Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

May I just add a few brief comments? I endorse what my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have said.

I speak from a position of considerable ignorance. I used to know quite a lot about this but I know much less now. However, it seems that everyone is agreed that future fields will not be allowed to flare and vent and are not planning to flare and vent. So the first subsection of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1 would legislate for something that is going to happen anyway.

However, the second proposed new subsection says that we should not allow any new fields until old fields have been prevented flaring. I do not see the relevance of the connection between the two. If we can stop old fields flaring and venting, we ought to. If we cannot, that is a problem, but what has it got to do with new fields, which will not flare and vent? Unless we have some explanation from the backers of this amendment of why they are linking the two, I cannot see why we should support it.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of all the amendments in this group.

I start with the first amendment, which is in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Blake of Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I have also put my name to it and support it. The amendment comes out of Alok Sharma’s amendment in the Commons; it was the one amendment that the Minister in the other place said the Government were prepared to go away and look at.

I take the points that have been made about what has been achieved under a voluntary mechanism. I also recognise that the new oil fields do not have this, but I would like to hear from the Minister and get a response from the Government as a productive one was not really given in the Commons. This is a real issue that needs looking at, and the Government may have real concerns about bringing this measure in for old fields.

My understanding is that some of this can be done by replacing methane with compressed air, et cetera. If there are concerns, I would like to hear them because, as we have heard, methane is 80 times more potent over 20 years than carbon dioxide. It is a huge greenhouse gas and the Government have signed up to the 2030 commitment to reduce it; indeed, the UK leads the world in some of these respects. So it would be good to see stricter regulations written in.

Progress has been made. The Government have committed to zero venting and flaring by 2030. Already, a near 50% reduction in flaring since 2018 has been achieved, but to put that in perspective, Norway banned venting and flaring in 1971, which is the year I was born. This is not rocket science; it is not difficult to achieve. While I recognise that progress has been made, I am 52 now, so we are 52 years behind Norway. These are powerful greenhouse gases, so we are waiting for this voluntary system to come in, but we need to take action: we need action at speed, at pace, to make sure that these things happen. I want to hear from the Minister whether he has ideas about how that can be done.

I recognise as well that the NSTA guidance currently states that there should be none for new developments and it should be phased out by 2030. However, the problem with this is that the enforcement is patchy and 2030 is still a long way off. It is a long time for us to be letting out these extremely powerful greenhouse gases, so I think something should be done at scale and speed to make that happen.

The Government argued throughout this Bill that they want to give the industry certainty, and that is one of the underlying themes behind the need to put forward these measures. My question to the Minister is why we are not doing that on venting and flaring. If this is about certainty for industry, and this involves industry having to invest to change and adapt, why are we not giving a clear steer—clear guidance, clear timetables—on the intention to do this? That would seem to be the sensible thing to do and the thing that industry would welcome the Government doing, so I call on the Government to do that and I support the amendment. I thank everybody who has spoken to it.

My Amendment 6 is a simple amendment replacing one word with another. It replaces “must” with “may”, but it goes to the very heart of the Bill. The story is that the Bill was cooked up over a boozy lunch as a way of dividing the Opposition. Who knows whether that is true or not but, if our energy crisis and energy security could be resolved by a two-clause Bill, I suspect that somebody might have done it before and that it would not have magically appeared when nobody else had managed to do it.

The Bill actually says that there is a duty to invite applications. I listened to all the debate in the Commons as part of my preparation for the Bill, partly because I am new to this place and am a bit sad, sitting there on the weekends, but I felt that this point was missed in the Commons, which is why I tabled this amendment. Having spoken to colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I kindly ask the Government to look at this probing amendment, because it is important to understand their motivations. They are putting this legislation forward, taking parliamentary time, telling us that it does things that are needed and are important, and I had to ask the House of Lords Library for a special briefing on the Bill because I was frankly astounded that it could be passed and never again would another North Sea oil or gas licence be agreed. How do these two things happen?

The Government are telling me that this is resolving our energy security and providing certainty, yet the Bill can pass and another licence can never be granted. I am confused about what the Bill actually does and have put forward this amendment in the hope that there is substance in the Bill and it is not just an attempt to divide the Opposition and destroy the consensus that existed on climate change. This is so important not just to the way we work here or in the other place but to the message that we send to the people of this country as we transition. We had the chief executive of the CCC on Laura Kuenssberg this weekend and have heard Alok Sharma; the Government have had resignations and this Bill has damaged our international reputation.

