Shale Wealth Fund

Debate between Sammy Wilson and Caroline Flint

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I do agree. Whether shale gas or nuclear, when it comes to developments in energy we should recognise the enormous contribution communities make towards our future energy security. Such communities should be seen as guardians of the country’s interests, and they should receive support from some of the good things that could happen to them as a result of such developments.

As I said, it would be helpful if we could ring fence the fund, but I am aware that it is not an immediate win. We are some years from receiving significant taxable profits on shale. However, I cannot help but look at our neighbours in Norway and think how different things might have been had we also protected our North sea oil and gas revenue. This fund will never equate to the scale of such revenue, which has never been less than £2 billion a year since the 1970s and reached over £12 billion in one year during the past decade. Successive Governments poured that revenue into the general taxation pot and simply use it to fund general public spending. By contrast, Norway created a sovereign wealth fund that is now so significant that the income it generates for the nation outstrips the revenue from oil production, but it also has some interesting rules.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the reserves of shale gas that are believed to exist in the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Lady think that the wealth fund could be a massive boost to the economy, not just for a short period, but for a very long time?

[Caroline Flint]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. From what I understand of the places where shale gas could be recovered, it is an open question as to how much could be received in revenue. There may be difficulties in getting the gas out of the ground: it might be under the ground, but we might not be able to recover it all. It is an open question. At the moment, it is too early to know just how much could be gained. Now is the time to think about the principles for such a fund and about how we can ensure that it is not frittered away across Government on different schemes so that, at the end of the day, we cannot really see the power of good that it has provided for the nation.

As I said, the Norwegian wealth fund was quite amazing in how it was put together. First, the Norwegian Government said that they could draw down only 4% of the fund each year to spend, but March this year was the first time that they drew down 4%, and that is despite the fact that the fund was worth $890 billion. Secondly, they invested for the long term. The oil fund is Norway’s pension fund. We do not know exactly how much the shale wealth fund will generate, but it is forecast to generate £1 billion over 25 years, which is a considerable sum to put to good use, and it may be more.

To create a defined wealth fund is a start. The Government’s intention is that it should be a fund that is clearly separate from the general revenue pot. A further lesson would be to follow the Norway example and use the fund for a specific purpose. I am talking about one that everyone could see the point of—a big picture idea, with an impact that can be clearly seen.

Norway looked forward to a day when it no longer depended on oil. We could look forward to a day when we are not dependent on fossil fuels by reducing our long-term energy use. Energy efficiency in this country is at a crossroads, as existing programmes end or decline. As shadow Energy Secretary, I raised serious concerns about the coalition Government’s flagship proposal, the green deal. We were sceptical about how it would work. It lasted two years before it was scrapped.

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and we recently revisited the coalition Government’s household efficiency schemes. The Department of Energy and Climate Change’s financial model depended on large numbers of households taking out a green deal loan. The Government projected around 3.5 million green deals, yet a tiny 14,000 households signed up. That was bad policy making and, sadly, it wasted taxpayers’ money.