Contracts for Difference
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats very much welcome the results of this round. It is a significant improvement on last year, when the previous Conservative Government completely failed, with zero bids from the onshore wind developers.
The results show that the CfD programme is back on track. They demonstrate the power of industry and Government working together to identify a fixed problem, so that we can widen the level of private sector investment we bring in, which is required for a clean power system transition.
Britain’s unique geography, with its abundance of natural resources, is an asset. We must harness the wind and the world’s largest tides. It is hugely encouraging that a record-breaking amount of solar capacity has been procured. Whatever the Conservatives are saying now about their record in government, solar targets were repeatedly missed, and this round is a welcome change. Unlike the Conservative Government, who, as has been pointed out, left us at the whim of the global oil and gas market, this Government are making choices that will increase our energy independence and lower energy bills for our consumers.
Future allocation rounds, especially in the next few years, must continue to deliver increasing quantities of renewables. That can be achieved by setting ambitious budgets and bringing forward incremental reforms of the CfD regime. Can the Secretary of State assure me that this round is not just a one-off and that we will increase the pace of the CfD allocation rounds?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her support and the warm tone that she uses. She is right that we face a big challenge as a country to get moving on the offshore wind Bill, the onshore wind Bill, solar on rooftops and ground-mounted solar. The truth is that CfD auctions have served us well and continue to do so. We inherited this auction halfway through the round, and we increased the budget substantially to make sure that it was a success. But the right thing for us to do—I think this is the main point that she is making—is to talk to industry about how we can make sure that future rounds are a success. I am very interested in how we can have a line of sight for industry, so that it can have the industrial certainty to plan ahead. The annual auction round is serving us well, but we need to work with industry to make sure that we land the clean power that we need and get the jobs here too.
Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to see you in your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), to his place. I look forward to a much more constructive way of working compared with what happened under previous Energy Ministers.
The race to net zero is the major economic opportunity of this century. The green economy must sit at the heart of economic growth, and the Government have work to do to rewrite the damaging narrative of the previous Conservative Government that this is about green versus growth, and to remedy their unforgivable failures that delayed, blocked and even reversed urgent action on climate change. Now is the time to move forward.
The global market for net zero technology is estimated to be $650 billion a year by 2030. We must use Britain’s unique geography and abundant natural resources—wind power and the world’s second largest tides—to consolidate our position as a green economic powerhouse. Community benefits, community buy-in and individual economic incentives are critical to making this a reality.
Bath and West Community Energy in my constituency is putting people at the heart of the energy transition and placing the ownership and control of energy in local hands. It raised £11 million from nearly 1,000 members and bondholders, and it has donated £300,000 back to the community for local food production, recycling projects and fuel poverty programmes, yet community energy was not mentioned in the Labour manifesto.
Imagine a future in which people can purchase clean energy directly from a local supply company or co-operative, and in which every pound spent on powering our homes or cars is recycled back into the local community, supporting jobs, funding new facilities and services and contributing to renewable energy infrastructure. That is what community energy is about: ensuring that people everywhere support and benefit from the clean energy transition.
The biggest barrier, especially for smaller projects, is the cost of access to the grid. There are regulatory challenges too, but surely the creation of Great British Energy should include the opportunity to realise the enormous potential of community energy. It is often local council and grassroots projects that show the greatest ambition to get to net zero. Until now, local authorities have been hampered by a lack of resources and a lack of co-ordination between central and local government. Even within central Government the co-ordination of net zero strategies has often been fragmented. We Liberal Democrats therefore call for a net zero delivery authority, both to devolve decision-making powers and resources to local government, and to co-ordinate all net zero strategies and decision making across central Government Departments.
The last energy crisis, which saw household bills in the UK spiral out of control, was exacerbated by the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels. Ironically, the previous Government did very little to accelerate the deployment of renewables. Onshore wind was de facto banned and the targets for the roll-out of solar were regularly missed. Only by fast expanding renewable energy—not just offshore wind—and prioritising a radical home insulation programme can we ensure that families will never again be severely out of pocket.
To fully realise the potential of renewables, the Government must address our outdated national grid. Nearly 100 GW of electricity from offshore wind projects is currently awaiting grid connections. I hear that that is now to be accelerated. That would have been sufficient to power 150 million homes. Some developers have been waiting for up to 13 years.
There is no shortage of capital or will to invest, but delays and rising costs have deterred investors, who see projects in other markets such as mainland Europe as a safer return on investment—I know that the Government are all over this, but I am setting out what the failures of previous Governments were. Significant new infrastructure is required to connect renewable energy from where it is generated to homes and businesses across the country, but the Government must pay close attention to the communities hosting the required infrastructure. I know that is a challenge, but I support the Government in understanding that significant infrastructure cannot be delayed, because we really need to get to net zero.
Mr Holden
I totally agree about the need for new infrastructure. Germany is now pursuing an “underground first” approach to new energy transmission infrastructure, rather than overground pylons. Does the hon. Lady agree with me and other Opposition Members that the UK Government should adopt that approach?
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed. We have had a Westminster Hall debate on that very subject, and I absolutely agree. Saving private companies money is no reason not to do something that is better for communities. Half the time it is all about what is affordable, so I agree that there is a very fine balance to be struck, but where other solutions exist than having big pylons that ruin the landscape, National Grid should look at them.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member claimed that Labour’s manifesto did not mention community energy. In fact, a statement from Community Energy England says:
“Labour’s Local Power Plan would turbocharge community energy and local climate action”.
