt that he will take it up. To coin a phrase, “It’s the methane, stupid.” The Bill should say so.

Proposed new section 4ZB(4) already gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the carbon intensity test to include emissions other than carbon dioxide. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will shortly take that up to save the test. We can anticipate a fairly amusing statutory instrument debate when he tries to do that.

Amendment 21 would simply require the Government to produce a report analysing what the impact of that change will be. In the spirit of trying to improve a Bill that, by design, is fairly resistant to improvement, we welcome the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Reading West and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby).

The Climate Change Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have called for a ban on routine flaring and venting, and such a ban is long overdue. A marine spatial prioritisation policy would help to organise and plan an optimal long-term, low-carbon economic strategy for the North sea.

There is clearly significant strength of feeling across the Committee that this is an inadequate Bill, and some of the proposed tests could undoubtedly make a bad Bill a little better, although some of those tests have internal problems. We would not want to vote against those tests, but the only comprehensive climate change and net zero compatible test is the one that we and, in principle, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) have set out. It is the best available route, within a severely constrained process, to align this deeply flawed Bill with our essential energy security and climate change priorities.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

Report stage
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister is quite right: the Bill has been with us for rather a long time. I am personally delighted that it is before us this afternoon, but we need to remember that Second Reading was over a year ago, in July 2022, in another place. The Bill has survived four Secretaries of State and two Departments in its passage through the House, so it certainly should be an improved Bill by now. I am concerned, however, that the long passage of the Bill to the statute book has had a real effect on investors and various other people seeking to invest in the low-carbon economy. We should not forget that.

What is this Bill about? As the Minister has said, it is essentially about the decarbonisation of the energy system and making that system fit for net zero. It is, overwhelmingly, a Bill that enables that decarbonisation to take place, and it has been described in a number of instances as a “green plumbing” Bill, which I think is not a bad description. It provides the necessary mechanisms and the details of how we will reach our targets in a variety of areas, as the Minister said: on hydrogen, on carbon capture and storage, on licensing, on the introduction of an independent system operator—which is very important to good construction—on low-carbon heat schemes, on district heating, on energy-saving appliances, and on fusion power. It also makes a number of regulation changes in relation to civil nuclear decommissioning and oil and gas management. It is, moreover, a Bill that the Opposition have welcomed, both for its extent and for its “green plumbing” activities. We were supportive of its measures in Committee, while also tabling amendments that we thought would strengthen its approach. Indeed, the Government have inserted some of them in the Bill, with very slight changes, and we welcome that as well.

However, in my view the Bill is incomplete and unsatisfactory, given its ambition as a green decarbonisation Bill, in that it fails to complete the three tests, or tasks, that are necessary to provide the clarity and consistency that would ensure that the policy will deliver what is claimed. Those tests are these. First, what are the targets for a policy, and how firm are they? Secondly, what are the technical means whereby the proposed targets can be actioned? Thirdly, what is the plan, both financially and procedurally, to make the targets real and not just hot-air aspirations? It is essential to the process of energy decarbonisation for all three of those tests to be in the Bill as we proceed against very tight timescales and immense challenges of implementation.

In some instances, the Bill has succeeded in that regard. The Government’s targets were set out in a number of documents on clean energy, such as the energy security strategy and the 2020 Energy White Paper. Indeed, in a number of instances, the targets contained in those documents have been substantially added to in the Bill. For example, the target of 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production by 2030 has been underpinned by the clauses relating to such matters as hydrogen levy management procedures. I applaud the Government’s change of heart on the hydrogen levy. Although a number of Committee members knowingly voted the wrong way, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the Government have put that right now. We would have liked to see them go a little further with a clear statement that the money would come from the Consolidated Fund, but we will live with the change that they have undertaken to make. I think we can count that as both a win for our pressure on the Bill and a win for the Bill itself.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree that those three tests for decarbonisation make a lot of sense, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as targets for some of the good stuff, we need to see the Government stop doing the bad stuff? In this case, the bad stuff is more and more new licences for oil and gas in the North sea. Would Labour support my amendment, which would see an end to the MER rule on maximising the economic recovery of petroleum and replace it with a just transition to a greener economy? As long as we have a statutory duty to maximise the economic recovery of oil and gas, it does not matter how many targets we have on renewables, because we will not meet the targets that we need to meet.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do not think it would be appropriate for me to indicate exactly which amendments from various Members we might or might not support, and it would take a great deal of time for me to do so, but the hon. Member will recall that we tabled an amendment on maximum economic recovery in Committee. I think she can take from that that, broadly speaking, we support the principle of “stop doing the bad things and start doing the good things”. Whether the detail of her new clause fits exactly with that picture is another matter, but I hope she can take some encouragement from that.

