Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they give to
the net zero carbon emissions target set by the Climate Change
Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 when determining
whether to approve new fossil fuel extraction projects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, as outlined in the Net Zero Strategy, we are driving
down our reliance on fossil fuels and have committed to reducing
UK greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035. Oil and gas will play
a smaller but important role in meeting future UK energy demand,
as agreed by the Climate Change Committee. Fossil fuel projects
are subject to robust scrutiny from our regulators before
receiving consent, including on environmental grounds.
(LD)
My Lords, the recent report by the International Energy Agency,
which was in fact commissioned and welcomed by the COP 26
president, , said that to stay within the
1.5 degree limit there can be no new fossil fuel projects.
However, Friends of the Earth tells us that there are at least 40
UK fossil fuel projects in the pipeline, the combined annual
emissions of which would be almost three times that of the entire
UK currently. Given our ambition for COP 26 to keep 1.5 alive,
does the Minister agree with the IEA’s director that:
“If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can
be no new investments in oil, gas and coal”?
(Con)
The problem with the noble Baroness’s argument is that we
currently get three-quarters of our energy from oil and gas. It
is a declining percentage as we decarbonise, but we currently get
three-quarters of our energy in that way. Would the Liberal
Democrats prefer that energy to come from Saudi Arabia or Russia,
or from British workers paying British taxes in the UK, paying
contributions to the UK Exchequer? That is the choice that faces
us.
(Ind Lab)
My Lords, we have pledged to reduce methane by 30% by 2030, along
with 103 other countries. Have the Government carried out an
assessment of whether that is possible while they simultaneously
allow new fossil fuel extraction projects to go ahead, and, if
they have not, will the Minister commit to doing that as a due
diligence exercise?
(Con)
Of course we keep all these matters under review, and it is
important that we meet our target. We are on a projection for net
zero in 2050; we have a legal obligation to do that. Oil and gas
projects will play a small and declining role as the years
proceed, but in the short term we will need new projects.
(LD)
In reply to my noble friend, the Minister set up a false
dichotomy. I will answer his question: we do not want the oil to
come from Surrey. However, Surrey County Council has granted
permission to drill oil wells as part of the Horse Hill
development. If these are developed, they will put 10 million
tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So will the Minister use his
influence with his Conservative colleagues who run the council
and get them to step back from this development—and, if he fails,
will he ask his colleague to call this development in?
(Con)
It is strange; I thought the Liberal Democrats were in favour of
local planning control—obviously not in these particular cases.
As the noble Lord is aware, that application is subject to an
application in the Court of Appeal at the moment, and therefore I
cannot comment on it.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The
Prime Minister said in the Statement we will discuss later:
“This is the moment when we must turn words into action.”
Is it not also the moment when we need to adopt a consistent and
transparent stance on all new fossil fuel projects? Would the
Minister agree that the Government would be aided in this if they
adopted the recommendation of the Climate Change Committee to
have a net-zero test against all new policies and over all new
departments?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are indeed
following the advice of the Climate Change Committee, which has
accepted the need for oil and gas as we proceed to net zero. I
remind the noble Baroness that we have the fastest
decarbonisation rate of any G7 country. So we are proceeding on
the path to decarbonisation, but is unrealistic to expect that we
can just turn off the oil and gas supplies tomorrow.
(Lab)
The Energy Charter Treaty is allowing major fossil fuel investors
to challenge the right of Governments to take the action required
to reach net zero. During COP 26 this week, does the Minister
consider that the UK should be leading the urgency to decarbonise
the Energy Charter Treaty and remove the investor protections it
provides in relation to fossil fuels?
