Olivia Blake
MP for Sheffield Hallam · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Despite what the shadow Minister said, this situation is unprecedented: the first time a severe drought has ever been declared in the UK. This is incredibly shocking for what has historically and famously been our wet island. Drought has just been declared in Yorkshire.”
House of Commons16 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Evans applied for early release of his civil service pension on health grounds because of terminal illness in November 2025, but sadly passed away this May. His case is still not resolved, despite repeated urgent representations from my office. Capita has failed inexcusably.”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In my constituency, the consequences of the system are painfully clear, as has been mentioned by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed).”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this system, people who have bought homes find themselves paying escalating service charges, opaque administration fees and arbitrary costs imposed by freeholders.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At present, leaseholders of houses do not have this right, while leaseholders of flats do. If a freeholder decides to sell the freehold of a house, the leaseholder has no guaranteed opportunity to buy it. They may learn of the sale only once it has occurred, several months later.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I declare an interest as a leasehold homeowner, which is very common in Sheffield. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of her Committee, and of Lord Best, about a regulator.”
House of Commons2 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,125 held · 592 searchable for Olivia Blake. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I am really concerned that, to grapple with this issue, we need to ensure that all the school estate is looked at in the round so that issues such as asbestos do not get forgotten. While two schools benefited from the Government’s last round of funding, it was barely enough to cover the basic repairs. Many missed out on any funding at all. I have to question why the guidance to schools on this year’s funding round stated that not all RAAC is dangerous. I would like to ask the Secretary of State if she stands by that statement that not all RAAC is dangerous. Why was it not the aim to eradicate RAAC from schools, as stated by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care? Finally, I hope that schools will be reimbursed for the costs associated with RAAC litigation and setting up classrooms and temporary accommodation.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Carla said in her statement to me, “this…could have been prevented and it was pure luck that no one died”. That happened when she was going to collect her children. It is exceedingly lucky that the three incidents this summer happened when no one was there to be hurt. According to data from the Government, from 2017 to 2019, 27 schools in Sheffield had at least one grade C “poor” construction type, and 14 were found to have at least one grade D construction type. I have visited schools and spoken to headteachers, all of whom report a similar story of decade-old buildings going unchecked, repairs to the basics being left undone, and of struggling to manage capital budgets that have been cut over the years to fix things such as boilers.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Parents should not have to worry about the safety of their children when they send them to school, and teachers should not be worried about their workplaces being at risk of collapse, but here we are. I am frankly not that surprised that the Secretary of State said it was “not the job” of the Department for Education to ensure that children are learning in safe school environments. At the start of the year, I raised the case of my constituent Carla, a parent who suffered a serious head injury after a 15-foot piece of board flew off the outside of her child’s school. She suffered significant injuries: she had a black eye and went on to have headaches—she needed to have an MRI scan—and minor scarring, and she still suffers from tinnitus. It could have been a lot worse—someone could have died as a result of that event.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What we need to understand is why, in this place, we have not taken the risk seriously enough when we have known since 2018 about the risk of sudden failure without any warning signs. Thankfully, I have been informed by the DFE that it is not aware of any confirmed cases of RAAC in my constituency, but Government actions have undermined my constituents’ confidence in the inspection process. One school, which we are in close communication with, had a second survey carried out this week by the local authority after there was confusion by the Department as to whether the first survey had taken place. RAAC was not identified in either survey. However, some parts of the survey could not be completed due to the possible presence of asbestos, leaving that school in limbo, not knowing if RAAC presents a problem underneath the asbestos.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Through the Public Accounts Committee, NAO reports and visits, I have been looking at RAAC and, just from having a glance online, it is easy to find multiple reports, including a report from February 2022 by the Institution of Structural Engineers that says that although visual surveys help to assess the condition of panels, “the nature of any warning signs of sudden failure at the bearings are not fully known…Not all defects are visible…panels which appear to be in a good condition may conceal hidden defects which could present a risk to the integrity of the panels…The corrosion of reinforcement could lead to large pieces of RAAC falling which presents a risk to occupants.” So I do not believe that there is new evidence; what I believe is that the risk has come to fruition.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to start by extending my thoughts to every student, parent, teacher and school staff member who is this week having their education disrupted, unable to do their job or having to work around the clock to find alternative teaching settings. My first question is: what new evidence has been presented? I do not believe that “evidence” is the right word to be using.”
