Great British Energy Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and the Green group of MPs is pleased to back this Bill. I will be speaking in support of new clauses 2 and 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), which are designed to make the Bill even stronger. The new clauses would create a new nature recovery duty for Great British Energy and prevent investments that increase climate emissions.

I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) for her statement of support for my hon. Friend’s work and for making the Bill better for nature recovery. I also thank her for her proposals on insulation and community energy, which we support. All those things are vital for the Bill’s success.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

If nature recovery is to be important in the Government’s present drive, does the hon. Member accept that renewable energy has been destructive of nature? Some 17 million trees have been cut down in Scotland to facilitate windmills. Now, there are studies indicating that offshore wind is leading to dead porpoises, dead dolphins and dead whales being washed up on beaches because of the effects of drilling.

[Siân Berry]

I do not agree with all the assertions that the right hon. Member makes, but the duty is intended precisely to ensure that every single project would have a positive impact on nature. Under new clause 3, they would all be renewable projects.

The nature recovery duty under new clause 2 would help GB Energy invest only in projects that deliver significant biodiversity benefits and meet targets under the Environment Act 2021, by building nature-friendly design features into renewable energy projects and creating and restoring habitats on development sites in and around clean energy infrastructure.

The Bill Committee heard from Shaun Spiers of Green Alliance, who made a strong case for a nature recovery duty being created for GB Energy. The ensuing discussion saw the Crown Estate used as an example for how a public body could deliver for nature without having a statutory duty to do so. However, the Crown Estate is a highly relevant case study that demonstrates why non-statutory duties are not enough. The Crown Estate’s lack of a statutory duty to consider nature in its own decision making has led to its involvement in a number of environmentally damaging schemes.

For example, let us consider mining proposals in the Sperrin mountains area of outstanding natural beauty in Northern Ireland. The Crown Estate entered into an initial mineral extraction agreement with a mining company there in 2016, leading to proposals for goldmining. That has provoked significant environmental concern about harmful chemicals and waste from mining operations polluting nearby rivers and degrading the surrounding AONB. An application was submitted in 2017 and is now subject to a public inquiry, following nearly 40,000 objections from local people. So an abundance of warm words about protecting and conserving the environment, and about the Crown Estate’s status as a public body, did not inhibit it from playing a role in a project that threatens nature.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland and particularly the Sperrin mountains, which is an area of great natural beauty. It has many features, including wildlife and wild uplands, but it has been industrialised. I took a motorbike journey around the area three weeks ago, and there are hundreds of huge wind turbines. The peat has been dug up, the landscape has been destroyed and thousands of birds are killed every year. What has happened in the Sperrin mountains is hardly a good example of renewable energy being nature-friendly.

[Siân Berry]

I am sure we can have those debates in the context of a statutory duty. These are important questions to consider.

I want to give some other examples of public bodies damaging nature, because they abound—from the granting of new oil and gas licences in marine protected areas by the North Sea Transition Authority, to Highways England pursuing damaging road construction projects on the edges of national parks. Without legal backing, nature considerations can be and are brushed aside.

There is no reason to think that Great British Energy, without a duty to consider nature recovery, will be any different. A statutory duty to deliver for nature’s recovery would be complementary to GB Energy’s other objectives around clean energy, energy efficiency and energy security. It would also reflect the Government’s manifesto commitment to tackle the interconnected nature and climate crises together. I hope the Government will carefully consider those arguments.

New clause 3, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley, is vital to guarantee that our energy investments are not only financially responsible but aligned with the legal requirement to reach net zero by 2050. As legislators, we have a duty to hold GB Energy accountable, preventing investments that will lock us into high-carbon energy pathways and undermine our net zero commitments. The new clause mandates environmental impact assessments before any investments are made, ensuring that each decision is grounded in evidence. It forces us to ask, “Will this investment push us at speed towards, or risk pulling us away from, our climate goals?” Publishing those assessments opens the process to public scrutiny—an essential principle in democracy. The public deserve to know exactly how their tax money is being used, particularly when it comes to funding projects that may exacerbate the climate crisis.

The new clause would also bar public money from being spent on fossil fuel and unsustainable high-carbon projects such as biomass. We cannot ignore the facts: Drax, the largest biomass-burning plant in the UK, emitted over 11 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2023. Worse still, it receives nearly £900 million in Government subsidies a year. If we allow investments in projects such as Drax or new fossil fuel infrastructure, we risk undermining the very goals we are trying to achieve. The new clause would close the door on such contradictions.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not the only danger. Methane is a greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ over a 20-year period. Methane emissions, often associated with fossil fuel extraction and agriculture, must be tightly controlled to ensure that the UK meets its climate commitments. The new clause would ensure that all climate emissions, including methane, are thoroughly assessed before any public investment is made. If we do not account for methane and other greenhouse gases, we risk underestimating the climate impact of certain energy projects, and particularly those related to natural gas production and transport.

Fossil fuel infrastructure does not just burn carbon; it locks us into long-term dependence on dirty energy. Every pound spent on high-carbon infrastructure makes it harder and more expensive to transition away from fossil fuels in the time that we have. This amendment ensures that we avoid that trap, by making it impossible for Great British Energy to invest in projects that would limit our ability to end our reliance on carbon-emitting technologies.

Great British Energy should also be a true trailblazer in the global transition to clean energy. The amendment strengthens that mission by making clear that only projects contributing to emissions reductions should receive investment. With countries around the world watching, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. A failure to act boldly now will leave us behind in the global race for climate leadership.

We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by further locking ourselves into harmful high-carbon infrastructure. These amendments reflect that. The stakes could not be higher. These decisions are about securing a liveable planet for future generations. I hope the Government will listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Bill’s job is to set up a new and unique public energy company, to work within the clear objects set out in clause 3(2)—not simply as an investment bank, but as part of a developing strategy for renewables across the UK.

Cornwall, where I am from, is set to benefit hugely from the investment from GB Energy into unblocking floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea, which will create jobs. Cornwall was post-industrial a long time ago, and we need the kind of investment that GB Energy can bring. We also have a strong local area energy plan, which is an integral part of Cornwall’s renewable energy offer. It has co-operative, community and local authority energy as part of that plan, and as a Co-operative MP I support the local power plan that the Government are proposing, which will be part of GB Energy. We could have partnerships for deep geothermal energy on council land, which would bring potential for partnerships with local authorities and others. In Cornwall we have had numerous community energy schemes, such as the one in Ladock at the end of last Labour Government, before the Conservatives cut the schemes and the feed-in tariffs. We could invest in infrastructure with GB Energy, in partnership with the Crown Estate, for the cables, the grid and, potentially, even the ports.

The Bill offers a huge opportunity. There is so much that GB Energy can do in future as part of a developing strategy to secure clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as it says in the Bill. As its ambitions and horizons expand, in partnership with the Crown Estate and others, so too must its object and its strategy be able to expand.

