Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) To avert climate
breakdown, the vast majority of the fossil fuel industry’s coal,
gas and oil reserves need to stay firmly in the ground. Yet
successive Governments, led by different political parties, have
failed to take the kind of action that the science demands. They
have known the indisputable facts and the consequences of inaction.
Such consequences include the fact that the costs of delaying, and
of failing to address...Request free
trial
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
To avert climate breakdown, the vast majority of the fossil fuel
industry’s coal, gas and oil reserves need to stay firmly in the
ground. Yet successive Governments, led by different political
parties, have failed to take the kind of action that the science
demands. They have known the indisputable facts and the
consequences of inaction. Such consequences include the fact that
the costs of delaying, and of failing to address climate,
economic and social chaos, far outweigh those associated with an
orderly transition along the lines of a jobs-rich,
inequality-busting green new deal. Yet Government after
Government have continued with business as usual. Government
after Government have refused to grasp that despite some
breakthroughs, successes and progress, the big picture has
continued to get worse.
I do not deny that we are now seeing record amounts of energy
being generated from renewable resources, for example, but these
very welcome achievements do nothing to eliminate the dangerous
damage arising from the continued extraction and burning of
fossil fuels. Given what the experts have been saying for decades
now, we have to ask ourselves why this Government, and others
before them, have presided over, and colluded in, the frankly
criminal decisions that have seen yet more oil, gas and coal
continue to be explored and exploited. The answer to that
question can be traced back to one consistent factor: the role of
the fossil fuel industry in our politics. For over those very
same decades when climate scientists have been warning of the
rapidly shrinking window to avert a climate emergency, fossil
fuel companies and their lobbyists have been denying the science,
and then they have delayed, weakened and sabotaged climate
action. Those tactics have enabled them to make billions in
profits, while heating the planet and destroying communities.
In this debate, I want to highlight some of the ways in which
fossil fuel influence is exerted in our politics and to propose
how it should urgently be curtailed. I want to start with a case
study, featuring the little-known fossil fuel lobby group
Offshore Energies UK—OEUK—whose members include North sea
operators such as Equinor, Harbour Energy, BP and Shell and whose
activities have resulted in a windfall tax that actually rewards
companies for digging up more oil and gas, and a “price floor”
introduced entirely at the industry’s behest. Let me explain how
that has happened. According to analysis of data in the public
domain, OEUK and its members met UK Government Ministers more
than 210 times in the year following Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine—that is nearly once every working day. In June 2022, in
that one month, when the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill
was drafted and consulted on, the industry went into lobbying
overdrive: OEUK and its operator members had twice as many
meetings with Ministers as they did in the month before or after.
It also held a parliamentary reception, in the name of the
all-party group on the British offshore oil and gas industry, for
which it provides, conveniently, the secretariat. The main
message for the MPs and peers in attendance was that the windfall
tax would “undermine and disrupt” investment in the sector. In a
meeting a few days later with the then Chancellor, now Prime
Minister, the industry spelt out what it wanted to see in the
Bill. Its recommendations, also put in writing to the Treasury,
included protection for petroleum revenue tax repayments, which
are, in essence, an existing tax break that can pay fossil fuel
firms back for taxes they have paid in the past. The subsequent
legislation did exactly as OEUK requested. Moreover, it
introduced an enormous 80% “investment allowance”, which,
combined with existing tax breaks, means that fossil fuel
companies can claim £91 back for every £100 they invest in UK oil
and gas extraction. As a result of that climate-wrecking
loophole, Shell for example,
went on to pay no windfall tax at all in 2022.