House of Commons6 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The treaty that has been outlined is holding us back and we need to be on the front foot with this. I hope that Ministers will reconsider whether or not we should be part of this treaty in the future.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They could and should have been central pillars of the Bill. They are about how we can transform our energy system and meet Labour’s ambitious plans to be a green energy superpower by 2030. However, the Government have removed many new clauses that were won in the Lords—for example, the one on banning new coalmines—and Ministers are refusing to support any such measures today. Instead, they waited until MPs went home over the summer to give the green light to hundreds of new North sea oil and gas licences, without proper scrutiny, in a damning indictment of this Government’s record on climate action. Those are not the only amendments that would help to raise the ambition in this Bill that the Government have removed. Finally, I wish to mention the importance of new clause 7.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clauses 33 and 35 aim to correct the current position by making it a legal requirement for the Government to produce an energy demand reduction plan and providing local authorities with funding for the decarbonisation of homes. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for tabling those new clauses, and I urge the Government to support them. Finally, the Bill fails to decarbonise at speed and scale. Again, the latest CCC report could not be clearer: “Expansion of fossil fuel production is not in line with Net Zero”. New clauses 2 and 29 would prohibit coalmines and new oil and gas respectively. New clause 30 would phase down UK petroleum, and new clause 59 would decarbonise electricity supply by 2030.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), which would introduce a national energy guarantee. This idea needs to be considered, as we need to make sure that the burden of the transition does not fall on those who are least able to meet it. Secondly and shockingly, the Bill fails to deliver any energy efficiency measures. There is nothing about how we will achieve the targets that have been set. The latest CCC report is clear that the Government need to rapidly scale up and accelerate energy efficiency to stand any hope of meeting legally binding decarbonisation targets. Obviously, the greenest energy is energy that is not used, and the more we can do to reduce the need for energy in poor-quality housing the better.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I am pleased the Minister has listened to Members on both sides of the House on the hydrogen levy, there is still a lot more to do. The Bill could have been our opportunity to tackle these issues head on, transitioning away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels while making energy affordable for everyone. Sadly, in its current form, it fails on those fronts. First and foremost, the Bill will fail to make energy more affordable for my constituents. National Energy Action has warned that 6.3 million households could be trapped in fuel poverty this winter, and by 2024 some households will face spending up to a quarter of their income on energy bills. We need to overhaul our broken energy pricing system, not have more tinkering around the edges. I am proud to support new clause 36, tabled by my hon.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I declare an interest, as my husband is the company secretary of Sheffield Renewables, a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. I rise to speak in support of a number of amendments that would be vital additions to the Bill. It was a pleasure to sit on the Public Bill Committee to debate, at great length, many of the issues that have been raised today. I still feel the Bill is missing its intended purpose, as the Government put it, to “deliver a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy system for the long term.” We are in a climate and nature emergency, and we are now seeing its effects. We are also facing the worst cost of living crisis in decades.”