[Sammy Wilson]

I rise to support amendments 6 and 8. The Bill was promised in order to do a number of things. First, it was to reduce the cost of energy to consumers—during the election, the Government gave a specific promise that the reduction this year would be £300 per household. As others have said, and as the Government have accepted, that will not be delivered. That is not a great start. Secondly, it was going to deliver a certain number of jobs. Thirdly, it was going to deliver sustainable and clean energy, and energy security. The Government could argue that these things are in the Bill’s strategic objectives and priorities, but they are not. I do not believe that any of those things can be achieved, given the net zero strategy that we are pursuing.

Let us take the first claim: that costs for consumers would come down. We know that they will not come down this year, and given what needs to be done to deliver the strategy, huge costs will be imposed on consumers. We will turn our backs on a lot of the hard plans we already have in place, even though they are not defunct. We are going to build new power sources. Whether they are built by the state or by power companies, capital expenditure will be involved, and there will be a return on that capital. Who will give the return on that capital to the companies? It will be the consumers. We are going to build many of these power sources away from where people live, because the open areas for wind or solar are not beside centres of population.

We already know that putting in a totally new network will require a huge expenditure of billions—indeed, some have mentioned it here today. That will be costly and controversial. I have listened to Members today saying, “Oh, to ensure the lights are turned on and there is a supply of energy, my constituents will be quite happy to have huge pylons erected in their back gardens or down beside their houses.” Of course they won’t; it will be controversial. That is why the Government will have to change the planning system, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this debate would be much easier if the Committee on Climate Change had produced a year-by-year estimate of the costs of getting to net zero by 2050? The previous Government always promised to do a proper impact assessment on costs, but they never did. I believe that this Government should do that, so we can have an objective and evidence-based debate. Does he agree?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do agree. There have been variations on the cost, from £3 trillion to £10 trillion by 2050. Those Monopoly money figures mean nothing to people. Setting out the cost on a year-to-year basis, where people understand and Members who vote in this House understand what they are putting in front of their constituents by way of bills, would at least be honest. It would also mean there could be a proper debate.

I support amendment 6, which includes the price commitment. The second commitment was on jobs. We are told there will be 650,000 jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) who said that we cannot legislate for jobs. That is quite right. But if a promise is made about the job implications of a policy, there should be no fear of sticking it in the Bill. Not that the Government are going to produce those jobs; the companies are going to produce them. We could then measure that. If the Government cannot legislate for jobs, they should not promise that they are going to create 650,000 jobs, especially at a time when we know that jobs are being lost as a result of commitments relating to North sea oil and energy-efficient industries. The emissions trading scheme means that there is little or no investment in Grangemouth, for instance, and the place is going to close.

[Luke Murphy]

Successive Governments have made commitments on jobs, but can the right hon. Gentleman name any Government who have legislated for a jobs target? Can he specify a single Bill that has contained such a measure?

[Sammy Wilson]

As I have just said, it cannot be done. What I have said is that a Government should not make a promise if they believe that when the Bill in question is scrutinised, that promise will not be fulfilled—especially here, when it is known that the policy will cost jobs, and unions have already made that point.

I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) in respect of the impacts on nature. I come from one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom—the Antrim coast is famous for tourism—and I am already seeing the impact of net zero policies on the landscape and the flora and fauna of the Antrim plateau. When I look out of my window in the morning, there is the wind farm that has been erected on top of the plateau, which involved stripping off 3 metres of peat and destroying a bird habitat; every year these windmills chew up birds and bats. I have already mentioned the admission that 17 million trees had been cut down in Scottish forests, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was unfortunate to mention the Sperrins, another beautiful part of Northern Ireland of which I have some knowledge and which has been totally despoiled by hundreds of windmills.

Let us not pretend, then, that the policy of renewables is a green, clean policy, because it is not. Let us be honest: any energy production will require the extraction of fuels and materials from the earth, and that in itself will be destructive, so let us not describe it as nature-friendly or green. Let us just accept that what we need if we are to bring about economic growth and reduce the cost of living for our constituents is the cheapest, most available fuel that we can have. That will drive economic growth and decrease the cost of living, and that is the kind of energy policy that the Government ought to be following.

[Perran Moon]

The Conservatives are generally adamant that there very are few Labour Members with any business experience, so having spent more than 30 years in business—latterly in electric vehicle charging infrastructure—I was reassured to learn while listening to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) that there is at least one Conservative who is not a renewable-energy Luddite, and I am glad to see him back in his place. I wish that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) would spend a bit of time understanding a little more about geothermal energy, which does not require the wind to blow or the sun to shine.

I was honoured to be part of the Committee considering the Great British Energy Bill, a core plank of this Government’s policy programme whose benefits will be felt in every corner of the UK, including my own constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), for their diligent work on and defence of this transformational Bill. Let me also put on record my thanks not just to my right hon. and hon. Friends who sat on the Committee, but to other Members on both sides of the House who contributed to it.

I will refer to the amendments. In Committee we heard from experts and stakeholders, and we extensively debated the issues, from oversight to community benefit. Opposition Members who were on the Committee know that, because they were there. As I said when I made my maiden speech on Second Reading, my focus will be on using the opportunities of this Bill to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.

Renewable energy—onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal and solar—and critical minerals such as tin, lithium, tungsten and manganese are fundamental for our transition away from fossil fuels. There is no silver bullet; we need a mix of renewable energy, which will form part of our policy going forward. That is what GB Energy will give us the opportunity to do.

There are few areas of the UK where there is a greater distillation of renewable energy and critical mineral opportunities than in Cornwall. I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) about human rights and the opportunity to produce domestically an awful lot of the energy and the critical minerals that we currently import from places such as China, Indonesia, Australia and South America. As a result, there are extremely high expectations in Cornwall for local jobs in industries that support community initiatives and domestic supply chains in one of the most deprived areas of northern Europe.

Given the distillation of raw materials and natural resources in Cornwall, the fact that the new Centre for Critical Minerals, which will accelerate the move towards a green economy, opened very recently in Cornwall, and the fact that Exeter University, which has a campus in Penryn, has the largest number of top-100 climate scientists in the world, it will not come as a surprise to the Minister that I ask him to consider opening a satellite office for Great British Energy in Cornwall. They may not want it in Aberdeen, but we want it in Cornwall.

I support the Bill as it is. We discussed the amendments in Committee, and I look forward to the opportunities that this Bill will bring to the people of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle.

Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

My hon. Friend also speaks with customary eloquence on these issues. This is potentially an important part of the solution. We owe a debt to the workers at Port Talbot, and we must ensure that we leave no stone unturned in looking to the future. I look forward to continuing these discussions with him.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has boasted about spending £27 billion of public money on carbon capture and storage, and on promoting what he calls renewable energy. Does he feel any sense of irony in taking £27 billion from a financial black hole and putting it into a carbon-absorbing black hole? Does he not recognise that his own green policies are generating the very CO₂ he condemns? The Drax B power station needs American forests to be chopped down and brought halfway around the world to be burned, emitting CO₂, at a cost of £1 billion a year in subsidy.