The lobbying around the Bill was happening in the context of a
wider lobbying campaign by OEUK, which had been urging the
Treasury all year to reinstate regular meetings of the so-called
“fiscal forum”, an advisory group that basically invites OEUK and
its members to shape their own tax regime. On 9 December 2022,
they got their wish; the fiscal forum met again, hosted by the
new Chancellor, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey
(), and the industry used the
meeting to claim, yet again, that the windfall tax would harm
investment in the sector. That meeting occurred in the wake of
the Chancellor’s already having announced further changes to the
windfall tax regime that would, in effect, see taxpayers actually
paying and handing over money to oil and gas firms for
investments being made. None the less, those companies wanted
still more and they used the fiscal forum to demand that a price
floor be introduced—and, surprise, surprise, they got it.
In spring 2023, OEUK board members of Harbour Energy and Equinor
met with Treasury officials. The minutes, secured via a freedom
of information request, state that the “Equinor reps smiled” at
Government’s reassurances—yes, I am sure they did.
(Bath) (LD)
The hon. Lady is eloquently setting out how the Government are
responding to heavy lobbying from the fossil fuel industry. Does
she agree that no future generation—neither our children nor our
grandchildren—will ever thank us, the politicians of today, for
having put all our energy and focus into the energies of the
past? Does she agree that the fossil fuel industry should really
look at itself as well?
It will come as no surprise to the hon. Member that I completely
agree with her. I do wonder what our own kids will think when the
planet continues to heat still further, and what their kids, in
turn, will think. What were we thinking of? What was the fossil
fuel industry thinking of, certainly, beyond its profits?
Apparently very little.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. She has
been assiduous in her commitment to these issues. Indeed, I would
go as far as to say the hon. Lady has, on many occasions, been
the conscience of this House on these issues. Does she agree that
it is essential that votes cast and actions taken in this place
are influenced by facts and reasoned opinion, and never by one
individual or group? While there is a place for lobbying—let us
be honest: it is through lobbying that we learn more; I
understand that—it should be only a part of the consideration of
any issue.
I thank the hon. Member for both his comments, with which I
agree, and his kind remarks. He is right: of course, lobbying
happens, but a line gets crossed when money starts to change
hands. There are perceptions—never mind what the reality is—of
Members and groups potentially pursuing interests that are to
their own advantage, rather than for the public good.
In June 2023, after sustained further lobbying meetings, letters
and statements in the press, the Government introduced the price
floor that OEUK had so assiduously lobbied for—surprise,
surprise. To summarise: privileged access and meetings with
Ministers, an opaque, official-looking lobbying group and an oil
and gas fiscal forum advising the Treasury collectively resulted
in significant changes to Government plans, which, in turn,
resulted in a windfall tax that raised just half of what the
Government had promised and saved corporations billions. All, of
course, at a time of record fossil fuel company profits and a
cost of living crisis for consumers. That is what happens when we
let fossil fuels into every corner of our politics.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. Last year, it was reported
that Gulf states pushing fossil fuels at COP28 had hired the now
Lord Hammond and , along with former Prime
Minister and other former leading
politicians as “consultants”. As we know, it is incredibly easy
for senior British politicians and civil servants to swap
Government offices for consultancy retainers; they simply have to
register with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—a
body which even its chair, the former Conservative MP and now
, admits is toothless—if they
take up any new paid or unpaid work within two years of leaving
office. For example, ACOBA’s response to Lord Hammond working for
Mohammed bin Salman’s regime was to note that his inside
knowledge of the UK Government could be
“perceived to offer an unfair advantage”,
and then it went ahead and approved it all the same. When, in
2021, Lord Hammond’s advisory work was deemed by ACOBA to have
breached the rules, the only sanction was a strongly worded
letter.
I know and accept the convention not to criticise the conduct of
individual MPs or peers, so I simply want to set out facts that
are already in the public domain and on the public record. It is
not just former Ministers going through the revolving door
between parliamentarians and the fossil fuel industry to take up
lucrative consultancy roles. Second jobs, placements, internships
and sabbaticals are all different sides of the same coin, and all
too often a lot of coins are made or exchanged.