It is an integral part of the Labour party manifesto.
Wera Hobhouse
I am only mentioning how important community energy is to Liberal Democrats. The Labour manifesto did not seem to have as much emphasis on it, but if we agree on it, hurrah! We all win.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. On the issue of undergrounding power lines, although that may in some cases be necessary for communities, does she not accept, given that it is 10 times the cost, that it is possible to screen the power lines and, in doing so, create biodiversity corridors that can connect biodiversity from one part of the country to another, so that biodiversity can cope with climate change?
Wera Hobhouse
Indeed, there are not easy answers to all these questions. We need to look at the fine balance of cost versus getting community buy-in. There is going to be a transformation of our landscape, and we need to be aware of that. We must also make a good case for why it is urgent that we get to net zero, and in my view that balance in the argument was not struck properly by the previous Government. It is important that communities buy into our big landscape transformation, but it is also important that we do this at an affordable cost for the whole of the UK.
We Liberal Democrats are calling for all new homes to be net zero immediately. It is crazy that we are building homes today that will need upgrading in a few years’ time. We are proposing a 10-year emergency upgrade programme for homes, starting with free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. That will not happen without incentivising private landlords and having tougher energy efficiency targets. The private rental sector has the most energy-inefficient homes. Nearly half of households living in these properties are in fuel poverty, but local authorities have taken limited action to enforce minimum energy efficiency standards.
Whether it is tighter regulation on private landlords or further sanctions to ensure that they comply, the Government must put their mind to the private rental sector. We will ensure that energy efficiency for rentals is not brushed under the carpet. That includes incentives for the private rental sector. From discussions in the previous Parliament, I know that the Labour party is relatively reluctant to give money to private landlords, but without incentivising the private rental sector, I do not think that a home insulation programme will happen, particularly for low-income families. I urge the Government to think about that.
As well as landlords, businesses must be incentivised to invest in the green transition. The U-turning of the Conservative Government sparked immense distrust from industry, with the UK chair of Ford warning that her business needs three things from the Government: ambition, commitment and consistency. That is exactly what they must deliver. Years of stop-start investment have left the energy sector reeling. Businesses and trade organisations have long been calling for a detailed plan of action that offers the clarity and certainty that will make the UK an attractive country to invest in. I hope that this Government can finally deliver the certainty that the country so badly needs.
Climate change is happening, but every cloud has a silver lining. Seizing the economic opportunities of net zero will help us spread wealth and opportunity to every corner of the UK. From insulating homes to providing thousands of new jobs in the energy sector, it is clear that everyone can benefit from a thriving green economy. I look forward to working constructively with the new Government to combat climate change, reduce energy bills and be a leader in the journey to net zero.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Due to the large number of maiden speeches, and the fact that I want to get everybody in, I am now imposing a six-minute time limit—with the exception of maiden speeches. I call Jess Asato.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate Members from across the House on their wonderful maiden speeches. I had 20 minutes of praise for them, highlighting every aspect of their wonderful speeches, but unfortunately time is limited, so I shall have to give a quick analysis of praise for them all. I am secretly delighted that I do not have to try out my Scottish Gaelic—[Interruption.] I know, it is sad but true; that might be for the next debate.
It was wonderful and heart-warming to hear from hon. Members across the House, from East Thanet to every part of Scotland, including the highlands and Glasgow South West, and from South Northamptonshire, and with all Members caring about their local communities and representing all the people who matter and who elected them. That is what matters in this place. I feel that now I am an expert in all things Scotland—never have I been so afraid to talk about and name everything than when I had to do a Burns night toast. I hope that someday I can visit all those wonderful constituencies. It made me realise that Scotland is a very inclusive, diverse and wonderful place, and I would like to sample the whisky and the hospitality from Loch Lomond to the highlands. I praise all hon. Members here today. I am someone whose contributions often make people think, “Gosh, that’s an unusual Beaconsfield accent”, so I am always delighted to hear sparkling speeches from voices less grating than my own—it is nails on a chalkboard, and you adjust over time—celebrating the diversity in the Chamber.
During today’s debate we heard some superb maiden speeches from Labour Members, and so many of them! Even I was confused about who are the new Labour MPs—that is how many of them there are, so congratulations. I welcome the Minister to his position. He will definitely be going far, and my claim to fame will be that I got to debate with him first here in the House. He is also a Scottish MP, and I welcome him and congratulate him on his ministerial position.
I am also pleased to be shadowing a department led by a fellow London School of Economics alumnus, but disappointed that the Secretary of State is not here to respond to or open the debate. I know in what high regard he is held by the Labour movement. His high ideals and socialist principles are in the very best intellectual traditions of his party, but he is now in government, and I fear that the changes he wants to bring about will make working people poorer and put our energy and food security in the hands of Russia and China.
In just three weeks, as my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) pointed out, the Secretary of State has ignored local communities; he has ignored planning professionals; he has ignored sound decision making; and he has ignored basic economics. He seems to be in a race to deliver higher bills and higher taxes for working people, and a poorer, less safe Britain.
Joy Morrissey
I will give way in a moment, but I must make a little progress first, because I have only five minutes if I am to allow time for the Minister.
We on the Conservative Benches will keep calling these plans out for what they are: a dangerous experiment that will damage the British countryside, wreck the livelihoods of hard-working British people and drive up energy bills. Let us examine the progress of this experiment so far. During the election campaign, the Secretary of State got Labour candidates to claim that GB Energy would save £300 on energy bills, but that does not seem to be something that the Government are going to stand behind now. I would ask why that is, and what plans there are for the future in this regard.