In Northern Ireland, we are tearing up thousands of acres of pristine upland bogland to erect windmills, and Scotland has already cut down 17 million carbon-absorbing trees to make space for windmills. I know the Secretary of State is keen on modelling, but have his models told him how many carbon capture and storage facilities will be needed to offset the carbon impact of his green policies?

[Ed Miliband]

I will let the House into a secret: the conversation—if I can put it that way—between myself and the right hon. Gentleman goes back to 2008 or 2009, when he was shadowing me, so this is a long-running saga, and I fear I will not convince him. I disagree with him on so many levels that it is hard to listen. I respect his point of view, but I think we will not agree.

Great British Energy Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman surprises me; he is a brilliant set-up man, and he is welcome any time. I will now explain to him what state ownership will do. Here is why it is the right idea for our time. It is the right idea for energy security, because Great British Energy will invest in home-grown, clean energy that we control, and speed up its delivery. It is the right idea for jobs—this is the learning from all those other countries I mentioned—because Great British Energy will partner with the private sector to create jobs and make sure that we build the supply chains and jobs that the British people deserve.

It is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain. This is what I do not understand about the Conservative party, because state-owned companies from other countries are not investing in these assets as a charitable endeavour; they are doing so to generate wealth for their countries—wealth that flows back to their taxpayers. State ownership is the right idea for creating wealth for Britain, because Great British Energy, through its investments, will help generate return for the taxpayer. To answer the right hon. Gentleman directly, it is right for energy security, it is right for jobs, and it is right for creating wealth for our country.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I will not support this Bill tonight. The Secretary of State claims that it will put the British people in ownership of the renewable electricity supply market, but that market is estimated is £50 billion a year. He is proposing to invest £1.6 billion a year. Can he not see the difference that £1.6 billion will make to the overall investment? The infrastructure will still not be owned by the British people.

[Ed Miliband]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have a long history on these issues, which makes me rather old. Indeed, we used to spar about them 15 years ago. He is wrong about £1.6 billion; it is £8.3 billion of investment over the Parliament—a significant sum. Great British Energy will not become EDF overnight—of course not —but the point is that this Government believe in creating a lasting, long-term legacy for Britain, which is what GB Energy will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) on a really wonderful maiden speech. It is heartening to see how much love and passion she has for her adopted home in Cornwall—and who does not like Cornwall? I am sure her constituents will be tremendously well served by the passion we saw just now.

The Government must accept that the messaging around GB Energy was muddled at the very least during the election. It was almost as though it was rushed through as a manifesto headline, rather than resulting from the strategic development of careful, thought-out, optimised planning, but there we are. We understand that there will be limited co-production from the company, no retail arm and no public sector comparator role. It will be a provider that does not do much provision and a decider that does not make any decisions. Talk about net zero—there is zero detail in the Bill to give us an indication of what will actually happen on the ground. It was going to sell energy to the public, and then it was not. It was going to generate energy. Then it was not, and now it will again. I think we are still in that space.

I heard in the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that there has now been a modification to the brand: it is now GB Energy generating company. The “generating” bit has been shoehorned in there at the last minute to try to make it a little bit more believable. It that will not own any assets outright, but will make a return on the sale of energy from the wholesale market by the principal operator of the energy schemes it latches itself on to. Well, I can see why the Labour part never put that on a leaflet—goodness me. Why is it not considered a Government trading fund? It is not a company; it is a Government trading fund that they are branding as a company. It absolutely meets all the criteria of the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, so it would be interesting to know why that is.

I do not doubt the Secretary of State’s commitment in this area. I have seen it over the past five years. I am sorry that his initial, much more ambitious plans for £28 billion have been torpedoed by the Treasury and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If he is feeling sorry for himself, he can speak to the millions of pensioners around these islands whose ambitions for the future have also been torpedoed by the Chancellor and the Treasury.

On a substantive note about the lack of detail in the Bill, it is a great pity that the Government want us to believe that clean energy means energy produced from sources other than fossil fuels. It is hard to imagine a more one-dimensional analysis and qualification than that. It is narrow and incoherent, and out of step with the science and the public. It does not really matter where or what carbon is locked into. If you burn it to release carbon dioxide in the process of making energy, then you are a carbon emitter contributing to the climate crisis. It is as simple as that. We should not be hostage to a technology where hundreds of millions of pounds in Government subsidies are used to create millions of tonnes of CO2 a year.

We know that subsidies for large-scale biomass generators in England will end in 2027—I know the Minister is up to speed on that—and the Government claim they are reviewing evidence on potential support beyond this. Will the Minister, in summing up, be clear with Parliament today? Does he believe that chopping down millions of trees on the other side of the world and shipping them to England, to then burn them to make electricity, is acceptable? If not, will he commit to ending public subsidies for large-scale biomass in 2027?

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the chopping down of trees. Does he accept that in Scotland 13 million trees were chopped down to put up windmills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The first two months of this Labour Government have not been good news for electricity consumers. First, the promise to save £300 per year on bills was demoted in the King’s Speech to, “We will do it in due course.” Then, during the recess, there was the announcement that the £300 for pensioners to help with winter fuel costs would be removed because the Government placed the importance of rewarding their trade union paymasters above the needs of vulnerable pensioners.

Just this week, the Government announced they would help the big energy companies and fill their pockets with extra money, guaranteeing those energy companies prices that are currently above the market rates for electricity. The companies will be guaranteed those prices for x number of years, but if the rates change to their benefit in the future, they can change the contracts and they will be guaranteed a market for their dear electricity. Who will pay for that generosity? The consumer.

Today we are debating a Bill that sets up a quango. Despite the fact there is a £20 billion black hole in the budget, the Government can find enough money to finance a new quango. All of this will be paid for by the electricity consumer. In his impassioned speech, the Secretary of State told us that it would be impossible to envisage anybody voting against the Bill and that, in fact, the country is clamouring for it. I have to say I have not had any constituents hammering on my door telling me, “Be there on Thursday, Sammy, and vote for this Bill.” In fact, I suspect if many members of the public were asked about GB Energy, they would probably think it is a new drink rather than some important Government Bill.

The Government have promised that they will create 17,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland, even though, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) pointed out, the constitutional jurisdiction of the Bill does not even cover Northern Ireland. If one considers the Windsor framework and the fact that Northern Ireland is still under single market rules, many of the provisions in the Bill and the subsidies the Government are claiming could not be applied in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm what role the Bill will have in Northern Ireland?

The Government’s main point is that the creation of Great British Energy will bring down prices for electricity consumers. The fact is that this Bill is all about having to spend money on new infrastructure to generate power well away from the centres of population, as well as putting in infrastructure to take that power to the consumer. That will require billions of pounds of investment. The Government say it will be done by the private sector, as if that solves it all. Of course, if the private sector puts in that investment, it will require a return. Where will that return come from? It will come from the consumer.