(Con)
The UK is indeed engaged in the process to modernise the Energy
Charter Treaty to ensure that it is aligned with our climate
objective and advances UK and global energy transition. So,
through our COP 26 presidency we are working closely with global
leaders to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, including
supporting the accelerated phase-out of coal and the wider
decarbonisation of the energy sector.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, in view of the importance of allowing the UK steel
industry to survive and even thrive, and the obvious and
immediate need for steel to manufacture those wind turbines we
hear so much about, can the Minister explain the delay in opening
the Cumbria coal mine? Is it sensible to allow all new fossil
fuel extraction projects to be demonised and indiscriminately
written off to fulfil net zero, when other urgent priorities,
such as the imminent energy crisis, mean that the Government
should be more pragmatic and look at all energy options,
including shale gas?
(Con)
The noble Baroness makes some valid points. The steel industry is
integral to building the infrastructure, such as offshore wind
farms, that we need to tackle climate change. While there has
been a decline in coal mining in the UK for some time, there is a
global market for coking coal. This reduction in the mining of
coal in the UK will have no impact on UK steel production. I
would remind the noble Baroness that we published the UK’s first
ever industrial decarbonisation strategy, which will help in this
area.
(CB)
My Lords, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the threat was
huge. It has been very humbling to listen to some of the
testimonies from countries such as Bangladesh, the Maldives and
the Seychelles. I want to reinforce the point made by the noble
Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Why do we have 40 licences out there? Are
they going to be reviewed, and will this topic be discussed in
Parliament? Will the Minister comment on what the Prime Minister
said at 1.09 pm today to the Member for Brighton Pavilion, who
was asking about this general issue? He said:
“I will say nothing about the Cambo oil field.”
This does not fill us with confidence, especially coming on the
back of his strong and wise words in Glasgow.
(Con)
The Cambo oil field is, of course, the subject of a licensing
application at the moment. This is not a new development. The
original consents were issued in 2001 and 2004 by the previous
Labour Government. We are waiting for the Offshore Petroleum
Regulator to take a decision, and then the Oil and Gas Authority
will take a further decision. But I return to my previous point.
We still import large amounts of oil and gas. It makes no sense
to not produce it domestically if we can and then import it from
Russia or Saudi Arabia. We need to decline our usage over time,
and we are doing that. But in the transition, we do need oil and
gas.
(Lab)
My Lords, may I continue to explore the issue of the Cambo oil
field? I hope that the Minister can help clear up any confusion.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has said:
“100% we should open the Cambo oil field.”
The president of COP 26 has refused to be drawn on the issue. The
Government have both denied and confirmed that the Business
Secretary has the power to give the go-ahead or to stop it.
has told us that we are at
one minute to midnight in combating climate change. Can the
Minister confirm that proceeding with the Cambo field would be
incompatible with the UK’s climate goals? If he cannot do that,
can he explain how it will be compatible?
(Con)
It is indeed compatible with our climate change goals. The
proposed development of the Cambo oil field, located to the west
of Shetland, is covered by licences originally awarded in 2001
and 2004 by the noble Baroness’s Government, and no decision has
yet been made. Proposals for the development of oil and gas
fields under existing licences—such as Cambo—are subject to
extensive scrutiny by the regulators. That scrutiny includes a
full environmental impact assessment and a public consultation.
No final decision has yet been made.
(GP)
Our own dear Prime Minister, when asked about the coal mine in
Cumbria, said that he was not in favour but that it was not his
decision; it was for due process. Does our Prime Minister not
understand how democracy and government work? He could amend the
National Planning Policy Framework to ban new coal. Will the
Minister take this idea to the Prime Minister so that we can stop
at least one more fossil fuel extraction process?
(Con)
I am of course delighted to hear that the Prime Minister is dear
to the noble Baroness. But, as I think she is aware, no decision
has yet been taken on the proposed Cumbrian coal mine. The public
inquiry began on 7 September. The formal part of the inquiry has
now concluded. The planning inspector will write up his report by
the end of the year and submit it to the Secretary of State for
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. It is now part of a
quasi-judicial process, so the noble Baroness will understand
that I cannot commit the Government to any action.