The Government have formed an energy company that will not generate a single watt of energy, and will not bring down a single energy bill. They have taken £8 billion of taxpayers’ money, and put a shiny brand on it called GB Energy. GB Energy is simply the Government subsidising high-risk projects for the private sector on one hand, while decimating our oil and gas industry with the other. They have set up a new company and claim that it will make profits in five years, with nothing but 14 pages of a hot-air founding statement—with no business plan, no financial forecast, and nothing else.
Wera Hobhouse
Is the shadow Minister not aware it is exactly that negative narrative from her party that has held us back on the path to net zero?
Joy Morrissey
I know that the hon. Member is a strong advocate for her local community, and that is an important cross-party awareness; but we are in this position now, and I say to the Government, “You won, and we are here to hold you to account on your new endeavours. We wish you all the best, but it is our job to hold you to account.”
If GB Energy were a private company, no investor would touch it with a bargepole, yet the Government get to play with the money of hard-working British taxpayers while simultaneously hitting them with higher taxes and higher bills in return for that privilege. The Secretary of State doubtless thinks that he is courageously saving the planet, but he is not quite courageous enough to go to Aberdeen, or to be here today, or to speak to those in the North sea who will lose their jobs.
This is now serious. It is serious because the Government are writing cheques that the British people cannot afford and Ministers will never have to pay; it is serious because they are betraying the trust of local communities; it serious because they are putting at risk our energy and food security at a time when both have never been more vital; and it is serious because those who will suffer for their net zero purity are working people. These are not plans for a clean energy superpower. They are plans for a weaker, poorer Britain.
Clean Energy Superpower Mission
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just gently say that these exchanges must finish at 1 pm? I hope we can help each other along the way, but first I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place. I share his passion for climate action. Let me add, however, that next time he makes a statement we will need our copies in better time than was the case today.
There is no doubt that the best route to affordable energy is renewables, but under the former Government renewable projects faced long delays and costs have skyrocketed. Indeed, that Government’s record on renewables was absolutely miserable. Our electricity demand is expected to double by 2050, and we must make upgrading our grid infrastructure a major priority. The Government will know that one of the biggest challenges will be to bring communities behind hosting the big infrastructure changes needed for the grid expansion, and to cope with the huge landscape transformation. How will they secure public consent?
As the Secretary of State said, to achieve our legally binding targets we also need a “rooftop solar revolution”, which will include introducing stronger incentives for households to install solar panels and ensuring a fair price for energy that they sell back to the grid. Will the Government work on those incentives with the Liberal Democrats?
We Liberal Democrats acknowledge the new approach taken by this new Government, and I look forward to working constructively with the Secretary of State to achieve our very ambitious targets.
Edward Miliband
May I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I welcome the hon. Lady’s questions; we worked together on these issues when we were in opposition. Let me deal with her two substantive points. On the question of public consent, this is absolutely something that we need to do, and I see it in three ways. First, communities need a say. Secondly, communities need benefit. Communities are providing a service to the country when they host clean energy infrastructure, so there needs to be benefit for those communities. Thirdly, this is a debate that we will have to have, and I am afraid the last Government did not grasp the nettle on this issue.
We are going through a massive change in our economy. If we do not build the grid or roll out solar, we will be poorer as a country and we will absolutely expose ourselves to future cost of living crises. I look forward to receiving as much support as possible from the Liberal Democrats, and indeed from all Members of this House, in making the case to people. We have to go out and make the case, as I think happened in the 1950s when we will built the grid. If we do not make the case, we will leave ourselves exposed as a country, and it is the British people who will pay the price. I completely concur with the hon. Lady on rooftop solar.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter. Indeed, I am determined to ensure that ports that were not successful in the FLOWMIS process can take advantage of the huge increase that we expect in the deployment of floating offshore wind capacity off the coast of the United Kingdom. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and, indeed, any other Member of Parliament who represents a port that was not successful through the FLOWMIS procedure to discuss how we can move this forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Community energy can deliver so many renewable energy products and save on energy bills. Last year in Bath, a community energy project putting rooftop solar on schools saved schools £130,000. When will the Government remove the barriers to community energy?
Andrew Bowie
As a result of the Energy Act 2023, we launched a consultation and a multimillion-pound fund to help to support the expansion of community energy across the United Kingdom. It would be great to have the Liberal Democrats’ support in the effort that this party and this Government are making to ensure that the benefits of community energy are felt up and down the length and breadth of the country.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson
I understand my right hon. Friend’s raising this point. That is why it is clear in planning policy and guidance that solar projects should be directed to previously developed or non-greenfield land. That was the message we reinforced in the January national planning statement to ensure that we reduce unnecessary clustering.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I also welcome the Minister to his new role? According to National Grid, £58 billion of investment is needed to meet our 2035 decarbonising target. British electricity demand is expected to rise by 64% in the next 10 years, and the current system is still designed around electricity sources of the past, such as coal. New cables need to be built to bring electricity from renewable energy sources, as we have already heard. What assessment has the Department made of the impact this problem is having on green investment?