We already know, as it has been pointed out, that, according to Ofgem, two thirds of people’s electricity costs in the first quarter of this year were as a result of non-fuel costs. They included the cost of the infrastructure, the environmental policies, and the administration and the operating costs of the grid. Extending the grid, which we will have to do, will incur further costs and put up the price of electricity. That is why the Minister could not guarantee that the £300 saving will be delivered. He knows that the massive costs of changing our system will be borne by the electricity consumer. Whether we regard net zero as good or bad, let us not hide from the fact that it will cost people right across society. It will lead to industry facing higher costs, and consumers facing higher costs and greater fuel poverty.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Michelle Scrogham to make her maiden speech.

Gas-fired Power Stations

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my hon. Friend. We will be legislating precisely to create exactly that obligation for carbon capture and/or hydrogen readiness.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I hope that this decision is indicative of a realisation that seems to be slowly dawning on the Government about the impact of the madness of their net zero policy, which has damaged the UK economy. We have higher electricity prices than most of the other G7 countries, we have lost vast numbers of jobs in energy-intensive industries, and now it has been recognised that because of the intermittency of wind and solar there is a risk of blackouts.

I welcome this common-sense decision, but given that we are going to use gas to power these stations, why does the Minister not take the next logical step and legislate to allow us to tap into our vast UK gas resources? As the United States has shown, that would bring down prices, give us energy security, and make our economy more competitive.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong: we have record levels of employment, and we overtook France recently to become the eighth largest manufacturer in the world. I would not expect him to join the dismal party opposite in talking this country down. In truth, we are leading the world in tackling climate change, and we have created more jobs than at any time in British history. Going forward into the 2030s, by harnessing more and more British low-carbon, renewable energy we will lower bills for families and increase our competitiveness. As I have said, in a world that is increasingly recognising the need for action and seeking to introduce measures such as the carbon border adjustment mechanism—effectively, carbon taxes at the border—the UK is in pole position to grow from its already strong economic position into an even stronger one as a result of the net zero policies of this Government.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

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

[Dr Whitehead]

North sea production will not cease over a long period of time, and Labour is committed to making sure that that production continues at the appropriate level for the maturity of the North sea basin. That is something that all sensible people understand to be the case, although it is unfortunate that certain Conservative Members pretend it is not the case for their own political purposes.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Whitehead]

I will make some progress.

The Bill, as I have said, will achieve none of its stated aims, but it is far from consequence-free. The consequence is that it makes a mockery of our country’s commitments to take serious and responsible action on climate change. That is exactly the point the former right hon. Member for Kingswood, Chris Skidmore, made in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister. That point should not be a partisan point. Indeed, it has not been a partisan point, because a number of Members on all sides of the House, including a number of Conservative Members, can see the direction in which this short-sighted Prime Minister and Government are going, and want no part of it.

Some Members are trying to make changes to the Bill. As I have said, one has resigned, and a number are working hard to turn around the direction of this Government in resiling from our country’s climate change commitments—commitments they so recently signed up to, at the recent COP—on moving away from oil and gas. Regrettably, the Prime Minister and the Government, including this Minister, are not having any part of that. I am particularly disappointed that the Minister is not having any part of it, because of his long and honourable commitment to these matters on the international stage over such a long time.

The right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), the man who led this country’s climate negotiations at COP26 in Glasgow, has called the Bill “smoke and mirrors”, and a “distraction” that will

“reinforce the unfortunate perception of the UK’s rowing back from climate action”.—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 52.]

The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister—she signed this country’s net zero commitment into law and understood, as the current Prime Minister sadly does not, the value of cross-party consensus on the science of climate change—has said that she takes a different view from the Government on oil and gas licences, and that they will not provide for our energy security. Away from this Chamber, every credible independent expert has taken a dim view of the Bill. Lord Stern, one of the UK’s foremost experts on climate change, whose work has shaped how the world understands the costs of inaction, has called the Bill a “deeply damaging mistake”.

The reality is that the cost of living crisis we are in is to a large extent caused by our country’s deep exposure to the volatile international price of gas. The International Monetary Fund has said that this exposure meant the UK was harder hit by the crisis than any other western nation. Just today, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has found that this country has spent an additional—in addition to normal spending—£75 billion on gas since the energy crisis began. Four extra days of gas supply by 2050 cannot possibly make the slightest bit of difference to this price. As I have highlighted, the Secretary of State herself conceded that point on the very day the Bill was announced.

The supposed arguments on energy security and jobs are similarly flimsy. The reality is that, as we have begun to discuss this afternoon, the North sea is an extremely mature and declining basin. Gas production will fall by 95% by 2050, even with new licences. The notion that this is a firm basis on which to build our energy security or protect jobs is clearly absurd. As I have outlined, we need a fair and balanced transition for North sea oil and gas workers that recognises the essential role they will continue to play in operating existing fields, which no one disputes will remain a vital part of our energy mix, and puts them at the heart of our clean energy future.

To safeguard the jobs, skills and livelihoods of the communities that have been the backbone of our energy system for decades, we need a Government with a proper industrial strategy to maximise the low-carbon economic potential of the North sea. Labour will create a national wealth fund to invest in low-carbon industries, it will launch a British jobs bonus to ensure that the supply chain benefits of renewable investment finally come to our shores, and it will create a new publicly owned energy company, GB Energy, headquartered in Scotland, to invest in home-grown clean energy and give us real energy independence. That is the answer that the country needs and that the communities who have served as the backbone of our energy systems for decades need. Political theatre, whether in Westminster or Holyrood, helps no one and does a disservice to the people looking to us for answers to the very real challenges we all face.

The final argument that the Government have made in favour of the Bill is that it is somehow, as we have begun to unwrap, a climate-positive piece of legislation. This argument rests on a series of partial and deliberately gameable tests, as we discussed in Committee, with skewed conditions that look only at a narrow band of emissions, ignoring methane for example; that look only at production emissions, ignoring the impact of actually burning the fuels we are extracting; and that look only at liquefied natural gas, ignoring the fact that the majority of our imports are pipeline-delivered. It includes no test whatsoever for oil, which makes up the majority of remaining reserves. That is why I have sympathy for the civil servants who wrote the Bill, who had to squeeze various things into it such as ignoring gas that was coming into pipeline, only having tests against liquefied gas and ignoring the methane emissions in the various versions of the arrangements in place for measuring emissions from production. I was very disappointed that the Minister gave no reaction at all this afternoon to that particular point on methane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I respect that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not think it is reopening anything, because we have not got any further. I have tried at Second Reading, in Committee, and now at Third Reading. Why is it so difficult for SNP Members who represent communities in the north-east of Scotland to say what is actually in their own draft energy strategy? It says there is a “presumption” against new “exploration” for oil and gas “in the North sea”. The fact that the hon. Member for Angus cannot simply stand up and give his own position tells us exactly how people in the north-east of Scotland feel. The SNP has breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. It wants to run down the oil and gas sector. It is no friend of the oil and gas sector. Of course, the SNP asked the Green party into government—that tells us everything we need to know.