Energy Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, there are companies in the UK, such as Ecotricity, which have not exactly involved themselves in crowd funding, but have engaged in bond arrangements for the development of their low-carbon power. Even if such a source of funding is available, if the deal for the subsequent sale of the energy is so disadvantaged by a contract for purchase that shaves off the reference price or makes arrangements that are extremely disadvantageous to the ability of that company to sell its energy into the market—while at the same time those potential purchasing companies take advantage of their vertical integration by providing routes to market for their own generation at different costs and under different arrangements—the future market will be very distorted indeed.

I welcome the Minister’s saying that the issue is being actively considered, that he understands the problem at the heart of the GPAM proposals, and that he is actively in dialogue with industry on possible routes to solutions. I look forward to proposals in another place to address the issues. It is essential that they are addressed before the Bill completes its passage, so that the market that we produce as a result of CFDs is fair for those participating in it and produces the varied and pluralistic market that we want for electricity generation, particularly low-carbon energy generation, in the future.

[Caroline Lucas]

I want to say a few words about the amendments in my name, starting with new clause 2, which deals with the strategy for electricity demand reduction. The clause sets a clear ambition for 2020 and 2030, using figures published by DECC, alongside the electricity demand reduction consultation, and requires the Secretary of State to have policies that get us there.

I was a little disappointed that, in response to the amendments that I have tabled, the Minister on many occasions indicated warm sympathy but not action to achieve the aims. Willing the ends but not the means creates a nice warm fuzzy feeling, but does not change the menu of targets and strategies before us. That particularly matters when it comes to electricity demand reduction, because there is so much scope for doing so much more in this area. No matter how sympathetic we feel to that aim, however, unless the legislation is in place, we do not have the clarity, certainty or confidence that action will be taken. We have seen all too often how, in the absence of firm targets and strategies, Governments fail to put in place adequate polices or resources to achieve things. My worry is that in many respects elements of the Bill are more like a wish list than a strategy.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

We discussed this matter in Committee, so I know that the Minister and I do not agree. I still do not think that the measures under the green deal will be significantly subsidised. I agree that we have the ECO pot of money for the fuel poor and hard-to-treat homes, but the figures that have been discussed in respect of the ECO are about £1 billion to £2 billion, which is a small amount given that we hope there will be mass take-up of the green deal. Most people who take up green deal provisions will therefore not feel that they are being significantly subsidised. I still do not agree with the Minister that this proposal will in its current form be attractive enough.

[Dr Whitehead]

In the light of the Minister’s intervention, the hon. Lady might want to point out to him that the logical consequence of setting a market rate in respect of the green deal and the golden rule is that a significant proportion of those who cannot access the green deal at a market rate will be pushed into the ECO. That underlines the point made earlier about the purpose of the ECO: is it a fuel poverty device, or is it a device to mop up, as it were, those people who cannot afford the green deal at a market rate, which the Minister appears to think is the case? If it is the case, perhaps it ought to be clearly spelled out in our discussion.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am extremely grateful for that helpful intervention. It focuses on some of the contradictions in respect of the purpose of the ECO, and I hope that in this debate we can make clear what exactly the ECO will be for, how big it is going to be, the extent to which it is intended to subsidise those who are in genuine fuel poverty, the extent to which it is intended to subsidise those who cannot afford market interest rates, and the extent to which it is for hard-to-heat homes. There is a lack of clarity, and I worry that ECO is being used as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, in that whenever there is a difficult question, the ECO tends to be the answer. There simply is not enough money in the ECO for it to be the answer, however. The financial community has much less appetite than has been suggested for providing affordable green deal finance, which is why the green investment bank must step in.

As Members may remember, on Second Reading the Secretary of State quoted Conor Hennebry, director of global capital markets at Deutsche Bank, as having said that

“‘the City is practically champing at the bit to finance the government’s green deal.’”—[Official Report, 10 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 1059.]

That sounds very good, but the Secretary of State failed to add that Mr Hennebry went on to say:

“Financing the green deal is absolutely possible for us”—

the City—

“but whether the figures will stack up for you is a different matter.”