Members of this House can benefit financially from the fossil
fuel sector in other ways, too, as the right hon. Member for
Chipping Barnet () presumably did when she
held £70,000 worth of shares in Shell for five
years when she was Environment Secretary, as published in the
Register of Members’ Financial Interests in August 2023. I have
done the courtesy of alerting any Member to whom I am referring
in this Chamber, by emailing them to let them know. The right
hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon () also did in the shape of
payments from oil company clients to business advisory service
Zahawi & Zahawi, pieced together in research carried out by
journalists Jonathan Watts and Pamela Duncan for The Guardian,
from his shareholdings in an oil and gas exploration and
production company, and the £1 million worth of donations he
received from fossil fuel companies, including a regular monthly
payment of £30,000 that stopped only when he became a
Minister.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings ( )—who is in this place and with
whom I have had a conversation to inform him that I am about to
reference some of his interests—has been a Member of this place
since 1997. He served as the Energy Minister under the now
Foreign Secretary, and held down a second job for BB Energy,
which trades more than 33 million metric tonnes of oil every
year. As a strategic adviser, he was paid £50,000 per year for
the equivalent of around 11 days’ work, according to his own
Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Three of the biggest donors to the Conservative party are funders
or board members of the climate science sceptic think-tank the
Global Warming Policy Foundation, or its spin-off Net Zero Watch.
Companies from Cardiff Airport to ExxonMobil are handing out
football tickets and passes for hospitality events to MPs across
the political spectrum. In fact, I think I can safely say that
there is probably only one UK-wide political party represented in
Parliament that has not had some kind of handout from the fossil
fuel industry, whether donations, expenses-paid trips, salaries
or gifts. At this point, I give credit to the hon. Member for
Coventry South () for going public about the
food hamper sent to her by staff at Heathrow in the hope it would
secure her support for their third runway. They obviously did not
know her very well.
Financial benefit cannot be divorced from conflict of interest or
perceived conflict, It is worth noting that there is no
requirement on Members of this House to declare any income from
dividends or any income gained from the sale of shares. Given the
seemingly routine way in which shares get moved into blind trusts
when MPs become Ministers, as used by the current Prime Minister
and Chancellor, or the £70,000 threshold at which we are supposed
to publicly declare a shareholding stake, the idea that we have
transparency around conflicts of interests is laughable.
The evidence suggests that Members of the other place are just as
at risk of the perception, at least, that they are influenced by
dirty fossil fuel money. A total of 43 peers have a significant
stake in the industry according to 2021 data. There, the
declaration threshold is lower at £50,000. It is lower again at
the Senedd and Holyrood, but they are certainly not immune to
fossil fuel influence. A lower threshold would clearly be an
improvement, but we need to do more than just tinker with the
existing rules. In the vast majority of these instances, nobody
is doing anything that breaks the parliamentary rules. The
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union
Administration Act 2014 only restricts about 5% of
lobbyists—mostly trade unions representing workers, and
charities. Meanwhile, corporations can pretty much do what they
like, and consistently they do.
When we realise, as analysis by The Guardian clearly shows, that
there is a direct link between fossil fuel money and the
positions that MPs take in Parliament, it is self-evident that
the rules cannot be fit for purpose. I believe that being an MP
is about serving the public interest, not the interests of fossil
fuel companies. In case anyone wants to suggest that they are
working in the public interest, let me remind the House of the
economic impact of continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels:
public debt could rise to 289% of GDP by the end of the century
if climate change is left unchecked, according to the Office for
Budget Responsibility.
The climate impact is well known: if we want to be in with even a
50% chance of staying within the all-important 1.5° limit, we
cannot open new fields, and we should be phasing out existing
fossil fuel infrastructure in ways that will secure a just
transition. That is not what these companies are using their
influence to make happen, and they are frighteningly effective.
Climate Action Tracker cites the Government’s doubling down on
North sea oil and gas extraction as a key factor in the UK’s
insufficient rating on compatibility with the Paris agreement and
1.5°. These companies’ dirty fingerprints can be seen all over
our politics, and it is time to clean things up. What does that
look like?