[Sammy Wilson]

Was the hon. Member as confused as I was by the answer given by the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan): that somehow or other there is no need for a licence to drill for oil to create and protect oil jobs, and that we can protect oil jobs by not extracting any oil from the ground?

[Douglas Ross]

That is just one example of the mixed and confused messaging from the SNP which, sadly, we hear far too much in this Chamber. We have heard it across the north-east this week and it has dominated much of our proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

May I first say that we fully support the Bill and the objectives that have been set? As has been said time and again during the debate, we will require oil and gas for decades—and it may as well be British oil and gas, because that means jobs in Britain, tax revenue, and reducing our imports. If we are to continue to use oil, there are very good reasons why we should give licences for its production.

I find some of the arguments made today very strange. Passionate speeches have been made against this Bill on the basis that—let me paraphrase the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—it does not do anything that is not already being done. He went further and said that even though that is the case, civil servants must have “held their noses” when writing the Bill. If it does not do anything that is not already being done, why on earth is there such passionate opposition to it? [Interruption.] A Member asks from a sedentary position about the climate emergency. Apparently, one of the arguments against the Bill is that it will provide only another three days’ worth of oil and gas. We are hardly going to push up world temperatures if another three days’ worth of oil and gas is drilled out of the North sea, but we will ensure years of jobs for people currently working in the gas industry, guarantee years of finance for much-needed public services in this country, and guarantee that we do not have to import from other countries.

Another argument used against the Bill is that it is a confected and contrived piece of legislation, designed simply to be part of the culture wars and to drive a wedge. Indeed, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said it was “specious” and dealt with a problem that does not exist. The easy way of ensuring that the Bill does not become a confected piece of legislation or drive an artificial wedge is for those who think that it is only window dressing to make it quite clear that they would continue to allow licences to be issued. Then it would not be confected; we would know that either there is a real difference or there is no difference. I am not sure where the Labour party stands on this issue, but if, like the hon. Member for Angus, it cannot give a commitment that there would be licences granted under a Labour-controlled Administration, the Bill is not confected or specious. It is real, and people have to make a judgment: will the Bill ensure that our economy and workers can benefit from the oil we have? If so, this legislation is necessary.

Given the stance that has been adopted by the Labour party, my great worry in all this is that although the Government are trying to inject some confidence into the debate, it does not give any long-term confidence, because we will have an election this year and investors will not know whether the arguments we have heard today will lead to licences not being granted in the future.

My second concern, which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is that because we have established legally binding targets for net zero in legislation, the benefits that might come from this Bill will not be realised because they will get stuck in the courts. I have said this to the Minster before, and I say it again: legally binding targets leave the Government open to legal challenges on every piece of sensible legislation that they try to bring through this House, whether it be to alleviate the burden placed on people by their heating bills by changing the policy on heat pumps, or to reduce the impact on travel costs by not having mandatory targets for electric vehicles; I could go through a whole list of policies. This is something that we will have to revisit.

We give the Bill our support tonight. We think it is sensible, and that it gives confidence. It also shows that the Government recognise the reality: people will use oil and gas for many decades into the future, and we have to ensure that we benefit from the fact that demand is there.

Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question, because the Labour party has been spouting an awful lot of nonsense when it comes to this area. In the UK, we are blessed with the geological gift that is the North sea—it is an incredible national asset. Virtually all the gas produced there goes straight into the UK gas transmission network, and it is equivalent to about 50% of our overall gas needs. When it comes to oil, 90% of what is refined abroad is refined in Europe. We are a net importer overall.

The question that the hon. Gentleman should answer is this: if Europe did not get that oil from the UK, where would he like Europe to get it from—from Russia, or from further afield? That question is at the heart of the Bill. We know that we are going to need oil and gas—where do we want it to come from? Only an ideologue would argue that we are better off importing dirtier fuels from abroad than using what we can produce at home. However, it is not just energy security that dictates that we should use our own resources; the economic case also shows that introducing annual licensing is the right thing to do.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Lady accept that, despite the way in which some Members of this House have tried to rubbish that idea and argue that having our own oil and gas does not mean any energy security for the UK, 88% of the gas that we extract at present stays in the UK? Would they prefer to import that?

[Claire Coutinho]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Not only is it better for energy security, but gas that we bring in from abroad in the form of liquefied natural gas has emissions four times higher, so if Members care about the environment, they should back this Bill.

Domestic oil and gas production adds about £16 billion to the UK economy annually and brings in tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue. To give an example of how that has helped support families with the cost of living, we raised £9 billion in tax revenue last year from the oil and gas sector. That is money that we can use to support families, as we did last winter, paying half the average family’s energy bill, which amounted to roughly £1,500 per household. If we had no oil and gas sector, £9 billion more would have fallen on taxpayers’ shoulders. Why should we concede that tax revenue to other countries? What possible benefit could the British public feel from billions of pounds in tax revenue that could be raised here being sent abroad, all to import fuel with higher emissions?

I now turn to perhaps the most important reason to back this Bill: the workers. There are 200,000 people supported by the sector, in communities such as those in Aberdeen, Grimsby and the north-east of England, and including 93,000 people in Scotland, over 10,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber, and 14,000 people in the north-west.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I have seen the weather. I saw the weather when I left Inverness airport at 6.45 this morning. I know what the weather is like in Scotland, but it is important that when we are debating the oil and gas industry, which is crucial to Scotland and the United Kingdom, the SNP can find only one MP to turn up.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for the 90,000 employees of the oil and gas industry in Scotland and the 200,000 across the United Kingdom, an answer that says it is a moot point is hardly the right one to give? It looks more like a mute position adopted by some of the opposition Members in this debate.

[Douglas Ross]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. People should watch closely what the hon. Member for Angus said on his own behalf and on behalf of the SNP—as I say, SNP MPs are speaking with their actions tonight by not even turning up to the debate.

Opponents of this Bill—the Labour party, the SNP and others—try to present our energy transition and support for oil and gas as a binary choice. They say that we cannot achieve our net zero goals while at the same time supporting new oil and gas licences and projects, but nothing could be further from the truth. The oil and gas sector in Scotland and across the UK is essential to delivering and achieving net zero.

The investment in green energy infrastructure that will allow us to build our renewables capacity is coming from the revenue from oil and gas extraction. The businesses that are looking to expand offshore wind and the windfarms for tomorrow are staying solvent today because of their revenues from North sea oil and gas. The people with the skills and expertise that we have heard about throughout this debate, which will be required to secure our offshore renewables going forward, work in our oil and gas sector today. That is why it is so important that I made the point to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) that people such as Sir Ian Wood are saying that Labour’s plans and the cliff edge that Labour would impose on the sector would see job losses. That is why that position is frankly unacceptable and is not supported by many people, if any, in the north-east of Scotland.