House of Commons5 September 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T9. The Secretary of State has signalled that his party will finally drop the nonsensical proposed hydrogen levy—another welcome Government U-turn. Will he confirm that it is, in fact, a U-turn? Will he outline exactly how the much-needed investment in green hydrogen technology will be paid for without already struggling households being made to foot the bill? [R]”
House of Commons4 July 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Put simply, while we are still members of the ECT we will not be able to achieve the aims of the Bill and meet our net zero obligations without facing huge costs from the agreement. A co-ordinated withdrawal is the most effective way to protect taxpayers’ money, the planet and our future from this damaging treaty, and I urge the Minister to have a rethink. I will not push this probing new clause to a vote, but I hope that it will allow the Minister the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this very important issue. It is right that it is considered in this debate, but I accept that I probably will not get the support of Government Members in a vote.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), said: “The UK cannot support an outdated treaty which holds back investment in clean energy and puts British taxpayers at increased risk from costly legal challenges.” That was stated in a press release on 24 June 2022. Back then, the Government wanted to put their trust in the reform proposals to fix the problem, but we have since seen country after country doing its own assessment and concluding that reform is not possible or has failed. If the UK does not step up and become part of the vanguard for exiting the ECT, it could be left behind in an obsolete and collapsing treaty, bearing all the risks while others move on.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Projects that have just been given new or extended licences, such as the Cambo oilfield, will be protected and all existing projects can still continue. Reform has ultimately been a failure, and exiting the treaty is now the only option. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia have all referred to the incompatibility of the ECT with the Paris climate agreement and climate goals, and the EU Council recently decided that it will not support reform. If countries exiting the ECT do so in co-ordination, as seems to be happening, they could agree between each other not to apply the 20-year sunset clause, as has been suggested by several countries that are leaving. In June, the Energy Minister at the time, the right hon.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Towards the end of 2022, there was a cascade of announcements from countries planning to exit the ECT. Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Denmark all said that they are leaving, and Italy has already left. The European Parliament has voted for a co-ordinated withdrawal of all EU countries, and the European Commission is now recommending that as well, because reform of the treaty has not worked and will not work. Current proposals for modernising the treaty are weak and do not have the support of many countries. They will mean that existing fossil fuel projects will remain protected for at least 10 years, and that some gas projects will be protected until 2040.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been estimated that if the UK Government follow the International Energy Agency’s recommended pathway and cancel oil and gas projects that are in the pipeline, they could face claims of up to £9.4 billion from the ECT alone. Globally, there is a risk of up to $111.5 billion in claims, but that is clearly not the only risk. The most recent IPCC report warns that there is a risk of regulatory chill from investment agreements, and again it particularly highlights the ECT. The fear of being sued is causing Governments to delay or decide against taking the necessary action on climate. Last year, two countries acknowledged that that is already happening. Countries across Europe are seeing the risks for what they are and are already taking action.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, German energy giant RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4 billion over its coal phase-out. The UK oil company Rockhopper won a case this summer against Italy over a ban on offshore oil drilling. It won more than £210 million—more than six times what it had spent on the project. UK fracking firm Ascent Resources launched legal action against Slovenia over requirements for an environmental impact assessment, which is quite a benign ask of any project. It has also launched legal action over Slovenia’s subsequent ban on fracking, introduced by its Parliament, and that case is still pending. The energy charter treaty poses a huge threat to climate action. As states take the necessary steps to phase out or phase down fossil fuels, more and more fossil fuel giants will turn to such mechanisms to sue Governments.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty allows foreign companies to sue Governments outside the national legal system in somewhat secretive tribunals. The amounts at stake can be in the billions, and the ECT has already generated at least 135 claims, making it the world’s most litigated ISDS agreement. In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, UN climate scientists warned of the risk that ISDS agreements are “able to be used by fossil-fuel companies to block national legislation aimed at phasing out the use of their assets”. The report even name-checked the energy charter treaty, yet the UK continues to be party to it. The treat is not just a potential risk. There have already been several high-profile cases of fossil fuel companies suing Governments through the treaty.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Sharma. It is the first time, I think, that we have been in the room together for this Bill. New clause 86 requests that the UK Government commence withdrawal from the outdated investment provisions of the energy charter treaty, which risk undermining our Climate Change Act 2008 targets, internationally agreed emissions reductions and duties in this Bill in respect of the impact of energy production on habitats, species and the climate. As many Committee members are aware, the energy charter treaty is an investment agreement between 50 countries for the energy sector.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(4) The assessment must set out— (a) the total amount of financial support provided by the policies in the report; (b) the number and capacity of low carbon community energy schemes — (i) completed, and (ii) in development; (c) the number and capacity of new shared ownership schemes; (d) any changes the Secretary of State proposes to make to the policies, programmes and other initiatives included in the original report.”— (Olivia Blake.) This new clause is intended to replace clauses 272 and 273, if those clauses are removed as indicated by Government Amendments 15 and 16. It would require the Government to report annually for 5 years on the support it is providing to Community Energy schemes and the number and capacity of such schemes that are delivered. Brought up, and read the First time.