Gas-fired Power Stations
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart
I agree with my hon. Friend and I applaud those who are investing in our system. We have made ourselves one of the most investable countries in the world for clean energy. Gas has an important part to play in that balance, and with the development of carbon capture and hydrogen there is every opportunity for such assets to have an even longer life in a green fashion. I would love to come and see my hon. Friend.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Oil and gas are the energy sources of the past, and we need an intermittent energy source. Gas power plants are not intermittent. They sit there, and then because there is too much renewable energy it is shut off, and gas—the carbon energy—continues to flow. That is the reality of today: we are wasting renewable energy. The Government do not recognise that reality, and do not respond to it.
My question is this, however. How many times have Ministers met representatives of the oil and gas industry, and how does that compare with the number of meetings with representatives of the renewables industry?
Graham Stuart
As so often—the hon. Lady does it spectacularly well—she is completely and utterly wrong. Renewables are turned off, as she would say, because of constraints within the system, and gas is turned on because the system could not cope otherwise. That is why we have the transmission acceleration action plan and the connections action plan. [Interruption.] Every time we try to build out the infrastructure, the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) opposes it. He says that he and the Scottish National party want to be a friend of the renewables industry and Scottish jobs, but then he opposes the infrastructure that is required for it.
Graham Stuart
I meet representatives of the oil and gas industry a lot, because the truth is that even given our world leadership—and we have cut emissions by more than any other major economy on the planet—75% of our primary energy today is still from oil and gas. We will still be dependent on oil and gas in 2050, when we are at net zero. That is why it is so crazy that the Opposition parties, including that of the hon. Lady, believe in opposing licences when we are actually dependent on the product. All that ending licences would do is lead to the loss of British jobs and the import of higher-emission products from abroad. I really do hope that Opposition Members will think a bit more deeply and we can hear some common sense. I hear it in the Corridors from Back Benchers, but from the Front Benchers and the hon. Lady I hear nothing but nonsense.
Oral Answers to Questions
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie
I understand the concern and frustration of my hon. Friend and his constituents. That particular project is at the pre-application planning stage. The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate between January and March 2025. However, as I know he understands, owing to the quasi-judicial role of Ministers in determining applications, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific matters in relation to that project, but I can reassure him that all applications are judged on their individual merits, and I encourage him and all his affected constituents to engage with the planning process at every stage as it continues.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
With all due respect to Conservative Members, who always represent the farming industry, as do we in the Liberal Democrats, farmers are not stupid. They will not take high-quality agricultural land out of production, and that is not happening, so I really worry about the argument being made here. We are far behind our renewable targets for solar, so what incentive can the Government provide to get more, not less, UK solar off the ground?
Andrew Bowie
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the solar taskforce will publish its recommendations imminently, and we have an ambitious target of deploying 70 GW of solar across the UK by 2035.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Wera Hobhouse ExcerptsTuesday 20th February 2024
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 View all Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 February 2024 - (20 Feb 2024)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This February is on course to break an unprecedented number of heat records, and the dangers of failing to reach net zero are staring us in the face. This Bill flies in the face of our climate change commitments, and it will do nothing to secure energy security and nothing to lower energy bills, and we Liberal Democrats continue to oppose it.
I will mention two amendments that we strongly support, as they are on areas where we Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments in the past. The Bill is silent about methane and needs amending. We therefore strongly support new clause 12 to prevent methane flaring. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the warming effect of CO2. It accounts for 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. It has often been seen as a quick win. Methane stays for much less time in the atmosphere, but it is still there. Reducing methane emissions is such an obvious thing to do.
The UK has signed a global pledge to cut methane levels by 30%, and a ban on oil and gas flaring and venting in the North sea would dramatically reduce methane emissions. The International Energy Agency has said that UK oil and gas operators could reduce methane emissions by more than 70% by tackling venting, flaring and leaking. That is supported by the Environmental Audit Committee and the Government-commissioned independent review of net zero. However, the Government’s track record is not good enough. In his last few days in office, the former Energy Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), unconditionally approved the new Affleck oil and gas field, whose operators will be able to burn methane until 2037.
We must also mandate monthly leak detection and repair activity. As we have said in the past, it is incomprehensible why the Government are on the one hand saying one thing, but on the other not acting. We must do something about methane. It is a complete dereliction of duty if we do not support that new clause.
The other amendment I want to speak to new clause 23, which would insert a new energy charter test. Many of my constituents have voiced strong concerns about our continuing to be part of the energy charter treaty. That energy charter test would be met if we withdrew from the treaty. As it stands, remaining part of the treaty leaves the UK vulnerable to compensation claims from investors for the early closure of coal, oil and gas plants. Attempts to modernise the ECT to protect countries from libel and to drive investment in renewables have failed. Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and the Netherlands have all announced their intention to withdraw. Italy withdrew back in 2016. Why should we not join them? The new clause provides a vehicle to do that. It is incomprehensible that we have to discuss this Bill. It is a bad Bill, but the amendments I have just mentioned would make it a little better.
Barry Gardiner
I wish to speak primarily to amendments 13 and 14, but I also support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). May I begin by paying tribute to the newly elected Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan)? His electoral victory shows that parties with ambitious climate policies win elections, and those that choose to pursue culture wars are punished at the ballot box. I hope the Government can learn that lesson in relation to this Bill, which is a textbook example of performative politics.
This Bill will not secure British energy independence or help to meet UK or global climate targets. We know, because the Energy Secretary told us so herself, that this Bill will not lower energy bills, yet here we are debating this Bill instead of focusing our minds and time on real solutions that will accelerate the energy transition that is already happening all around us. That energy transition is not only underpinned by a strong scientific consensus to address climate change, but founded in a mission to make energy affordable and to unleash new economic opportunities across Britain, particularly in the regions left behind by previous energy transitions.