The businesses, the investment and the jobs that make Scotland and the UK a world leader in oil and gas are the same skills, businesses and jobs that are going to drive forward the green agenda and our renewables future. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot tell investors, businesses and workers who pause their plans for the UK’s energy infrastructure due to an artificial ban on new fields to come back when the green technologies have become cheaper or more viable, because those investors, those businesses and those workers will go elsewhere. I say to the hon. Member for Angus that that is not a moot point. That is the reality if we do not continue with the exploration of oil and gas in the North sea and the granting of new licences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)]

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said, even though I disagree with the purpose of the Bill, which seems to me to be political grandstanding indicative only of it being an election year. It entirely fails to meet the significant needs of those who are currently struggling to heat their homes in Scotland, of the Scottish economy, which should be basking in all the glory and wealth that has been created through oil and gas, or of our wider planet.

We need to transition; that is self-evident. It is not simply about the global warming that Members have been talking about. Trains in my constituency were cancelled today and the A1 was closed because a lorry had overturned. It was a heavy goods vehicle, but not a high-sided one. The strength of the winds that battered the communities in my constituency and elsewhere did that. We have serious problems coming down the line, and we require to change, but it requires to be a just transition, at a pace that allows us to change, because we have to ensure that we keep the skills. We cannot do to those in the oil and gas sector what was done by Thatcher to the miners and simply close them down and throw them to the wolves.

We have to ensure that we transition to renewables, but oil and gas are required for us to make that journey. I can see it in the hills of the Lammermuirs, and I see it on a daily basis as increasing numbers of wind turbines go into the firth of Forth. At the end of the day, the ships putting in the columns for the turbines run on marine diesel. A lot of the turbines require plastics to be constructed, and we also need the vehicles simply to get them there.

We have to get to that renewable future. The tragedy in Scotland is that we are already there, as we produce almost as much energy as we require. Our people just do not get the benefit of it, because it is transmitted south and charged at an appalling rate when it should be almost free, given that people can see it from their homes, on their hills and off their shores. There has to be a change.

There is also a perversity. Although I agree with new licensing, Rosebank will be operated and owned by Equinor, the state energy company of Norway, so the profits will go to Oslo. Scotland and Norway discovered oil at the same time, because we share access to the North sea basin. Those in Norway have a standard of living and an economy that those in Scotland can only look at and weep with envy. They also have a futures fund, because they put the money away rather than allowing the super-rich to get even richer and invest in foreign bank accounts or highland estates. Norway has a futures fund and Scotland has precisely nothing.

We have to continue to build and to continue extracting oil and gas. That has to be at a significant pace for Scotland, while taking into account the need to meet the requirements of the planet. Two particular aspects are needed. First, as per the amendment in my name and that of my group leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), we must have a commitment to a net zero carbon footprint.

In particular, that means taking into account the needs of carbon capture. Scotland has had the bounty of North sea oil and we need to ensure we continue to get benefit from it. We have coming the bounty of renewables, and we see that with offshore wind, both floating and fixed, but we also have huge potential with carbon capture, because the geology of the North sea provides something like 30% of the opportunities in Europe. Yes, carbon capture is untested, but our society and our planet need it.

More importantly, we must have a commitment to retain a refinery at Grangemouth. It is absurd, as others have said today, that the oil from the North sea is shipped abroad in the main to be refined, and then we import from supertankers coming in. Those ships pass on the high seas, and that is simply absurd. As we have a worsening planet crisis, it is perverse. It is not good enough to say, “It’s the wrong type of oil,” just as we would not accept a rail operating company saying that it was the wrong type of leaves on the tracks.

Yes, our refineries are not at the capacity for the engineering or technical skills to refine it, but that should be done. The first place to do that is Grangemouth. Why? Because the Forties pipeline comes into Grangemouth. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan knows, it lands at Cruden bay in his constituency, but it is piped down to Grangemouth. It is absurd that Grangemouth should be closing when the oil—both past and present, and indeed future—is coming in from the North sea. So if there is to be the continued extraction of Scotland’s need, which we have not benefited from because we do not have the wealth or savings of Norway, we must at least ensure that we save Grangemouth.

I call on the UK Government first to ensure that they provide the funds for the hydrocracker that will increase the profitability of the existing site threefold. If that is done—that would cost a fraction of the billions the UK has got from North Sea oil over the years, and a fraction of what it will continue to take in petroleum revenue tax and other benefits in coming years—we must ensure that we get the profitability up. Then, in a couple of years, we must take the engineering, the skills and the technology so that the oil from the North sea can be refined in Grangemouth. It is absurd and perverse that that is not done.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Member accept that one of the reasons why we have not had investment in the refining industry in the United Kingdom for decades is precisely because the net zero policies that are being followed, with the costs and charges for carbon, the emissions trading scheme and other carbon taxes, discourage any investment in the very production facilities we use to process the oil that we bring out?

[Kenny MacAskill]

I think there are a variety of factors, and I have no doubt that some of those factors are there. There has also been a failure to invest. Where the blame does not lie is with a workforce who are skilled and who presently have to work with a refinery that is past its sell by date and requires to be invested in. Even the union and the workforce recognise that investment is required to get the hydrocracker going and to get the technology to ensure that we refine the oil there. It is probably not the current owner Petroineos but previous owners who have taken the benefit for themselves and invested it in their shareholders rather than putting it back into either the workforce or, indeed, capacity at the refinery. Tragically, that happens across so much of UK industry, whether the shipyards, the steelworks or whatever else.

We see a Government who will benefit from North sea oil’s continued extraction, so the least that Scotland is entitled to expect is its refinery to be at the heart of that. Especially when the oil will flow down that golden thread in the Forties pipeline down to Grangemouth, we require to ensure that Grangemouth will refine it. Yes, that requires technical changes, and yes, that will come at a cost, but that is a small fraction of what the UK will take from the benefit of that North sea oil. That is why the Alba party’s support is conditional on carbon capture and the net zero footprint, and also conditional on Grangemouth being at its heart.

It is absurd that Scotland is not getting the wealth from the oil off its shores. It is absurd that while countries have seen their desert redeveloped and bloom because of the oil they have had, what we have seen with North sea oil is an industrial desert created. Having been brought up only 10 or 15 miles from Grangemouth, I know the devastation that will come to that community unless there are the changes required to ensure that Grangemouth does the refining for North sea oil. We cannot afford to have Grangemouth thrown to the wolves. As I said in last week’s debate, we cannot have “Grangemouth no more”; we require to ensure a refinery capacity.