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3) Not less than twelve months after the publication of the report, and not later than the end of each subsequent period of twelve months, ending five years after the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish an assessment of the progress made by the policies, programmes and other initiatives set out in the report.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) The report must set out— (a) all policies, programmes or other initiatives with which the Secretary of State plans to support the development and construction of new low carbon community energy schemes; (b) the level of financial support which will be made available for— (i) the Rural Community Energy Fund, (ii) the Urban Renewable Energy Fund, and (iii) any other fund or support package designed to support the development of new low carbon community energy schemes; (c) all policies, programmes or other initiatives the Secretary of State intends will increase community ownership of local low carbon energy schemes through shared ownership schemes; (d) the steps the Secretary of State is taking to develop new market rules to make it easier for low carbon community energy schemes to sell the energy they generate; (e) the number and the capacity of the new community energy schemes the Secretary of State expects to be constructed as a result of the measures set out in the report.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New Clause 87 Government support for community energy “(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out the financial, policy and other support that the Secretary of State plans to make available to widen the ownership of low carbon and renewable energy schemes and increase the number of such schemes owned, or part owned, by community organisations.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his response. He will not be surprised that I am not satisfied with it, but I will not press the new clause to a vote. There are many risks in this area. Other countries have already taken the lead, and we are being left behind, which exposes us to a higher level of risk. I hope that the Minister will not only continue to consider the modernisation of the ECT but consider withdrawing from it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new clause leaves scope for other initiatives to be included in the report, whether new funds, new policies or a new approach to allowing community groups to buy into and benefit from larger commercial schemes in their area. It would require assessments of progress and updates to be done annually for five years after the report is published, to check that we are on track. As I say, we should be doing so much more with the Bill in this space, but I would love to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause and to the idea that the Government should, at the very least, restart the support schemes that they have let lapse and report on progress until REMA is completed.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Were we to have a Labour Government, there would be something much more robust in the Bill on this policy area, like clauses 272 and 273, which the Opposition defended last week but the Government were successful in stripping from the Bill. The new clause asks the Minister to report on how he will refinance and restart the urban and rural community energy funds, which closed when the initial money allocated was used up. In its former shape, his Department supported those schemes at the time, so there is no reason why, if the Minister wants to see more community energy, he could not relaunch them now, or look into doing so.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I chose that timescale because Ministers often assure us that the Government’s review of electricity market arrangements, or REMA, will improve community energy’s access to markets and thus improve its viability. I am therefore asking for reports on the stop-gap measures that are needed before those arrangements come in and for an extension to the period to deal with any delays. I have to be honest: I am almost embarrassed by the new clause. With sky-high energy bills and the climate crisis, we should be acting, not reporting, but perhaps reports will stimulate a bit of growth in action on the Minister’s part. The new clause also does not propose new policies to support community energy. I stress that that is not because such policies are not needed.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A Bill that talks about energy security but fails to help many community groups across the UK that are raring to provide clean, green energy seems to have failed from the outset. Many community groups are being offered funding, but they are unable to take up the opportunities because they are unsure and there is uncertainty in this space. I spoke last week about the huge and growing public support for community energy projects and the failure of Government policy to respond to it. I hope that my new clause, which I admit does not go nearly far enough, will focus minds on this important issue. The new clause is quite straightforward: it gives the Minister three months to report on what support will be provided for community energy for the next five years.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I redeclare my interest: my husband is a company secretary of an organisation called Sheffield Renewables, which is a community benefit society that funds, develops, owns and operates renewable energy systems in Sheffield. It might seem strange that I tabled new clause 87, given that the Lords passed Labour’s much stronger new clause on community energy. I am extremely disappointed that the Government voted to strike out any attempt to use the Bill to further support community energy schemes. Although the Minister made some comments about wanting to support community energy, the Bill is somewhat lacking in that regard. New clause 87 gives the Government an opportunity to support some elements of community energy schemes.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Beg the Minister might, but I will be pushing this new clause to a vote. The comments made by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, show why we are not completely confident that information from the Minister will be forthcoming, but I welcome his comments and his statement that he is currently looking at this and that there will be something ahead of Report. However, I truly feel that this new clause is the bare minimum requirement in this space, so we will push it to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I receive support on these issues from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. I am also co-chair of the all-party group on migration. Would the Secretary of State be willing to sit down with me and some Afghan refugees who arrived on small boats and explain what she meant in her statement by “phoney humanitarianism”, which, I hope Members agree, is a deeply offensive phrase?”