I pay tribute to all the workers in oil and gas, who help to keep Britain’s lights on. Their hard work over many years powers our country, and their skills will be essential in making Britain a clean energy superpower. That is why we must respect those workers, and why we should be truthful with them. They deserve no less than that, and we in the labour movement remember only too well what happens when communities are faced with the sudden loss of jobs. We remember the closure of the pits and the communities that were left with nothing, because Government failed to put in place genuine alternatives and a just transition.
I know that British exceptionalism is almost an article of faith or mantra with this Government, but being the first country that sells the last drop of oil is not a feasible strategy. That is not just because the world signed up to transition away from fossil fuels at COP 28, but because the North sea is a declining basin that is nearly empty. New licences between now and 2050 will only provide 103 days of gas. That is just four days of gas every year. Saying that we will expand oil and gas licences in a declining basin and pretending that that will make any real difference to jobs in the North sea is nothing short of dishonest. It may provide campaigning material to pretend otherwise, but people’s livelihoods are more important than political game playing, and we ought to stick to the facts.
Douglas Ross
It is only this UK Conservative Government and the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood who are standing up for an industry that supports more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom and 95,000 people in Scotland. We have heard that 42,000 jobs are at risk under the Labour proposals, which are almost identical to those of the SNP.
Douglas Ross
I will briefly give way, and then I will bring my remarks to a close.
Wera Hobhouse
How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get to net zero by 2050 and a temperature rise of no more than 1.5C? Our current projections exceed all that. All I hear is that we have to increase oil and gas production in the North sea, but that is the wrong path to net zero. How will we limit temperature rises to 1.5C and ensure that we do not carry on the current trajectory of well over 2C? The Government do not have an answer for that.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Lady has misinterpreted everything that I have heard during the debate. No one is saying that there will be increased production; we are looking to protect what is happening at the moment, and jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) said in Committee, those jobs will go elsewhere. Let us make no bones about that. They will not stay in Scotland or the United Kingdom. Under the proposals of other parties, they will go to other countries in Europe and around the world. They will drill for oil and gas in those countries, they will pay their tax in other places and they will ensure that we buy that in as a nation at a higher cost and with a greater carbon footprint.
That is why I want us to maximise what we can do in the North sea, supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the north-east and right across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and work towards that just transition, which Offshore Energies UK and everyone else is fully behind. That is why I support this Bill and the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who has worked constructively across the House. I have had very useful meetings with him, the Secretary of State and others.
The Bill also sends a clear message that there is one party on the side of workers in the north-east and those in the oil and gas sector across the United Kingdom. That is the Conservative party—here in government at UK level, and the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood and across Scotland. More and more people are starting to see that the Labour party and the SNP are turning their backs on these workers, and only the Scottish Conservatives and this UK Government are supporting them.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who has made a powerful case in explaining why the Bill should never have reached the House. This month is on course to break an unprecedented number of heat records, and the dangers of failing to reach net zero are staring us in the face. I say this again and again, and the hon. Lady has made a very powerful point. This Government, in the name of “protecting jobs”, are turning their back on their net zero commitments, and I find that, and the way in which this debate is being run, incredibly dishonest. If the debate were honest, it would reflect the fact that the Government have shown their true face, and are delaying the climate action that is so necessary.
I have heard repeatedly, throughout the debate, “We are responding to demand.” Of course there will be demand for as long as we provide unlimited supply, and of course the oil and gas industry itself will want to drill for every last drop of oil for as long as it can, but it is for a responsible Government to make a responsible decision, and to look the dangers that confront us in the face. The tobacco industry says that there is demand for smoking materials, and the Government have understood their responsibility to stop that demand because smoking is dangerous, but they fail to see or understand the dangers of climate change. We need a Government who will guide the economy into the net zero future, because we need to secure a prosperous future, in the long term, for all people, rather than concentrating on a short-term election issue that may divide Members after such a long period of consensus on the need to reach net zero.
While the Government claim that new licences will improve energy security, the reality is very different. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide an average of only four days of gas per annum. All that the Bill does is send a symbolic signal. It does not even meet the requirement that the Government have set themselves—securing energy for the future of this country. That is why I think the Bill is so dangerous. As I said on Second Reading, it was introduced for political reasons, not because the Government are genuinely intent on any outcome except electoral gain. That is why we should oppose the Bill and make it very clear to our citizens that it does nothing for energy security, nothing to get us to net zero, and nothing to curb energy bills. All Members of the House in their right mind should oppose this Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sammy Wilson. Please be cognisant of the fact that the debate will finish at 5.14 pm, and Mr Foord would like to get in, too.
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill
Wera Hobhouse ExcerptsMonday 22nd January 2024
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 View all Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
We all want a healthier planet and a sustainable future for the next generations, but no one wants the heating to go off, the lights to go out, or our energy security to be at the mercy of foreign players in an ever more unstable world. This Bill recognises that doing nothing and increasing our reliance on imported gas, including gas with four times the emissions, is not the solution. As such, I am glad that the Government acknowledge the need to move away from oil and gas production, and I welcome our long-term commitment to drive down the use of fossil fuels and the significant and growing investment in the renewables sector, which is the only way to guarantee our energy security for the future—but it is for the future. As a country, we are now home to five of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, diversifying our energy supply and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Renewables gained enough power in 2022 to avoid the need for five times as much gas as the UK imported from Russia in 2021.