It is important that we understand what the Bill does if we are selling our international reputation for it. What does it do? What is the point of it and what does it achieve? My amendment is really an attempt to figure that out. That is why I have included it and I will question the Minister on that.

My Amendment 7 would mean that only companies that have publicly stated that they will invest in the green economy half the profits derived from winning an application can be invited to apply. I point out that 50% is a random figure—we can amend and debate that—but I believe in the green transition and in the need to protect these jobs. I believe in a just transition and that these things are extremely complicated. I also recognise that we will continue to have some dependence on oil and gas as we transition to net zero, not just for our energy needs but for lubrication and other industrial purposes.

I recognise that we will have oil and gas licences, but we must act at scale and speed to disinvest from oil and gas. We must leave as much of this stuff in the ground as we can. Once it is extracted, it may not count towards our net-zero targets, but it will for some other country after it has been sold on the international market, as 80% of it will be. It will be burned. We live on one planet and have one atmosphere. Emissions go somewhere and they will affect us. The idea that the Bill does no harm is not correct; it has consequences. A lot of oil and gas companies do not invest in the green economy in the North Sea, and they should. This amendment is simply an attempt to lay down a marker.

My Amendment 8 would mean that

“the OGA cannot invite nor accept an application for a seaward area production licence from a Russian oil and gas company”.

This point was raised by Richard Foord in the other place. It is my understanding that one Russian oil or gas company has a licence in the North Sea, when we have a war in Ukraine and continued threats to our European security. The Minister spoke quite clearly at Second Reading about the Bill providing for our energy security, but these Benches have questioned that because 80% of our oil goes into the international market.

This is a simple, clear, straightforward amendment that does what it says on the tin. If we are concerned about energy security, why are we allowing Russian oil and gas companies to bid for, win and run licences to extract our oil and gas, put it on the international market and perhaps even sell it back to us? The Government would then have to subsidise bill payers with billions of pounds to pay for it, in a vicious circle that helps no one. This amendment is clear, and I would like it to be agreed to.

Of the other amendments, I strongly support Amendment 9 on a marine spatial strategy. It is extremely important, and it is important that we plan for the future. If we are to have new oil and gas licences, it is important that we do not rule out the ability to have other green energy. I also support Amendment 10 in this group, but I apologise for getting a bit carried away and going over my time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 4 and 19, but I also want to say that I very much enjoyed the introduction to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. He said that this is a very damaging Bill, and that is absolutely true—but what offends me so deeply is that it is so old fashioned and out of date. It does not take into account any of the science that has happened over the past 10 years. But luckily, these amendments expose the falsehoods that have been told by the Government in attempting to justify new fossil fuel extraction in the midst of a climate crisis.

First, the Government are deluded in saying that new oil and gas licences can in any way be compatible with delivering our climate targets. That is impossible. Secondly, they are deluded in thinking that propping up the oil and gas industry can possibly be in the interests of workers—and doing that rather than genuinely engaging with the need for a just transition and the practicalities of how that can be delivered. Thirdly, they are deluded in thinking that new oil and gas extraction will do anything to reduce domestic energy costs rather than be exported on the world market to the highest bidder.

Amendments 3 and 8 would establish a climate test, which is very necessary. The UN Production Gap Report has warned that the worlds’ Governments already plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. The IPC’s sixth assessment report was clear that

“projected CO₂ emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5 degrees centigrade”.

Closer to home, the Climate Change Committee observed in its latest progress report that

“expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero”.

Regardless of the claims from some people, possibly on the opposite Benches, that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas up to 2050, again to use the words of the Climate Change Committee,

“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.

The issuance of new fossil fuel extraction licences will directly contribute towards global heating. The Government will not accept a climate test in this Bill, because they know that new oil and gas is incompatible with a safe climate. If the Minister would like to hear more about this, I would be very happy to meet him and explain it as simply as I possibly can.