House of Commons29 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for securing this valuable and important debate. I will speak freely and say that it is quite absurd that we are debating this issue today—the day after the four-year anniversary of the net zero target becoming law in the UK, and the morning that the CCC has released its scathing progress report to Parliament. The CCC says that its confidence in the UK reaching net zero is “markedly less” than it was a year ago, and that approving new fossil fuel infrastructure is sending mixed messages about the UK’s climate plans. Does the hon. Member agree that this is a depressing conclusion from the CCC that shows a deficit in climate leadership where there should be none?”
House of Commons28 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Government inaction risks leaving those workers behind when they want to be part of the transition and already have transferrable skills in those industries. I also recently asked a question about the Department’s discussions with the offshore wind industry on recognising an energy skills passport to help oil and gas workers, but was told in response that no such discussions have taken place. I thank the Minister for his kind words about a transition. However, when will we see action for oil and gas workers? When will the inaction turn into action and delivery so we can get on with developing the green skills we need in this country to deliver net zero and compete in a global market?”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I have asked a few written questions in this space and I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that the just transition should have already started for many workers. A survey two years ago found that workers were looking to move from the fossil fuel industry to renewables but that they were being put off by training fees. I have asked repeatedly about that. I asked the Department whether it knew what the average cost of retraining would be for oil and gas workers but was told that it does not know or does not hold that data. However, I have heard at first hand from oil and gas workers who want to move into renewables that they face training costs of many thousands of pounds and that the quality of such training is questionable in some places.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We cannot just hope that things will get better, and squeezing every last drop out of the North sea is not compatible with our aim of 1.5°. We cannot set a date for getting to net zero, but then produce as much carbon and other greenhouse emissions as we like and hope for the best. There must be carbon budgeting, as we all know. We have had all this conversation about a just transition, yet we are giving massive tax breaks. For example, if Rosebank goes ahead, it will receive a tax break of £3.75 billion for something that may soon become a stranded asset.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Stranded assets are really important in this debate. A report in 2022 suggested that the oil, gas and fossil fuel industry had £1.4 trillion of stranded assets. That means that there will be a cliff edge for jobs. There will be assets that people can no longer use or get value from. It will mean that we have barrels of oil, gas and coal that we cannot use, because—a very senior scientist makes this argument in the report—the world will have moved on. We hope that the world will move on as a result of the Bill; if we do not scale up net zero measures, UK households could be spending £500 a year on foreign gas, rather than saving £1,500-odd through a move to renewables and energy efficiency policies, and retrofitting. This is an incredibly important point.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I say “toxic combination”, but there is also the very real and significant risk of stranded assets. The financial sector, the insurance industry and pension funds are all very aware of the issue, and we see that in how they are changing the way that they invest in projects, and the divestment policies of many of the institutions in this space. Nature published an article in 2022 stating that 60% of oil and gas and 90% of known coal should remain in the ground if we are to get to 1.5°C, but the issue of stranded assets is a reality. We cannot have our cake and eat it; we cannot inhale our cake quicker and hope for the best. Every drop of oil and gas and every lump of coal that we burn contributes to the Anthropocene we are seeing. We have decisions that we can take, and we know that those decisions have an impact.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been an interesting discussion. “Maximum economic recovery” might sound like three benign words, but they could be a toxic combination. If we are not careful, they could be rephrased as “maximum economic crisis”. The climate catastrophe that will unfold if we do not cap global warming at 1.5°, and maintain that on average over 20 years, will be incredibly tough for any Government and for everyone internationally. Some reports suggest that if we wait 10 years, it will not take 1% of GDP to tackle the climate emergency; that will jump staggeringly. About 8% of GDP expenditure will have to go on resilience alone, and dealing with the consequences of the climate catastrophe. The cost of changing to a green energy system in that same decade would double as well. It is really important that we understand what that means.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That understanding is missing from a lot of this debate, but financial services, pension funds and the insurance industry are all saying that they are very aware of the issue.