First, there would be a firewall between the industry and
decision making—no lobbying meetings. If meetings are
happening—for example, about the best way to secure the green
transition—there must be full transparency, delivered in
something approaching real time, not months after the event. At
present, the Government publish details of some meetings every
three months or so—often, it is every six months—but they are
incomplete at best. I had to ask a series of formal parliamentary
questions to expose a lunch that the then Secretary of State for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the right hon. Member
for Spelthorne (), had with Saudi oil company
Aramco. It was missing from his official declaration. First I was
told that that was because it was a “social” occasion, and then
that there had been an administrative oversight. All that
happened months after the event—an event that, frankly, should
never have happened in the first place.
It goes without saying that the behind-closed-doors cosy dinners,
drinks events and so forth have to be dragged into the sunlight.
There is no convenient line between social events and political
business for Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting. If they have
conversations about policy, either off or on the record, with
someone from the oil and gas sector, or indeed another sector
that stands to benefit, they should be required to make that
public pretty much immediately.
A proper firewall means no industry representation on panels,
Government research bodies, or expert or advisory bodies; no
fossil fuel involvement in climate negotiations; no place on
Government delegations to international negotiations or trade
missions; no staff exchanges between the industry and Government
Departments; far greater periods between leaving a ministerial
role and Parliament, and consulting for an oil and gas firm, for
example, with a complete ban on any sitting parliamentarians
doing that kind of work, paid or otherwise; no implicit
endorsements from politicians as a result of their speaking
alongside industry representatives, or at events with which the
industry has any kind of association; and certainly no fossil
fuel company sponsorship of political party conferences.
Last year, Chevron co-hosted an event at Conservative party
conference with the tagline:
“Can fossil fuel companies play a role in the energy
transition?”
We know that the only role that they want to play is one of delay
and obfuscation, so why should they be able to pay to get
privileged access to Ministers and potential Ministers?
(South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
The hon. Lady will be surprised to learn that I agree with some
of what she has said. It would certainly be wrong of such
companies to lobby Ministers on any interests that they have. She
will know that my views on these matters long predate any such
interests—and for the record, I never lobbied any Minister on any
matter connected with the interests that she has described.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I
understand, of course, why he would want to make it. I would
simply say that there is concern around perceived influence as
well as direct influence. I have no reason to doubt for a second
what he has just said—I am sure that it is absolutely true—but at
the same time, when people outside this place look at the facts
that I have been laying out this evening, in a dispassionate way
I hope, alarm bells will start to ring, at the very least. We are
talking about an industry that has a massive impact on the future
of our planet, and I think it right, given the access that it
appears to have to people in high places, to have this debate and
raise those questions in this place.
Does the hon. Lady agree that, although we all roughly agree that
we need to get to net zero, the biggest problem is the pace of
change? The fossil fuel industry has successfully lobbied us all
to say, “Not so fast! You can’t do it so fast. Don’t pull the rug
from under our feet.” That is the biggest danger we face, because
if we miss the target, there is no point talking about net zero.
We have a 2050 target and we need to reach it urgently; we cannot
delay any further, or go at a slower pace than necessary.
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, which reminds me of
a powerful thing that the US campaigner Bill McKibben says:
delaying is the new denial, and winning slowly is the same as
losing. There is a real imperative here to be fast.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate,
and on the strength of her arguments. I echo the points made by
the hon. Member for Strangford () about her contribution to this House over the years.
It has been a pleasure to serve with her over the last decade and
more.