However, as we discuss the Bill, we should reflect on how we make that transition while preserving our reputation as a global leader in the fight against climate change. I am keen to see further efforts to reassure the international community, and our constituents who care about the environment, that we are not rowing back on our climate and environmental commitments. Our current requirements are lower than recommended pathways to reach net zero, so I suggest that we continue to strengthen the operational emission requirements for UK oil and gas producers. A recent report from Robert Gordon University found that 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce had skills that were transferable to the offshore renewables sector. A well-managed transition helps ensure that more investment, and more of those jobs, stay in the UK.
Opposition Members have no plan. Labour and the SNP are ignoring the country’s energy needs in their opposition to the Bill, which seeks to enable a transition pathway for an industry that, last year, produced an average of 42% of gas on an average day in Britain. Without new development, we will be more reliant on imports, which is unwise at best given the instability in the European market as a result of Putin’s war. Labour talks about expanding renewables and reducing usage through measures such as insulation. The Government share that ambition, but it is impossible to deliver at speed and in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members will listen, I will give them the reason why. There are many terraced houses in those areas, where the cost of insulating a property to the highest energy performance certificate standard can be greater than the value of that property.
For that reason, there needs to be a broader discussion about housing—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I recently visited Norway with the Conservative Environment Network to see how that country is using the skills and expertise of the oil and gas industry to develop a carbon capture and storage facility at the Northern Lights project. For the world to achieve the goals to which we have committed ourselves in the Paris agreement, we need large-scale carbon capture and storage. Not all emissions can be cut by applying renewable energy. Oil and gas will be needed for the foreseeable future; however, reducing fossil fuel demand is key to reaching net zero. In several industrial processes, such as the production of cement, carbon capture and storage is the only technology that can cut emissions, reduce the need for imported energy, and benefit households through less volatile—and, ultimately, lower—energy costs.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Lady talks about the enormous cost of insulation, but is she clear that carbon capture and storage is also enormously expensive?
Jo Gideon
I am clear that lots of things have a cost, but we must also look at the cost of not doing them. We are not talking purely about financial cost.
To return to what I learned from my trip to Norway, about a fifth of emissions from North sea oil and gas production activity come from flaring. We could follow Norway’s ban on those activities—I am sure the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) would agree with that—using the Bill to bring forward our commitment to stop flaring.
Jo Gideon
I would like to get on, if the hon. Lady does not mind. [Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position. Removing gas is necessary for safety; however, it can be captured rather than burned. That is my argument.
We are in the midst of a paradigm shift in the production, storage and supply of energy, and we are faced with a range of innovative options to decarbonise while maintaining an adequate energy supply and reducing usage. None of this will happen overnight, and while we welcome the possibilities of innovations such as less energy wastage through battery storage, alternative fuels such as hydrogen, future solutions such as the expansion of nuclear and alternatives such as tidal and geothermal energy, we do need this transition position. I will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading, but on Report I will look at possibilities for reconfirming our commitment to minimise environmental damage and continue focusing on the end game of cleaner solutions to our energy needs.
Barry Gardiner
I recognise the work that Harbour Energy is doing and I also recognise the work that the Government have done in trying to attract more investment into green energy and renewables, and I welcome that work. I want us to have a cross-party consensus around getting to net zero. The trouble is that—and the Minister knows this to be true—he and many people on his side, including the Prime Minister, have tried to make this a wedge issue, a political issue to divide people. I think he really does need to step up to the plate. If he wants cross-party consensus, he has to try to build it, not score cheap political points.
Wera Hobhouse
The Liberal Democrats were actually introducing an amendment to stop flaring and venting of methane. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) has just said it would be a very good thing to do yet the Government opposed it. That is an example of where we could have reached cross-party consensus.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and I listened to her attempt to intervene on the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). We need to build a cross-party consensus and this shows how it can be achieved: there are concerned Members on the Government Benches who want to do the right thing, and we all know that sometimes the Whips make sure that they do not, but if we really build this consensus, we can get to the right place.
Another lie at the heart of this Bill is to say it will protect British jobs. It will not. Over the years there have been hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain. They have kept our lights on and our industry moving for decades just as the coalminers did before them. But pretending that employment in oil and gas can last forever fails to properly prepare those workers and their families for the inevitable transition that the world is making.
Despite sustained support for the North sea basin over the past 14 years and despite 400 new drilling licences being issued across five separate licensing runs, the fact is that more than 200,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry and its wider supply network have been lost. Today 30,000 hard-working people are directly employed in the industry. Those workers and the local economies they uphold need a coherent plan to move past fossil fuel production towards clean energy. The trouble is the Government have not developed one.
A further 100,000 individuals are supported through the supply chain and are waiting for a signal from Government so that they can seize the opportunities of the clean energy revolution. This Bill offers them nothing. It seems to override the already weak non-binding climate compatibility checkpoint. The production emissions reduction target set out in the North sea transition deal is already weak, setting a cut of only 50% by 2030. This Bill seems to weaken it even further. It includes no reference to how annual licensing will be judged against the NSTD targets for production emissions let alone emissions from combustion.
Critically, the Bill ignores the wider environmental consequences of the development of new fields and puts marine habitats at risk. Over one third of the 900 locations in the latest licensing round overlapped with marine protected areas, yet this directly contradicts the commitment the UK made at the convention on biological diversity conference COP15 in Montreal where we promised to protect 30% of UK waters for nature by 2030.