My Amendments 4 and 19 set out the just transition test. It is ironic that this Government try so hard to invoke the destruction of working-class communities by the Thatcher Government when they attempt to use oil and gas workers as an excuse to continue pumping new oil and gas, which will further inflame the climate emergency and actually make life harder and harder for people. The choice that we are facing is between a managed and fair worker-led transition now, or chaos later, when the reality of the planet crisis bites even more fiercely. Without serious plans for a just transition, communities will once again be left behind and hollowed out as a result of Conservative policy.

This proposal would require just transition plans for the North Sea workforce that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees centigrade. It specifies that these 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 even self-employed—which is vital, given the heavy casualisation in the oil and gas workforce. This amendment will 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. We have to do this—we absolutely must, if we care about people and their work.

So, rather than propping up jobs that we know will not exist in the future, the Government should be actively supporting workers to transition out of the oil and gas sectors while also addressing their very real concerns—such as around the cost of retraining, which is often borne by workers themselves. The failure to deliver a just transition is not inevitable; it is a political choice. If the Government were 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 to a green future.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 5 and 17, which would introduce a cost of living and consumer energy price test that the OGA must conduct before inviting applications for seaward area production licences. The cost of living and consumer energy price test is met in relation to a relevant year if the production of domestic natural gas will clearly, first, lower energy prices and, secondly, reduce the cost of living.

Originally, as was alluded to, the Minister in the other place claimed that this Bill would reduce energy prices but very quickly had to retract that statement from the public domain. My question is: why are we passing this Bill if it will not have any impact at all on reducing the cost of energy bills for consumers? Some 80% of all the natural oil and gas here will be exported. As we have heard, the Bill will do little, if anything, to help our energy security, protect jobs, transition and help the green economy, which is the energy of the future. Instead, we are investing in the energies of the past, and that investment seems to bear few benefits for people or the planet.

We are already seeing individuals with record debt for their energy prices. We have seen the war in Ukraine and the spike in energy prices. As long as we as a country continue not to invest in energy efficiency or renewables and continue to be dependent on the international energy markets, we will continue to suffer as those markets fluctuate. The Government themselves have had to invest £7 billion in subsidising energy bills—in effect, a continued and added subsidy to the oil and gas companies on top of the tax breaks that they already have. We have the most expensive energy prices in Europe so this amendment simply seeks to put in a test where the cost of energy to consumers should be considered.

On the other amendments in this group, Amendments 3 and 18 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, would apply a climate change test. I fully support applying a climate change test. The question I would put to the noble Lord, in relation to these specific amendments, concerns asking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whether it is set up and in the best position to conduct that particular test for us as an individual country. I suggest that, if we want a climate change test, it might be better for the UK’s own Climate Change Committee to pass a judgment on whether that test could be met.

Finally, on to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, although we on this side recognise that we will continue to have some oil and gas as part of our energy mix—even under net zero—we want to see a move to a just transition. I welcome this amendment as an attempt to do that.

However, the amendment is slightly ill defined. I would rather see that transition come about through the profits from the extraction of this energy being directly allocated to the green economy. So, while I welcome the amendment and we do not oppose it, my personal view is that that is a more efficient way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

All the amendments I have tabled here reveal the scam that is absolutely built into this Bill—it is really offensive to the general public—because this carbon intensity test has been deliberately drafted so that UK oil and gas are always deemed to be low carbon, as compared to international comparisons. So there will never be any limit to the number of oil and gas licences issued. My Amendment 11 probes why the Government have chosen to apply the carbon intensity test only to natural gas. It is our first example of how the Government are fudging the numbers with egregious greenwashing.

Why is the carbon intensity of crude oil being ignored in the Government’s test? The answer is obvious: oil is more carbon intensive than gas and the North Sea produces far more oil than gas, making North Sea production more carbon intensive than most of the countries we import oil and gas from. So the Government fiddle the numbers by ignoring oil altogether, thereby making North Sea extraction look like it is somehow tackling climate change rather than pumping even more carbon into the atmosphere and making it ever harder to reach net zero.