Would the hon. Lady add to her list the need to reduce the
overall cost of politics? An article I read recently estimated
that spending in the forthcoming general election will dwarf
anything that has happened before. The expenditure on social
media alone will be greater than for the last official campaign
period. Political parties go looking, as they are at the moment,
for vast amounts of money to spend on electioneering, but it
comes at a cost, because the funders who give them that money
then want something in return.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and
his kind comments. It is always a great pleasure to work with
him, and I agree entirely: when it comes to spending on
elections, we seem to have an arms race that is out of control,
which of course drives the obsession with getting more money to
line the war chests that enable parties to fight those elections.
A cap on that funding is urgently required, which brings me to
the next point I wanted to make.
(Arfon) (PC)
To take the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen
East and Dinefwr () made about elections a
bit further, does the hon. Lady have any confidence that things
might change following the next election, given that the Labour
party has said that it will stand by any licences granted between
now and then?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is incredibly
disappointing that Labour has, in a sense, not followed its own
logic; it is happy to say that it will not accept any new
licences, but if Labour were to make the clear statement right
now that once it got into power—if it did—it would revoke those
licences, that could have a chilling effect on all the licences
that are going ahead. They are going ahead at a huge rate, and
the Government want to see them go ahead even faster. When an
official Opposition has it in its power to stop that process and
chooses not to, “disappointing” is too polite a term,
frankly.
I was coming to the issue of dirty money in politics. I want to
see an end to it, because it comes with strings attached that are
tying up in knots our chances of a liveable future. There can be
no conceivable justification for allowing the fossil fuel lobby
to directly or indirectly buy favours from politicians, so there
should be no donating to MPs or to political parties, and no
donations in kind, whether that is to all-party groups or via
football tickets, event sponsorship or trips overseas. At the
same time, the rules on conflicts of interest need redesigning to
shut out vested fossil fuel interests, not simply have them
declared on the record. It is time to close the revolving door.
No side jobs or cosy secondments; no blind trusts, putting things
in the name of one’s spouse, or raking in money from shares or
second jobs; and of course, much tougher sanctions for breaches
of the rules—including suspension, for example.
Thirdly and lastly, the preferential treatment meted out to the
fossil fuel industry must come to an end—most immediately, the
handing over of public subsidies and other incentives for fossil
fuels must end. Most notably, that comes in the form of
favourable tax regimes, which in the past have resulted in oil
companies paying less than $2 in tax per barrel of oil pumped
from the North sea, compared with the $15 per barrel that
companies pay if they are operating in Norway.
(Glasgow Central)
(SNP)
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Does she agree
that it is quite frustrating to look at the regime in Norway,
which collects more tax, meaning that the people of Norway have a
fund for the future, while we will not have anything at all by
way of legacy benefits from the oil and gas industry—only an
unliveable planet, if things continue as they are?
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her eloquent intervention.
She is exactly right. She underlines the point that stopping
these vast subsidies for the fossil fuel industry is not only the
moral thing to do, or in the interests of the climate; it is in
the economic interests of the future of this country. The wealth
fund in Norway is a very good model that we could, and should,
have followed.
What I have described is one of the countless ways in which our
politics is siding with and enabling the fossil fuel sector, as
well as the banks, lawyers, lobbyists, consultancies, think-tanks
and many others that feed off it. Those companies should have no
place in our politics; if they do, it is undemocratic, and deeply
dangerous for climate action, given that their priority is
putting forward policies that actively and significantly
undermine the UK’s climate commitments. Instead, we should seek
to change politics into a force that sides with the economic
writing on the wall, and the only chance we have of a liveable
future: a transition to a climate-safe future with the public we
are elected to serve.
I will bring my remarks to an end with three questions for the
Minister. First, can he tell me who in Government has overall
responsibility for monitoring the influence that fossil fuel
companies have as a result of their political lobbying? Secondly,
can he confirm whether the Government are satisfied that the
checks and balances in place are sufficient to ensure that
parliamentarians are not influenced by fossil fuel lobbying?
Thirdly, does he agree that this goes to the very heart of how
Government and Parliament are run, and therefore warrants the
establishment of, for example, a new dedicated Select Committee
to properly and regularly scrutinise the influence of the fossil
fuel industry, and indeed other corporate influence on political
decision making, as well as to make recommendations for
change?