That is the crux of the issue: will the figures stack up in respect of rolling out this programme as widely as possible? I do not think they will. It is not at all clear that the figures will stack up for householders, unless there is Government support through either the green investment bank or the ECO. If the ECO is to be used, that is fine, but we must make it an awful lot larger and make its provisions a lot clearer.

No matter what interest rate is applied to the loans, it is vital that consumers have confidence that their rights will be protected if they take up a green deal offer, and I seek to strengthen those protections in amendments 26, 49 and 50. Amendment 26 would ensure that only products and services that reduce household emissions could be sold during green deal assessments and installation visits. Amendment 49 would ensure that consumer protections on the repayment of a green deal loan are extended to energy advice services or energy plans that are not specifically green deal plans. Amendment 50 would ensure that the Secretary of State can make regulations to ensure that quotes provided for green deal goods and services are easily comparable.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I entirely disagree. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been at a meeting with representatives of the solar industry that took place a few days ago in Portcullis House. We were shown presentations by Ernst and Young and others which demonstrated that if a small amount is invested now, solar energy will be able to compete with all fossil fuels and with nuclear power in four or five years.

Although an improved carbon floor price mechanism could help to deliver a less carbon-intensive energy sector, it is important for the Government not to see it as a “silver bullet” solution. Other stronger levers, such as a well managed—I underline “well managed”—feed-in tariff regime and a strong emissions performance standard must also be part of the overall picture. Sadly, however, the Government are falling short in those respects as well. I should like them to devote at least as much effort to stepping up their work at EU level to ensure that the next phase of the EU emissions trading scheme is much more effective than the current phase. The recent collapse in the cost of EU carbon allowances under the scheme is clear evidence of their over-allocation, and the shortcomings of the scheme are becoming increasingly obvious.

I should also like the Government to work with European partners to ensure that, as a minimum, allowances are in line with the policy of cutting EU emissions by between 80% and 95% by 2050, as agreed by member states; that allowances cannot be banked from the second phase of the EU ETS into the third phase; and that a reserve price is set on the auction of permits into the market. Any permits that the market does not want to buy at the reserve price or more should be retired from the scheme.

I urge the Government to undertake to produce the report for which the amendment calls, and to take the opportunity to show how the benefits of a carbon floor price can be maximised and any unintended consequences eliminated. If the carbon floor price is to be effective, we need a tax on the windfall profits of the nuclear industry, along with flanking measures to ensure that those in fuel poverty do not suffer as a result of this policy.

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

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has already suggested that those in favour of a carbon floor price should explain how it could be introduced in a different way from that proposed by the Government. I imagine that she will return to that subject at the end of the debate, but I suggest that she need only look at her own consultation document, which led to the amount that has been established and the mechanism by which the floor price works.

The consultation document posited a £1 difference between a Europe emissions trading scheme and a carbon floor price, certainly in respect of the starting period. It also warned about how far away from that £1 difference a floor price might go and what might happen to energy prices in the rest of Europe. As people who contributed to that consultation document suggested, because our energy supply is highly interconnected with that of Europe, a substantial difference could lead to investment going to where the sale price is cheaper, with, perhaps, new gas-fired power stations being developed on the other end of an interconnector rather than lower-carbon power stations being developed at our end of an interconnector.

Offshore Wind Infrastructure Competition

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Alan Whitehead

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree that Government acting as a catalyst—I mentioned pump-priming—is vital, not by providing underwriting and a subsidy for ever, but by priming the process whereby, precisely as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, manufacturing brings about the added value that I am certain will be part of the process in a relatively short time.

It is important that the pump-priming process remains in place, giving the manufacturers confidence that there is a future for them in the UK and that the plans for getting the supply chain in the UK right for wind are serious. However, the announcement of the competition, archived on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website, has, subsequent to its initial appearance, had this message affixed to it:

“Current policy under review. Site will be updated as soon as we have a clearer view of the new Government’s policy”.

That is it, in a nutshell. Will the competition now proceed? My view is that for all the reasons that I have outlined, it is imperative that it does. Cancellation or even a delay of the competition would seriously hamper the development of the infrastructure necessary to make what all sides are committed to, start to work in practice.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the funding is cut, that will show that the coalition Government have little or no real understanding of the returns to the economy and the environment from maintaining investor confidence in green initiatives such as offshore wind infrastructure, and that their savage spending cuts are causing uncertainty for people living near ports such as Newhaven, just up the coast from my constituency? Does he share—