The Rosebank field that was recently licensed sees a pipeline run through the Faroe-Shetland marine protected area, which threatens ocean life. If a major oil spill from Rosebank were to happen, 20 MPAs could be seriously impacted. This Bill is an attack on nature both by its indirect impact through increasing emissions and its direct impact on the marine environment. The Government appear to believe that they know better than the International Energy Agency, the United Nations Secretary-General, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of the world’s leading scientists, all of whom are clear that new oil and gas licences jeopardise further the goal of 1.5°C. This Parliament’s own independent adviser, the Climate Change Committee, confirmed to Parliament only last year that the expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with net zero and that the oil and gas field that is required in the UK as we make that journey to net zero does not require the development of any new fields.
But what I find most depressing about this Bill is not its arrogance or its ignorance, it is the way it seeks to break with the cross-party consensus for the sake of creating a party political dividing line in advance of a general election. That dividing line pretends that the rational, informed scientific view is held only by what the Prime Minister calls climate zealots and it tries to establish the recalcitrant fossil fuel lobby that is endangering all we hold dear across the globe as the reasonable middle ground. It is not. As the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said:
“the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels.”
The fossil fuel lobby is behaving like the tobacco lobby did when all of the medical evidence was against it. First, deny the science outright. When that is no longer credible, pretend that the concern is exaggerated. And when that is no longer credible, reframe the issue as one of personal choice.
Government is about establishing a framework of regulation for the public good; it is not about facilitating the freedom of those who would undermine the public good. That is why this Bill is bad for democracy. That is why this Bill is bad for our global standing as a country that has previously been regarded as a leader on this issue. That leadership is now passing to others who are responding positively to the pledge in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels by joining the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.
The floods that we are seeing devastate communities and lives around the country are but a foretaste of the terrifying impacts of climate change beyond 1.5°. This Bill does nothing to mitigate them. It does nothing to support the billions of people across the world who live on the frontlines of climate breakdown. It ignores the plight of millions of bill payers who find themselves priced out of our broken energy system. And it ignores the workers who power our country.
This Bill endangers our natural world and future generations. I cannot support it; I will consign it to the same vote of no-confidence that I predict awaits this Government later on this year.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members have no answer to that. In Germany in particular, misguided green policies have led to the extraordinary decision to decommission the low-carbon nuclear industry and replace it with coal-fired power stations. I could hardly make it up. Germany is massively increasing its reliance on imported liquid natural gas, which is much more polluting than the cleaner, more local and geopolitically more stable alternative of North sea gas and oil.
The third reason why I would prefer that we used UK oil and gas is that it pays UK tax. I am not ashamed to say that I welcome that. If we are to extract hydrocarbons that will be taxed, I prefer for that tax to be paid in the United Kingdom, rather than in some other country. Just between 2023 and 2028 it is estimated that those tax receipts will amount to £30 billion. We know how much trouble Opposition Members have trying to explain where they will get their £28 billion of borrowing each year, and how that will raise interest rates, debt and inflation. That would be more than doubled if they got their way and their policies destroyed the North sea oil and gas sector.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman mentions what the Government are spending, not spending and taxing, but could he mention how much they actually spend on subsidies for the oil and gas industry—just a number?
Jerome Mayhew
A number was mentioned earlier in the debate, but I did not catch it. I am sure that the hon. Lady might have that number in mind. It is right that we support industries in this country, because they create employment, generate economic activity and, in turn, pay taxes. I am not ashamed of that, because it is a good thing.
The final reason why I want oil and gas extraction in this country, if we are to use it, is the balance of payments. That used to be a fashionable economic argument back in the day. When I was a teenager, we used to have announcements on the news about the balance of payments month by month. What has happened to that? The balance of payments is every bit as important economically today as it was back in the 1980s. We run a current account deficit in this country of about £150 billion. That is a huge number, and it will be exacerbated if we choose—and it would be a political choice—not to generate and export a product from this economy to a third economy, but instead choose to import one, exacerbating the balance of payments deficit twice over.
For those four reasons, I am wholly in favour of the ambitions behind this short Bill. Climate change will be solved by reducing demand for hydrocarbons, not by reducing supply. We will solve the demand problem by providing cheap alternatives, which the Government are doing. Members who have contributed were quite right to highlight that. We need renewables.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The proposed legislation before us is an outrage, and I am pleased that we have had the opportunity today to discuss in detail what it means. It has been a relatively good-natured debate, but it has shown very clearly where the political choices are, and I find the political choices of the Conservatives unacceptable.
New licences for new oil and gas fields in the North sea are in direct conflict with our national and international net zero commitments. We must get away from our dependence on fossil fuels, not extend it. At COP28 the Government signed an international agreement to phase out fossil fuels, but we are doing the opposite in this country. It is just not acceptable for us to do one thing abroad and another at home. As has already been said so many times this afternoon, this is losing us our reputation for good leadership, and losing any credibility that the Government could have at home or abroad.
The Government’s claim that the Bill ensures our energy security is complete fiction. Recent analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found that oil from new licences sent to UK refineries would account for less than 1% of fuels used in the UK in 2030. The Bill would make little or no difference to UK energy security, and the Secretary of State herself admits that it would do little to cut bills. Furthermore, on the basis of past records, new licences issued since 2010 have produced only 16 days of extra gas supplies. Between now and 2050, new licences are expected to provide an average of only four days of gas per annum. Is it really worth it to lose our reputation, our commitments and our path to net zero for that? The vast majority of this new oil and gas production would not stay in the UK; it would be sold on global markets for consumption abroad. No government should want a repeat of the energy crisis of last year, which was brought on by the crisis in global fossil fuel supplies and soaring prices on the global oil and gas market. Only by moving away from fossil fuels can it be guaranteed that such a crisis will not be repeated.