We are talking about not just the impact on climate but the
standing of Parliament in this country. I think many people look
at this place and draw conclusions that are not particularly
favourable; it looks as if we are out for ourselves. We need to
clean up politics, both because it is the right thing to do and
because it might be just one step towards beginning to rebuild
our reputation with the British public.
6.25pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office ()
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () on gaining this Adjournment
debate, and echo in part what the hon. Member for Strangford
() said: although we do not agree on everything, we
appreciate that she is to some extent the conscience of the House
on these matters, and is always there to encourage Government and
everyone else to go further.
I am pleased to be able to respond to some of the points that the
hon. Lady raised. She made the case that the interactions between
representatives of fossil fuel companies, political figures and
those in public life should be transparent. The Government
believe that lobbying is a legitimate part of political
development in all areas, as long as it is conducted
transparently and ethically to maintain the highest standards in
public life. The Government outlined wide-ranging improvements to
transparency around lobbying in their “Strengthening Ethics and
Integrity in Central Government” policy statement of July 2023.
These include revising guidance to widen the range of lobbying
engagements declared by Departments, and linked reforms to the
consultant lobbying framework. These measures, when implemented,
will ensure that all lobbying activity, irrespective of which
sector is being represented, will be conducted openly and in
accordance with the principles expected of participants in public
life.
In the UK, a number of systems ensure that lobbying activity is
conducted honestly and transparently. Taken together, these
systems, which set the rules for the consultant lobbying
industry, Ministers and Government Departments, Members of
Parliament and political parties, ensure that it is clear whose
interests are being represented in public life. The register of
consultant lobbyists, created by the lobbying Act—the
Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union
Administration Act 2014—has significantly increased transparency
around the work of consultant lobbyists since its creation in
2015. The register makes it clear whose interests are being
represented by consultant lobbyists, and provides accessible
online information about those undertaking consultant lobbying
and their clients, as well as details of investigations into
alleged breaches of the Act.
The Act also established an independent registrar of consultant
lobbyists, who has powers to monitor and enforce compliance and
administers the register of consultant lobbyists. The register of
consultant lobbyists complements existing transparency
mechanisms, including the quarterly publication of ministerial
meetings with external organisations, business appointment rules
and industry-led regulation, such as subscription to industry
codes of conduct.
From January 2024 onwards, meetings held between Ministers and
consultant lobbyists will be declared through routine quarterly
transparency. This will also apply to those senior officials who
are subject to meeting declarations. New transparency guidance
was published on gov.uk in December 2023, detailing stricter
minimum standards for meeting descriptions, to ensure that
declarations contain relevant, constructive information. As I
said, new guidance expands the scope of transparency declarations
for senior officials to include meetings held between external
organisations and individuals, and directors general, finance and
commercial directors, and senior responsible owners in the
Government’s major projects portfolio.
The code of conduct for Members of Parliament sets out the
standards of behaviour expected of Ministers, and the rules on
the registration and declaration of interests. The code provides
that Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the
House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register
of Members’ Financial Interests and must always be open and frank
in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding in the House
or its Committees. It is for the Standards Committee, not the
Government, to consider any changes to the approach to the
registration of interests.
The Minister is obviously going through the existing architecture
that is supposed to guard against undue influence from lobbyists,
corporations and so on. I wonder whether he would agree with his
presumably former colleague, now , who admitted that the office
of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments is toothless,
and that work does need to be done on that. If when a Member
breaches the rules they simply get a letter telling them, “You
should not do that again,” that will hardly be a sanction that
anyone will be particularly worried about.
Obviously, the Government take seriously anything that says, and I certainly do. He
was my predecessor in Brentwood and Ongar, and I hold him in high
regard. There is a process by which such comments are considered,
and we will continue to go through it.