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree that it needs to be a transition; that is exactly my point. In the scenario we are discussing, “Fossil fuel resources that cannot be burned and fossil fuel infrastructure (e.g. pipelines, power plants) that is no longer used may end up as a liability before the end of its anticipated economic lifetime.” The assets are not being valued at their value over their lifetime; it is that simple. Say we give a value to an asset for its lifetime—25, 50, 100 years or whatever. Its lifetime will fall short of that period, and there will be catastrophic consequences for the financial and economic world; things will go into freefall. This is about economic risk, not just what we have, where. It is that fundamental.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We would have to leave them there, but figures for them would be baked into the economic analysis and the business planning for those sites. That is why there is a financial risk; financial plans will come into play that will be unrealistic and unmeetable. That is why the assets will become stranded assets; it had been planned that they would produce a profit over a period, but we will not get to that time because of the situation.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If insurance companies say, “We are not going to insure these facilities because there is such an economic risk to us,” we are in trouble. If pension funds flee from the sector, we are in trouble. Our financial sector is incredibly important in this area, and those in it are saying loud and clear, “Governments are behind us, and we need them to catch up.” This tiny phrase, “Maximum economic recovery”, and what it asks for, could lead to the cliff edge that we have all been saying that we do not want. That is why this is so important.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As much as that would please everyone at the moment and allow them to make a quick buck, it is economically illiterate to think that we can continue as we are. That is a big problem. There are huge opportunities for Government, and I welcome a lot of the things in the Bill that will help to unlock them. At household level, the move to renewables would significantly benefit people. Renewables are three times cheaper than oil and gas-related heating and electricity. A record number of households are suffering from energy insecurity. It is important that we look at the issue in the round. We cannot just say, “We need this” or “We need that,” and expect it to add up. If the financial sector gets scared, and much suggests that it is, it will look to invest in other places.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To be clear, it is not £1.3 billion; it is £1.4 trillion, and that is why this is significant. I am not the only one worried about this—so are financial institutions around the globe. This massive financial risk could spin us into financial crisis if we are not careful. This is not just a climate catastrophe; it is an economic situation that we need to monitor, and we need to ensure that we do not have a cliff edge that lands us in a spiral that we cannot get out of. That is why a transition is so important, and why we need development of industry in the North sea, but cannot rely on our valuations of assets at the moment. We need to take into consideration changes in the use of oil and gas, so that we can reach 1.5°C. We cannot deal with those two issues in isolation.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Minister completely missed the point of what I was saying. I am in no way doing down the industry. I am saying that there are financial risks linked to our climate risks, and they must be brought into this debate. That is fundamental, and future Governments will not thank us if we do not discuss and address that now.”
House of Commons27 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Chris McDonald, the chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute, which serves as the UK’s national centre for steel, told The Guardian —I cannot remember the date, but I remember the article vividly—that research shows that there is “no demand” from the industry for that coking coal. Those are not my words, but those of Chris McDonald.”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That commitment on coal was one of the few things that the Government, and Governments internationally, got out of COP26. In December 2022, however—just a year later—the Government went ahead with the Cumbria coalmine. Given what we have heard in today’s debate, I think they realise that that was somewhat nonsensical. Yet I do not understand why they are still trying to remove the clause. We have heard a lot about steel, but we must be clear about the Cumbria example. British Steel is clear that there is too much sulphur in the contents of the mine, which means that they cannot be used. Tata Steel has said that it is seeking to move away from coal completely.”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to recognise that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes it clear that greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are more than enough to push us beyond the 1.5°C limit for global heating compared with preindustrial times. The report tells us that if the world is serious about living up to its commitments and avoiding catastrophic climate collapse, no more fossil fuel sources should be opened. When certain factors come together, they complicate and escalate the situation. Everything is unpredictable, including our ability to tell how quickly the changes will come. The Government seemed to recognise that at COP26, as they proudly announced that they were leading an international effort to end the use of coal.”
House of Commons20 June 2023Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