However, this legislation is not just stupid and unnecessary, but dangerous. It breaks down a decade-long cross-party consensus that every Government must be seriously committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and must provide strong, unflinching leadership to help people, organisations and businesses along the road to a successful energy transition. As we have heard today, there is a fair amount of consensus, so why should it be broken? That is really not understandable. Undermining this consensus is hugely irresponsible and sends entirely the wrong signals to the international community. The latest COP28 negotiations have shown how rocky the path to net zero is and how important the leadership of the developed nations remains. I was at COP28, and it is really sad to see how that leadership has been lost and how many nations look at us and shake their heads. They cannot understand what has happened to the UK in the last year or two.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is not just at COP28, the climate COP, that there is an issue. I was at Montreal at the nature COP, and we were in the vanguard of agreeing that 30% of waters should be protected for nature. These additional drilling rigs cause havoc in our inland waters, but 15 % of new licences were declared in marine protected areas, so we are seeing a nature crisis being caused by this as well as a climate crisis.
Wera Hobhouse
Yes, indeed. Many organisations that campaign to protect nature and the oceans have written to me—and probably to many other Members of Parliament—about how extremely dangerous and damaging this is to marine wildlife.
The UK is in a strong position geographically to cover its future energy needs from renewables and from cutting energy consumption. The Minister well knows my position on this: diverse, home-grown renewable energy and a significant home insulation programme are key to the solution. The energy efficiency of our homes is among the worst in Europe, and yes, if we are talking about jobs, we are lacking so many of the jobs that we need in the retrofitting and upgrading sector. We need a new workforce in the new technology for the net zero future of our UK economy. That is not looking back at past fuels. They have powered the world, yes, but we need to transition and we cannot keep on with business as usual. That is the problem and the opportunity. It is deplorable that the Government have finished embracing this new future and broken the consensus that we had across the House.
Where is the legislation to address all that? Failed project after failed project alongside acute underfunding means that people continue to live in cold homes with sky-high energy bills, so where is the legislation to revolutionise our home retrofitting agenda? The problem needs long-term policy and funding commitments rather than the stop and start of this Government. While offshore wind is no doubt a success story, we must move faster. Onshore wind development has been slow, and solar has been particularly off-track. In fact, we are going backwards. The proportion of renewable projects that are being delayed is on the rise.
Last year the Government’s predictable failure to contract new offshore wind lost 5 GW of renewable energy and the opportunity to save consumers £2 billion a year. Renewables developers still face a planning system that is stacked against onshore wind, and community energy providers still face enormous start-up costs. Rather than a petroleum Bill, why are we not debating a marine energy Bill today to incentivise investment in the various new technologies in marine energy and facilitate the fast roll-out of installations? The Government are wasting time and money on the fuels of the past. Instead, they should champion UK technology and innovation.
So, why this Bill? My suspicion is that it is an election year Bill to drive division and fuel the culture wars. For too long, working people have been made to worry that the green energy transition is a punishment for them and that it will cost them prosperity, livelihoods and the way of life that they are used to. But there are countries who have successfully turned the negative narrative into a prospect of hope and major opportunities. The US Inflation Reduction Act and the EU’s green industrial plan will together see over $600 billion of green investment creating new and exciting jobs and careers. Even Canada, an economy smaller than ours, has announced a package that offers nearly £50 billion-worth of tax credits for green technologies. Green investment will be worth a potential £1 trillion by 2030. Uncertainty over this Government’s commitment to reach net zero means that investors are looking the other way.
Oil and gas are energy sources of the past. Putting our political future towards them only amplifies how seriously out of touch and out of ideas this current Government are. The Bill is misleading and counterproductive. It flies in the face of our net zero commitments and will do nothing to ensure our energy security. Indeed, it will do the opposite. We Liberal Democrats will support the Labour reasoned amendment and oppose this Government Bill, and I call on all colleagues across the House with an ounce of honesty and integrity to do the same.
Civil Nuclear Road Map
Wera Hobhouse Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do apologise for having called two Members in a row from the same side. I shall immediately correct myself by calling two from the Opposition side.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I took no offence at all; it is fully understood.
The best route to affordable energy security is renewables. Nuclear power is blighted by delays and rocketing costs, and the Government are never honest about its much higher costs compared with renewables. On the Government’s watch, renewables have faced long delays and the costs for offshore wind development have increased by 40%. Will a renewables road map soon follow the statement to address those challenges and ensure that the Government do not lose their competitive advantage in offshore wind development?
Andrew Bowie
I lose track of where the Liberal Democrats sit on nuclear. I know that their current leader was against it, then he was for it, and then against it again. Right now, I am not quite sure.
I do take issue with the hon. Lady’s insinuation that we are not leading the world in renewables. We have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth—and, soon, the sixth—largest offshore wind farms in the world generating power right now for Great Britain. We are investing at pace in solar and in a host of new and emerging technologies because, unlike some parties, we believe that we should not invest all our time and money in one technology. We need a broad range of technologies if we are ever to meet our legally binding net zero commitment. I look forward to the day when the Liberal Democrats can hold a policy for more than five minutes and come to the House and actually support us on the journey to our net zero future.