I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that a chunk of the
framework that I have just set out is new, and it is important
that we give it a chance to work. What governs a lot of our
thinking—perhaps where we diverge from her—is the fact that we
cannot envisage a situation in which it would be wise to shut
energy companies out of the discussions. We consider them to be
fundamental to the transition to net zero. We also believe that
some may have a role when we get to net zero and that it is clear
that some fossil fuels will be necessary even when we reach that
destination.
Consequentially, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and
Net Zero and her Ministers regularly met a wide range of
stakeholders to discuss issues relating to energy security and
net zero. Of course, that includes meeting oil and gas companies
and representative organisations, as well as environmental
organisations and charities. For a sector that supports around
200,000 jobs and is at the forefront of the drive to net zero and
the energy transition, where the workforce is transferable to
green jobs of the future, that is a responsible position to
take.
The Prime Minister has reiterated that net zero is a priority for
this Government, and we remain absolutely committed to meeting
our legally binding net zero target. More than ever, we are
determined to adopt a fair and pragmatic approach to net zero
that minimises the burden on working people. No other country has
matched our record on decarbonisation. Unlike most other
countries, the UK’s climate commitments are set in law. The UK is
a net importer of oil and gas and a fast-declining producer,
hence new oil and gas projects simply reduce the fall in the UK
supply; they do not increase it on current levels. The new
Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will not undermine those
commitments.
The Minister is being generous with his time. He will know that
just today the Climate Change Committee issued an interim report
saying that the Government are off target when it comes to their
commitments and the thresholds they are meant to meet. He will
also know that the same committee has been pretty critical of,
for example, the new Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill. He cannot
simply rest on his laurels and say that we had a good reputation
in the past and therefore things are going to go well now—we are
off track right now.
Secondly, the Minister talked about consultant lobbyists, but
they are a tiny proportion of who is doing this work. For
example, the Foreign Secretary was not registered as a consultant
lobbyist when he worked for Greensill. The consultant lobbying
issue is, frankly, a complete red herring here. We need to look
beyond that at who is speaking to whom and with what effect.
Alas, I have no laurels on which to rest; I am merely a junior
Minister. Obviously, the Government are keen that we have a
fit-for-purpose regime that ensures that lobbying is transparent.
That is why we have introduced a number of the changes that I
have already outlined.
On the report published today by the committee, the hon. Lady
will have to forgive me because I have not yet had time to
consult it, but we always take the committee’s findings
seriously. She will also be aware that it has previously said
that, even when we get to net zero, we will still require some
fossil fuels for certain purposes.
I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () has got a point about
ACOBA, and so does . Happily, I have never
breached ACOBA’s rules or any parliamentary rules, as she knows,
but if anyone did so, surely there ought to be some measure that
ACOBA could take? My hon. Friend the Minister has been through
the process, as those of us who have been Ministers all have, and
he will know that my own, long-established views on these
subjects are unaltered, unaffected and uninfluenced by anything I
do outside this place. But none the less, the point remains.
It is hard to imagine my right hon. Friend breaking any rules, I
have to say. I know the authorities will have noted what he said
on ACOBA.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has clearly articulated
her views on how the UK should aim to reach the goal of net zero.
That we might differ on that does not detract from the core
principle that a range of energy stakeholders all have a role.
The Government’s firm belief is that lobbying activity has an
important and legitimate role to play in the policy development
process, so long as interactions between lobbyists and political
actors are properly declared.
We support the existing rules, which apply to the lobbying
industry, Government and Parliament—both to individual Members
and to informal groups and all-party parliamentary groups—and we
shall continue to drive forward reforms to improve transparency.
The hon. Lady might disagree, but in a democratic society, public
policy is best informed by engagement and political debate.
Elected representatives have to meet a wide range of people, not
just people they agree with; that is democratic engagement. Such
debate should be supported by an independent free press, and
then, at the ballot box, we should trust the people.
Question put and agreed to.
|