It would be absurd for Scotland in the UK to have in Grangemouth no refinery capacity. Scotland would be ranked 21st in the nations that produce oil, and the only one in the top 25 without a refinery capacity. The only other countries that tend not to have refinery capacity are the likes of the Republic of Congo and Trinidad and Tobago. I wish those countries no ill—I am sure they are fine countries—but they do not produce the same level of oil, and they are not developed industrial economies. The fact of the matter is that Scotland should not be in that same position of being an oil-producing nation without a refinery capacity. On that basis, Grangemouth must be retained. I call on the Government to do that.

My only additional point is that the Scottish Government, too, require to step up to the plate. The fact that the business and economy Secretary in Scotland appears to be accepting the closure of Grangemouth as something that just will happen and is maybe a matter of regret is simply unacceptable. He may be in coalition with the Greens, but he cannot have them wagging the SNP dog. It is simply unacceptable that we see Grangemouth close without a fight. The Scottish Government should be leading the demands that the refinery is changed, that we do ensure the hydrocracker, that we do provide the changes to refine in Scotland, and that we do move towards biofuels. What they should not be doing is wringing their hands and selling out the Grangemouth workforce. We require a refinery capacity in Scotland. The UK Government have had the benefits of Scotland’s oil and should pay for it, and it is about time that the Scottish Government stood up for industrial Scotland and the workers who at one point put their trust and faith in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill, even though it may well be a belated acceptance that some policies they had been following in pursuit of net zero had to be revised. We know that because of the energy security issues and the dramatic rise in the cost of energy in response to the fall in supply resulting from the war in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed in Russia, as well as the impact on the supply chain after covid, the supply of energy, especially oil and gas, to an economy that still depends heavily on those kinds of sources is very important. Let us not pretend that we are on the verge of not having to use oil and gas any longer, because 75% of our energy comes from oil and gas, and 5% comes from renewables. Even those who want us to rush headlong towards net zero, such as those in the Climate Change Committee, accept that we are still going to have to use fossil fuels well into the next decade and for decades after. Therefore, it is important that we examine how we generate those resources.

The Bill is also an acceptance by the Government—or there should now be an acceptance—that as we have pursued the net zero agenda we have been putting people’s jobs at risk. We have seen that just in the past week, with 3,000 jobs going in south Wales. Most of the energy-intensive industries in this country have been decimated. We proudly beat our chests and say, “We have reduced our carbon emissions,” but if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that all we have done is steal jobs from this country and move production for vital materials overseas, to a place where environmental and work standards, and standards on pollution, are far lower than ours in this country. So I welcome the fact that the Government are belatedly looking again at some of the policies they were pursuing.

I do not know whether the Bill will increase the number of licence applications that are made. It may well be that since the processes are already there, it will be as easy as it has been in the past for companies to make an application, but at least this signals to companies that have reduced their investment in these vital industries that they can, at least with this policy, have some more confidence when they make investment decisions. However, I doubt very much, given the Labour party’s attitude and the fact that we are in a general election year, that that confidence will be engendered as much as the Government hope it will be.

I do not want to go through all of the arguments that have been made, including on the balance of payments. As a result of the natural decline in the North sea and the fact that we have also discouraged investment, between 2019 and 2023 we have doubled the value of energy imports per household into the UK, from £2,100 per household in 2019 to £4,200 per household in 2023. We cannot ignore the impact that that has on the balance of payments or security of supply, because those imports are coming from countries that are sometimes less stable than we need them to be for energy, which is such a vital resource. The Labour amendment states that this policy

“will ensure the UK remains at the mercy of petrostates and dictators who control fossil fuel markets”.

Where is the logic in that?

For example, if we do not get it from the North sea, we will get it from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and many other countries that use oil as a political weapon, and that are not always well disposed towards us. By diminishing our dependence on the oil and gas we can extract from our own territory, we put ourselves at the mercy of those who politicise one of our energy resources. We have to be cognisant of that.

The second reason is that we have 200,000 jobs in the sector across the United Kingdom, including, strangely enough, 90,000 jobs in Scotland, which the SNP appears to be quite happy to sacrifice. We have sacrificed jobs in many energy-intensive industries already. Are we now going to sacrifice these often well-paid jobs and say that there will be a just transition? Many times in this House I have heard the argument that, “Oh, all these people who are employed in the oil and gas industry will go into renewables.” Well, let us look that.

The Government tell us that we have had a huge increase in renewable production. Has it resulted in jobs for workers in the United Kingdom? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] No, of course it has not. Where are the windmills made? Where is the steel for the windmills made? Not in Port Talbot, and the steel that is still made there will not be made there for very much longer. Boats bring it half way around the world from countries that make it cheaply, because they use the cheapest form of energy.

The idea that we would suddenly have all these people employed in the manufacture, installation and maintenance of solar panels and windmills, EV battery factories all over the place, and graduates employed in finance and everything else for the offshore industry has not happened. The just transition is not going to occur. Why would we transition when there is still a resource to be exploited by the people who have the skills to do that, and for the benefit of the country?

The third argument I wish to make in favour of the Bill is its necessity. Some 84% of our domestic heating is currently provided by gas, with 5% from oil; some 97% of our travel is driven by fossil fuels; and some 40% of our electricity is generated from fossil fuels. That will continue into the future. Quite frankly, I doubt whether the arguments we have heard about us having to be a global leader in getting to net zero ring true with ordinary people who want to heat their houses efficiently, cheaply and securely; drive their cars; get on buses, trains and aeroplanes, or however they decide to travel; or ensure that electricity can be supplied.

We might fool ourselves that we are global leaders, but the truth is that we produce 1% of global emissions. Other countries that, quite rightly, want to industrialise do not heed us. They are going for the cheapest form of energy available to them. In some countries in Africa, for example, 85% of people are not even connected to an electricity grid and they do not have the benefits we have, such as turning on a light at night or having a fridge to keep their food fresh and stop it from deteriorating in the heat. It is a bit arrogant of people in the House to say, “And by the way, you might have plenty of coal and oil, but we don’t want you to use it. We don’t want you to have the benefit of the cheap energy that gave us our prosperity.”

Cheap energy is the grounds of economic growth. I can understand why people do not follow our lead and do their own thing. The idea that because we pass the Bill the whole world will say, “Oh, this is terrible. Britain is no longer committed to net zero and we are now going to do our own thing.” They are doing their own thing anyway. The question many people in the United Kingdom have is what their Government are doing to maintain their standard of living—the idea of global leadership is not at the forefront of their thinking.

I have some reservations about the Bill. The first, as the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, is the question of whether the Bill is designed to engender confidence. Many companies looking at whether they should put money into applying for licenses and exploring for oil will wonder whether they will find their way blocked, even with the legislation. They will be asking themselves whether their economic opportunities will be blocked by judicial review, and by people who simply say, “The UK’s target for global emissions was going to be met, in part, by reducing oil production in our own country, and as a result of the Bill and granting licenses, the targets will be missed and we will judicially review it.” I doubt very much that the Bill will engender the confidence the Minister is hoping it will if there is likely to be a judicial review, or if there is a path open and the basis upon which to make a judicial review.