The second part of the scam is that the Government do not compare like with like. Despite the fact that most of our imported gas comes via pipeline from Norway, which has less than half the carbon intensity of UK oil and gas, the Bill compares the UK’s gas with liquefied natural gas. LNG is almost four times as carbon intensive as a UK gas and almost 10 times as carbon intensive as gas from Norway because of the processing necessary to liquify, import and regasify the LNG. By comparing UK production with imported LNG instead of all natural gas imports, the Government have added another layer to this dubious test that will green-light new oil and gas licences for decades to come.

The Government have drafted this Bill at an extremely well liquified dinner—if my guess is right—to exclude the bulk of UK oil from the equation, despite oil being the most carbon-intensive component of North Sea production. It is an absolutely outrageous piece of draftsmanship, and yet another example of this Government legislating against reality to create whatever legal conditions are required to force through government policy.

Taken together, my amendments will ensure that the carbon intensity test compares like for like. The amended carbon intensity test will compare all UK oil and gas production with their equivalent imports and include all relevant processes for the extraction, transportation and delivery of oil and gas in usable form to its final customer. I hope that all noble Lords will agree that, if a carbon intensity test is to be used, it must properly assess the carbon intensity of North Sea oil and gas relative to their imported equivalents. It is essential to amend with the Bill along the lines that I propose. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I speak in favour of the amendments in this group. They all relate to the two tests in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said. The LPG and the UK net importer test are both one-way gates, where the answer is always yes. That is not good enough. There needs to be a proper test that counts the carbon cost of doing these things.

My slight issue with this is that a lot of the amendments in this group are not in scope in this very short, almost Private Member’s Bill-type of legislation. Inevitably, the amendments were gathered around the little bits that are in scope in the Bill to be amended. From our side’s point of view, there are lots of amendments seeking to change these tests. I am not minded to say which is the best amendment to take forward. From our side of the Room, some thought should be given to coalescing around one of those tests. I am happy to support that, but we need to go away and do some thinking to get a unified position.

On the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to remove Clause 1, if that were to be pushed to a vote, I would be prepared to support it. The Minister makes a lot of grand claims for this Bill. In his summing up, he keeps saying that the granting of licences do X, Y and Z. That may well be true, but nothing in the Bill commits to anyone granting any licences. The only thing that the legislation does is to say that there should be tenders. The joined-up logic that the Minister is giving us for the Bill does not, in point of fact, bear relevance, because it could be passed but no licences ever granted again. Equally, we could continue to have licences every year without this Bill.

The Bill does little other than to drive a wedge between us and our commitments to protect the environment, and serves as a way in which to politicise this issue in the run-up to the election. That is all I have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

20: Clause 2, page 3, line 25, leave out “Scotland”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Act does not extend to Scotland.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, as these amendments are pretty straightforward. I recognise that the amendment would have an impact on the Bill but against that, it must be said that Scotland has provided the UK with lots of North Sea oil and gas and very little is coming back to Scotland. There is no allocation of money for the green transition and no commitment to the green transition—nothing flows back to Scotland. There is no protection for the workers; not a single penny that is generated from this extra extraction of North Sea gas and oil is in any way directly allocated to come back to the people of Scotland or to their industry.

The other amendment in my name would delay the implementation of the Act until 1 September 2025. To my mind, the Bill is not really properly put together; it is not properly worked out or part of a full and coherent energy strategy. Everyone on this side of the Room has recognised that we will continue to be dependent on oil and gas, even under net zero—but there is no coherent, conjoined or constructive strategy for providing energy security or lots of the things that are claimed in the Bill. For that reason, there are good and sound reasons for arguing for the implementation of the Bill to be delayed. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

In our view, it therefore makes sense to provide certainty for our oil and gas industry, to help to utilise those domestic resources and to continue the transition to net zero. I thank noble Lords for their attention and I hope they will feel able not to press their amendments on the basis of the reassurances that I have been able to give.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. Of course I recognise what the Minister has said to me, but my understanding is that all the Bill does is require an annual tendering for licences to take place. While I recognise a lot of the sentiment and the answers that the Minister has given me, I do not feel that the consequences flow just from not having an annual tender for licences for Scotland. We could still have licences granted every year if the Bill was not in place.

I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, for his contribution. Again, I do not see how it was my intention to remove in any way the whole of Scotland from the renewables debate, and I am not aware that this is a consequence of my amendment, but I will of course go away and have a look at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 20 withdrawn.