Secondly, as hon. Members have argued, if we are going to exploit the oil we have and benefit from it, then it is better to keep it in our own country and ensure that it is used in our own country. Some 88% of the gas we extract is used in the UK because we have the network for it to feed into, so it can be used and sold in the UK. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) raised the issue of Grangemouth, which is not the only example of the fact that we do not invest in facilities for refining oil in the United Kingdom. Why not? Because oil refining is an oil-intensive industry, so given all the carbon taxes and the barriers put in the way of carbon-intensive industries, no investment is taking place, or has taken place for decades. So what do we do? We extract it and send it elsewhere. We bring it back, most often, but would it not be of benefit to ensure that it stays in the United Kingdom because we have the facilities for processing it here?

My final reservation is that when those who might form the next Government of the United Kingdom are determined to undo all this legislation, how will that engender confidence? I know that I am probably in a minority when it comes to the debate, but there is a debate to be had with the ideologues who are driving a policy that most people in this House can well afford. People may say that the cost of energy will not go up as a result of renewables, but just this week the chief executive of Siemens, the biggest producer of electricity from wind in the United Kingdom, said that higher bills are inevitable as we grapple with the huge costs of generating wind power because of inflation and the cost of maintenance, faults and breakdowns. He said:

“Every transformation comes at a cost and every transformation is painful. And that’s something which the energy industry and the public sector—governments—don’t really want to hear.”

Unfortunately, that is the battle that we face. There are those in this House who are wedded to an ideology and will drive it through regardless of the impact that it has on our constituents. How many crocodile tears have been cried by Members in this House when they see people lose their jobs in energy-intensive industries and then, in the next breath, say that the Government are not going hard enough to reach net zero? There is a divide between those who are driven by this ideology and the ordinary people in the country who live with the consequences of it. If this Bill is at least a start in trying to redress that imbalance then I welcome it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a declining basin, and it is so important as we go through the transition that we do not lose the skills and jobs of those people who are providing the oil and gas on which we currently rely. No country is doing more to decarbonise than we are, but we will continue to use oil and gas for decades to come. As our production falls even more quickly than our demand, and even more quickly than is required globally, it is essential that we support the industry, send the signal that my right hon. Friend suggested, and rebut the attitude of the Labour party, which would destroy those jobs, lose the tax and put up emissions.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the fact that, belatedly, the Government have accepted that, despite their net-zero policies, the oil and gas industry is important for the future in the United Kingdom. Does the Minister recognise that to benefit from the oil and gas in the North sea that will be released by the new licensing regime, we need to have refinery capacity? There has been little, if any, investment in refinery capacity, because of the uncertainty of the future and the carbon taxes placed on it. When will the Minister address that issue to ensure that we get the full benefit of the oil and gas that we extract from our shores?

[Graham Stuart]

Effectively, we are part of a European market. Most of the gas that we produce is consumed in the United Kingdom, and most of our oil is refined elsewhere in Europe and contributes to European and UK energy security, as it is converted into product. It is one joined-up market for historical reasons, and our refineries are used predominantly for oil that comes from abroad, as opposed to that which comes from the North sea. These are multi-decadal investments, and as part of a managed decline in demand we will see refinery capacity reduced over time. We are doing absolutely everything to do this in the most sensible manner possible, and it is a shame that Labour Members would have us import more. They are all in favour of oil and gas jobs, so long as they are not in the UK, and they will bring in foreign imports from which we will get no jobs and no tax, with higher emissions. It makes no sense, and only the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) could champion such an insane policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Including in Lancashire.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

This year, receipts from the emissions trading scheme will reach a new peak of £6.2 billion. The effects of attacks on energy-intensive industries are felt by workers in the aluminium and steel industries, and this week by workers at Grangemouth, where one of our few remaining oil refineries is going to close. Despite what the Minister said earlier, is it not a fact that, rather than helping energy-intensive industries, net zero policies are destroying them and sending them overseas?

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the EU has already legislated for a carbon border adjustment mechanism. Following our hosting of COP26, 90% of global wealth was covered by net zero pledges. At the beginning of that conference, the figure was just 30%. The right hon. Gentleman may not see it, but this is the direction the world is going in, and if he wants to future-proof British jobs he will get with the decarbonisation programme. Opposing it is to oppose the interests of his constituents and the sustainability of their of their jobs.

Net Zero by 2050

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we spent £40 billion last year helping people with their energy bills, paying on average half of people’s energy bills to support them through that difficult time. On insulation, I would say that when we came into power, 14% of homes were energy efficient, and now that figure is 50%. We are spending £6 billion in this Parliament, a further £6 billion to 2028 and £5 billion through the energy company obligation and the Great British Insulation Scheme to make sure that our homes are energy efficient.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Government’s belated recognition that net zero policies are costing individuals in their pockets, costing jobs and of course producing huge profits for the eco industry. But is the Secretary of State not concerned that, by maintaining the legal target for 2050, she hands a weapon to those who want to use the judicial review mechanism either to delay or to stop important decisions on airport expansion, new roads and oil and gas licences—delaying even some of the policies that she says today she wants to delay to save people money?

[Claire Coutinho]

We are confident that we can meet those targets, and we see opportunities in the transition ahead of us—we see jobs, investment and opportunities to export British products around the world. That is what I will focus on in this job to ensure that we make the most of the energy transition and that it benefits all parts of our country. We also want to do that in a sensible way that protects families and household incomes.

Offshore Wind Contracts

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Gentleman decries this and talks both the area and the nation down, he then tells me that investors are getting nervous. If he were to champion all the successes we have had instead of decrying them, he might find that he would give investors even more confidence still.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I do not agree with the policy that the Minister pursues. His net zero policy is disastrous and has been costly in terms of electricity prices and future planning. However, I feel some sympathy for him today. He is being criticised by those who have highlighted high energy prices for not offering inflated prices to the wind industry, which claims that producing wind energy is getting cheaper but of course wants higher prices. As it was not offered that, it would not bid in the auction. Is the real reason for this not that for the first time he has refused to allow those who bid to walk away from their CfD agreements, to price electricity at whatever price they want and therefore to have inflated profits? Does that not indicate to him that the wind industry knows it cannot produce electricity cheaply and wants the system balanced in its favour?

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman and I do not see eye to eye on net zero or on the economic benefits of the wind industry. It does offer cost-effectiveness. It has been amazing to see how as it is scaled, it has been able to bring the price down. It was not obvious when we went out into the North sea that we would be able to bring the price crashing down, yet this country led the world in doing that. If he looks at the numbers, I hope he will find that the whole of this House can agree on one thing: offshore wind is an economic way of producing energy, and one that all of us should support.